Randomly Selected Article or Link

I used to take it more or less as an article of faith that the EU is good for us. Somehow. And that the Liberal Democrat position of being avowedly critical of some of the ways it operates was a good one - we were the first, I believe, in calling for CAP reform way back just after we joined, for example.

Like so many lofty political projects it has or perhaps could have beneficial aims. I was even rather enthusiastic about the idea of a "United States of Europe", if only it could be constructed as a genuinely liberal federation in which sovereignty rests as much as possible with the individual. I'd even like to have seen it replacing national governments, mainly because I can't think of anything that national governments are good for in a world where the individual is sovereign that would not be better done perhaps with a "light touch" overarching supra-national body.

The current line indeed is that there are some things we just can't handle on our own - issues that naturally do not respect national borders - pollution, global warming, terrorism. Some, I noted during the campaign for the European parliamentary candidates, take a more controversial line (for me at least) that the "fight" against "excesses" by transnational corporations can only be handled at a supranational level. And that the EU is such a model supranational body capable of meeting all these challenges.

All the time of course there have been nay-sayers - on the left by people who see it as a free market capitalist conspiracy (actually I think they mean protectionist but I don't think they understand that any longer on the left) and on the right that it is meddlesome, protectionist (and they mean it correctly) and no longer, if it ever was, centered on freeing trade to make individuals better off. And there is evidence that both have a point - in fact the same point - especially about protectionism.

But for me the reason I'd quite like it to slow down is that we have lost control of our own, national politics - even without Europe interfering, though it certainly helps when they claim things are out of their hands. And, despite the chimera of representation that is the European Parliament if we have no control over our national politicians we have no control over what they do in our name in the other courts of the European project.

So, can anyone sell the whole idea to me again; explain to me how we can possibly make it work for the sovereign individual if we have a great barrier at our national government level not interested in that sovereign individual even in their own countries? It probably goes without saying, as I've done so before, but all the brilliant arguments in the world will do nothing for me if Blair ends up as president. I have not left this sceptered isle now for nearly twenty years, and even then it was just to go to the emerald one, but I will seriously have to consider emigrating to Norway if that happens.

This workfair business...can anyone answer me a question:

If there are jobs that need doing, someone should be employed to do them.  Are people at the end of their two years on JSA simply being herded into compulsory minimum wage jobs then - in which case they may be miserable with the job they get but they would, by definition, no longer be on benefit?  Or would they still be getting benefit rates, just being made to "do something" (anything?) to "earn" their benefits?

Obviously I don't like this idea.  Citizens Income would solve all of this without any potential stigma that might be associated with a sort of "community service order" for benefits.  To me it all just demonstrates that there aren't really any new ideas coming out of the Tories (or anyone else for that matter!) on welfare, just that "something must be done and this is something".

We’ve heard recently how political parties are trying to grapple with the problem of inheritance tax affecting middle class families “affected” by property price rises rather than the “super rich” it was supposedly intended for.

Might I float a possible solution? Instead of a cash tax payable on inheritance of an asset, estates could split the property, passing a 99 year leasehold onto the beneficiaries of the estate and the freehold into a community land trust so that eventually the value and control of that land will pass back to that community.

This is after all how the “super rich” have mitigated their inheritance tax, through that august body the National Trust, for many years.

Most land price change has nothing to do with the current occupiers of that land, and everything to do with public policy and spending such as planning consent or the building of local infrastructure at public expense.

More crucially, land value is a “zero sum” game. Rising land values directly exclude whole swathes of a new “landless” class as a result. It is surely right that such inequity be redressed periodically. When better than at inheritance time? This method will at least not immediately harm the beneficiaries or force them to sell the family home.

Over a few generations such a mechanism could properly redistribute unearned wealth better than inheritance tax ever could.

I just listened to a BBC report on the launch of the Labour party's local elections campaign. It majored heavily on the police's Neighbourhood Action Groups where every neighbourhood is supposed to have police on the beat and everyone has instant access to them by email, mobile phone, even perhaps telepathy.

Sounds nice? Yeah, but, dare we point out the minor flaw - nobody voting on May 1st will be voting for anyone who can do remotely anything about this policy since it is controlled by the unelected Police Authorities. Their budgets are unaccountable to local people, uncappable by the communities secretary and, as the "Hapless Band of Staff and Regulars" noticed last week, can impose a huge cost on helpless local tax payers.

But I suppose it is at last a belated admission that ASBOs are not the answer so much as eyes on the street. Such as most of us had been saying since the Crime and Disorder Act of Labour's first year in power. Ten years to achieve something - hardly what I would major my local elections campaign on.

Secretary of Defense designate. Knows all about waging war in Iran-Iraq. He was implicated in the arms to Iran scandal. No doubt then he was probably privy to the actions of the CIA in assisting Saddam's troops to target chemical weapons on Iranian troops.

Nice. Now's the time for Saddam to spill.