The Recession 2: What Osborne Should Do

Our once esteemed Chancellor George Osborne, whose highly anticipated 2012 budget collapsed in a smouldering heap weeks after its delivery, a man who has been described by his own MPs as an ‘arrogant posh boy,' must be wondering what lies at stake for him for the future in public office and in his political career. 

His current part-time role as Chancellor, and stated objective of economic growth, has been a dismal failure. The extremely modest deficit reduction achieved so far has occurred mainly through stealthy tax hikes and his extreme monetary easing policies are doing nothing but storing up inflation and anger for the future.

His opponents on the other side of the commons can offer no better. Labour’s answer is, as usual, a call for more Gordon Brownesque demand side Keynesianism, more borrowing, more stimulus, and an avoidance of the real problems for a braver leader of the future. 


This two part series argues that the ‘austerity vs growth’ debate of recent months is disingenuous and misleading. The first part focused on the austerity side of the debate, and gave examples of how deficit reduction can be achieved without it. This second part focuses on growth, a word which has been hijacked by Labour in recent times to mean ‘more spending,’ and a concept that continues to elude Mr Osborne.

In order for Osborne to keep his office at the Treasury, he will probably have to give up his role as Tory election campaigner and will almost certainly have to change his economic strategy in some regard.

What the country needs is real plan for growth. A strategy that will actually makes it easier for people to trade and create jobs, but also a strategy that does not involve piling more debt onto our bankrupt government.

This post argues that growth can be achieved without spending excessively and can be done immediately with demonstrable results in as little as a few years.

Gay Marriage And The End Of Civilisation

A few weeks ago, Barack Obama came out in favour of gay marriage (pardon the pun), and Mitt Romney, likely to be his challenger in the 2012 Presidential election, opposed him.

The way this whole debate has been defined is unsettling. Obama defines it to be about gay people and their rights, and in this speech he gives a touching personal account of why he believes what he believes. Romney, on the other hand, comprehends this debate in an entirely different way, and states his position on the subject without once mentioning the word gay or homosexual.

In the UK, the issue has also been presented to the public as a debate about ‘equality’ and the ‘rights’ of gay people. However, when one strips the subject down to the facts, and peels away all the political doublespeak, it becomes clearer that the whole debate has little to do with gay people, and everything to do with religion, particularly in this case - Christianity.

The Recession 1: Too Far Too Fast

Since the UK governing coalition was formed in 2010, the economical debate has centred around less spending VS more spending.

One side of the commons wants controlled austerity, whereas the other wants to keep borrowing to boost growth while risking the loss of our credit rating, which could lead to emergency austerity (and/or inflation), as currently being experienced by Spain, Italy, Ireland and Portugal.

Nobody likes cuts. Taxpayers in the private sector who have paid into the social system all their working lives, now find out that the services they have paid for will be cut, and public sector workers are hit with a combination of job losses, pay freezes and reduced pensions.

So far the debate has been presented to the public as a straight choice between the Coalition cuts agenda and the Labour anti-cuts agenda. But is there a secret third option? Is there really no way of balancing the budget without austerity measures.

This blog argues that it is possible to balance the budget without austerity and it is possible to boost growth without excessive spending.

The New Fascism And The Big Taboo

The inspiration for this post comes from a quote allegedly spoken by Winton Churchill – the fascism of the future will come under the banner of anti-fascism. 

The phrase was used by Tommy Robinson, the lead spokesman for the English Defence League (EDL) - an anti-Islam protest group, on a recent BBC debate show. He used the phrase in response to a comment about the violent behaviour of ‘anti-fascism’ protestors. Whether or not Churchill actually said this quote is unclear, but it is known that he made a public statement criticising Islam. 

The debate on The Big Questions was: Are we too complacent about the far right? (video below)

This post discusses the meaning of the word 'complacent' in this question, and if we, as a country, are taking the right approach to this problem.

The Fear Of Nationalism And The Price Of Socialism

These past few years have seen huge increases in the size and scope of government.

The amount of government spending continues to rise and more rises are forecast for the future (page 86 here) yet our domestic services are under austerity; the demands of government have increased to give us masses of new rules and regulations; the state intervenes in our day to day lives on a massive scale, and many local decisions are overridden by distant authorities.

These trends have been accompanied with rising social tensions at home and in foreign relations around the world.

Living standards are coming down and people are looking for others to blame. Social and racial tensions are on the rise. Rioting took place on a massive scale in London and Athens and other several other European cities last year. The last few years have seen the appearance of anti-Islamisation marches, home grown terrorists, and twice as many people voting for fascist parties. Tensions have risen between various European nations and between the west and the east, most notably with Iran.

What forces can we attribute to our nation’s shift towards ever more government? And should we be worried?

Is the civil unrest on our streets and our lack of social cohesion a result of this political move to the left? What can we learn from history?

What changes do we need to make, as a country, in order to unite our people and preserve the peace? Could it already be too late?

Why George Galloway’s Win Is Good For Politics

Congratulations to George Galloway for securing a huge victory in the Bradford West by-election; he is an inspiring speaker and a dedicated campaigner. This post talks briefly about what it is he stands for and why his election may have a positive impact in British politics.

Honour And The BBC

A recent BBC Panorama programme about ‘honour killing’ in the UK, focused on murders committed in order to avenge ashamed families or in order to prevent further shame being brought upon them. Below is a link to the video.

Throughout the programme the narrator fails to mention that this phenomenon is almost exclusively from the Muslim community.Even when the news report was published here on the BBC, the article does not once use the word ‘Islam’ or ‘Muslim’. 

In some Islamic countries, what we call 'honour killings' are actually legal, and in many homes in the UK, women are oppressed, forced to dress and behave in certain ways, or even imprisoned or physically abused, in order to uphold these same religious laws. 

Democracy In The 21st Century 2: Radical Optimism

The internet has transformed the way we talk, the way we message, the way we learn, the way we shop, and the way we do business, and it will change many more things in our lifetime.

The internet provides an abundance of choice and complete freedom of communication –
the ability to contact anyone in the world at any time at no cost.

Anyone with a computer can talk, buy, sell, and bank online with whomever they please. Everyone has access and instant choice between different vendors and different currencies at the click of a button. Anyone can create an online business and do business with people on the other side of the globe. Anyone can create online friendships and meet like-minded people, formulate groups and networks and consolidate public opinion. Anyone can create a web page and get their message heard; anyone with a camera phone can be a journalist; anyone can create a cause, a forum, a network, a movement, and make real changes. In other words, the internet enables real democracy.

Many say the West is in decline, but be best not to let these people scare you. Our belief in freedom, self determination and capitalism has given us a culture of creativity and innovation. This entrepreneurial nature, combined with the digital technology boom, will ensure that it is the west that pioneers the continued development of the free peoples of this planet; but we must be daring, and we must think positively.

There are ways of achieving more development AND more equality in our society, and they involve democratising certain public institutions in order to give equal rights to all who hold a stake in them. All of the issues that have led to the stagnation of the western economies can be solved with more democracy, and the internet makes this possible.

The Case For Withdrawal: Seven Economic Myths

Barroso and Van Rompuy

Our EU leaders are committed to ‘jobs and growth,’ they say. This comes as a suprising choice of words, knowing that the bulk of the EU government’s achievements, be them industry, environmental and labour market regulations, agricultural and fishing policies, subsidies and aid, and proposals for tax harmonisation, each serve to reduce competitiveness and entrepreneurship, and  stifle jobs and growth.

But they are not unintelligent people; just disillusioned. They have a genuine belief that political union between European nations will bring us prosperity, and have far too much invested in the project to see otherwise.

Here in the UK, there are also those that share this belief in progressivism, that the future will shun small unattached nations, and that by leaving the EU we would be economically disadvantaged. This post attempts to explain briefly why we should leave the EU, purely in economic terms, by dispelling some commonly held myths.