Training

Daily Express: Jacqui Smith, Britain’s first woman Home Secretary, revealed yesterday that she had not felt qualified to do the job.

Damn straight. I always thought the Home Secretary should be someone who had a commanding presence. The only way she could ever scare anyone is by showing a bit of cleavage. Still makes me sick to this day. And probably most of the Conservative frontbench.

But we all knew Gordon Brown never chose her for one of the Great Offices of State because of her keen interest in police reform or her leadership qualities. Quite the opposite in the case of the latter. She was there because he could walk all over her.

Ms Smith, who quit last month after 709 days in the role, said ministers should get more training to help them run their departments.

Can you be trained to be a minister? I'm not so sure. I don't think you can train someone to have good leadership and man-management skills, or in some cases to have a reforming zeal.

Besides, being able to "train" ministers - perhaps to the point where we have a new 'diploma' in being a head of a government department - would affirm the idea that politics is a career rather than a "calling" (if that's not too cliché for you).

The Fergie Effect

Is anyone else starting to like Ronaldo as a bloke now that he's moved from United? He seems (slightly) more humble and funny now that he's away from Fergie.

Maybe it's just the way United is: it makes nice people seem like absolute tossers.

Ineffective

A few rare words from Gordon Brown today on the subject on immigration, speaking to the House of Commons Liaison Committee. We never expected them to be too encouraging, did we?

Gordon Brown sparked fresh fury over mass immigration yesterday by explicitly ruling out a limit on Britain’s spiralling population growth. The Prime Minister insisted the country should continue to “draw on the skills and talents of people around the world”.

He claimed any attempt to put a cap on immigration would be “ineffective” ...

A strange word to choose, since whether a cap would be "ineffective" rather depends on what you're trying to achieve. If the aim is to overwhelm local public services and further antagonise alienated communities at a time of recession, than yes, a cap would be "ineffective". If the aim is to prevent this, however, and to prevent the population hitting Phil Woolas' limit of "70 million", than a cap would in fact be quite "effective".

Of course, a full cap is impossible anyway because we're not an independent country, but there's a big world outside of the EEA.

Who'd Have Thought It?

Telegraph: Ed Miliband, the environment secretary, admitted low-carbon energy will be more expensive for customers ahead of launching plans for a major expansion of renewables.

Not that Ed Miliband would care, fanatically devoted to saving the environment from unproven nonsense, at any cost. The grannies will just have to put on another jumper.

Render Unto Caesar

Archbishop Cranmer has got into a bit of a dispute with Tom Harris, a Labour MP, over the issue of religion in politics. Since Iain Dale has had his say, I see no reason why I shouldn't offer my own humble thoughts, making it clear from the outset that I enjoy reading Cranmer's blog and regard him (the man behind the persona, of course) as vastly more experienced, vastly more eloquent and vastly far more intelligent than myself.

Although the dispute addresses the wider issue of religion in politics, it surrounds particularly Cranmer's post from the weekend in which he states that one reason Christians should vote Conservative is because they would offer another free vote on whether to reduce the current 24-week abortion limit. Tom Harris responded by accusing Cranmer of trying to make abortion a party political issue.

For me, one crucial part of their discourse is about taxation:

TH: In 1988 I made an impassioned plea to my own church members that the poll tax should be resisted on the basis that a flat tax, with everyone paying the same amount regardless of income, was incompatible with the Biblical principle of tithing. Most members agreed, but it didn’t mean they voted Labour afterwards; I suspect most of them continued to vote Tory.

AC: Cranmer is bemused, and wishes he had heard your sermon. For the tithe was a flat tax and a requirement of the Law. It was fixed at 10 per cent of everything earned (Lev 27:30; Num 18:26; Deut 14:24; 2Chron 31:5), though multiple tithes would have increased this to a sum nearer a quarter of earned income (and produce). The New Testament nowhere commands, or even recommends, that Christians submit to a legalistic tithe system. Taxation like the poll tax is done under compulsion: Paul states that believers should give with a joyful heart a sum in keeping with their income (1 Cor 16:1f). On the poll tax, he would have said (a he taught) render unto Caesar, at whatever rate it was set.

Cranmer hints at the story in the New Testament known as "render unto Caesar". For those who aren't aware, Christ is asked "Is it permitted to pay tax to Caesar?" To which Jesus' reply is "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's", with the nonsense "and render unto God what is God's" added much later. As Powell states in a dialogue with Malcolm Muggeridge ...

"It was a political question. It was arguably a legal question. It was arguably an economic question ... He was not saying, yes of course you must pay your taxes ... As I understand it, he was refusing to answer the question. He was in fact saying, 'you are asking me a question which to me is perfectly irrelevant; therefore I cannot deduce the answer from anything that I have come to do or anything that I have come to tell you'."

Then, it doesn't matter what the Old Testament says or doesn't say about "tithing". The fact is that Christ says that it is irrelevant to his ministry. In fact, much of what he says has little bearing upon our living in this world. What he so often talks about, the "deliverance of Israel", is not of this world. He talks in absolutes, in impossibilities.

This, of course, is a broad, sweeping statement, so let's try to put it into focus. If you wish to be specific, he also says nothing about abortion. It is man that has produced legislation on abortion, not God, based equally upon a feeling of duty to the unborn than interpretation of scripture. Abortion, along with embryo experimentation, is an affront to society's obligations to itself and to future generations at the most fundamental level. And there are also an abundance of sociological reasons as to why abortion could be described as 'wrong'. The assertion that 'life' begins at conception can't be proven anymore than an assertion it begins later in the process leading up to birth.

Let's take another example. Cranmer also posted last weekend on the issue of Lords reform and the neutering of the power of the bishops in the Upper House. Here, I think me and Cranmer would agree that the ending of the power of the Church of England bishops in the legislature is a threat to the settlement that has served this nation so well for more than three centuries. It defines the Church of England to be as much of an expression of the nation and its independence than anything else. It is a political issue, in the same way that the Reformation was far more of a political act than a religious one. Christ does not dictate that his bishops must reside in national legislatures. It wouldn't have concerned him, any more than the presence of angels in Heaven should be of concern to Gordon Brown.

Let's not say that religion has no place in public life, for it has had and does. Let's say instead that too many people commit category errors, trying to draw Christianity and the Church into debates where it is irrelevant, in the same way that science is committing a category error when trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. And as often as we ask Christ, as the crowds asked John the Baptist, "What shall we do?", we shall receive no answer. It is intolerable, hence why many tend to read things into the words of Christ that simply are not there.

Thousands of Lights

Yesterday, we found out that the Government was pushing ahead with plans to quadtruple the number of wind farms in Britain over the next decade, in spite of criticism that they are inefficient, unreliable and uneconomical, and the fact that there are other, better sources of energy out there.

It seems the CBI agrees. Hence their statement today calling for "less emphasis" on wind farms and more effort put into "clean coal" and nuclear power. It goes as far as to attack the wind farm plans upon their key proposing argument, the ridiculous carbon emissions reduction target, saying that the "current approach means the UK might miss climate change targets".

Which is only logical when you consider how ridiculously unreliable wind power is in this country due simply to our wind patterns, meaning that the shortfall must be met by drawing on, shall we say, "more traditional" sources of energy, or thousands of lights will go out.

There is criticism that CBI's report is compromised because "the increase in wind power was threatening to the big power generators" who "dominated" the CBI's energy committee. But that doesn't make the CBI's arguments wrong, particularly when they are concurred with increasingly by report after report, and plain and simple experience.

Up Yours, Fergie

Don't worry United fans, I'm sure Owen won't get too injured this season ...

A Little Rant

I've noticed lately that the local 'wildlife reserve' (the wood) has started to get up in arms about dogs not being in leads, and want to crack down on it. The method is putting up a lot of lamenated paper notices (that just get torn down by anyone passing by) and egging on the sort of people who complain to the council about the state of your garden shed to enforce it.

The argument, according to the notices that haven't been removed, is that dogs that aren't on leads run amok and disrupt local wildlife and the local ecosystem. Disrupt it a lot more, obviously, than the huge ten foot path that has been cut smack through the centre; than the hundreds of other smaller paths cut through the wood; than the constant logging; than the hunting and poaching over the centuries of the various species, including bears, wolves, boer and deer that has changed the ecosystem beyond recognition anyway.

Yes, I can see how my four foot springer spaniel, with about as much pace as Teddy Sheringham, is going to wreak havoc.

Ignore All Logic

There is an interesting Booker column today, once more about manmade global warming, in which he reminds us of the potential costs of putting all of our eggs in one theoretical basket. An example, he relates to us the "remarkable drama" unfolding in Australia, in which the new Labor government has introduced a bill for an emissions-curbing "cap and trade" scheme, which apparently "would devastate Australia's economy, it being 80 per cent dependent on coal".

Fortunately for Australia, the passing of the bill came down to one independent senator, sensible enough to ask the right questions, to which he received poor responses, leading him to decide to vote against it.

Unfortunately for Britain, we do not have someone sensible enough to ask the right questions. Here, the consensus has a tight, feverish grip on the masses of all three major political parties. Hence the determination of the Government to ignore all logic and all protest groups, as well as the lack of any sane concurring arguments, and push ahead with the construction of yet more wind turbines, quadtrupling them over the course of the next decade, in accordance with an initiative that - as should be expected - comes from Brussels.

The result? Vast, vast subsidies poured into monstrosities that are hopelessly inefficient, hopelessly unreliable, hopelessly uneconomical, and unwanted by anyone who has to live anywhere near them. A pathetic waste of time and money that should be spent on projects to solve the oncoming energy crisis.

And who's willing to speak up and bring some sanity to proceedings? No one. As ever, consensus leads us to disaster.

An Odd Conclusion

There is a strange piece of commentary in today's Telegraph from Brigadier Allan Mallinson. The sum of it, after the usual berating of the Government for this and that, is that we need more troops in Afghanistan.

What's bizarre is how he has arrived at that conclusion:

... General Dannatt's military advice is proving uncomfortable: ministers are said to be furious at his remarks that Gordon Brown vetoed more troops, with David Crausby, a Labour member of the Commons defence committee, adding bafflingly: "Dannatt should just get on with the job. After the conflict, if there are lessons to be learnt, we should do so in a considered manner." Much comfort will that be to widows and orphans.

The argument, then, seems to be that if you pour more troops into Afghanistan, less will die. A strange conclusion when you consider that most of the recent deaths seem to be a consequence of IEDs, cleverly placed according to Taleban observations and obtained knowledge of British troops movements and tactics. One would have guessed that it wouldn't matter how many British troops were marching around the Afghan desert at the time, the soldiers who came by those IEDs would still have been killed by them.

I'm not going to pretend I know a lot about Afghanistan or the current conflict in any fantastic detail, but I'm not sure whether more troops is the answer considering the landscape and the nature of the conflict. As ever, the drudgery of work and college has left me quite ill informed of events, but such seemeth to me that the problem is, partly, resources, but much more strategy and tactics. The Taleban certainly seem to be able to call upon plenty of recruits, but it's their tactics that are doing us over at the moment.

My Two Pence ...

ConservativeHome asks ...

Should Cameron give us the Britishness Day Brown failed to deliver?

No.

The Law of the Land

I realise that yesterday I commented on a story from midweek. Work and/or college have recently conspired to keep me behind on most news stories, hence all the catching up I'm doing.

In that spirit, Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday reminds us of a story from midweek whereby an "overzealous" "traffic cop" confiscated a scarecrow dressed as a traffic warden designed to promote a local village festival. The scarecrow was returned after much pestering, albeit without the mock "speed radar gun". The creator had previously received permission to put up the scarecrow in that design outside her property.

This is not a new thing. Two years ago police in Mickle Trafford near Chester diverted a patrol car "on the way to the scene of a fatal crash" to confiscate a scarecrow local Christopher Strong had mocked up as a traffic cop, again even after he had enquired guidelines on the matter.

Hitchens criticises the police involved for being "heavy-handed, officious, humourless, monopolistic, scornful of the public".

But there's something else going on. Local Inspector Dave Buckley later commented the scarecrow "portrayed an incorrect and inappropriate message to passing motorists" as "speed radars are used to prevent casualties on our roads and to address the irresponsible actions of motorists. They should not be re-created by the roadside in jest."

I wasn't aware it was the police's job to decide what was appropriate and what wasn't. I wasn't aware the police was a new moral authority. So far as my knowledge takes me, I thought it was their job to enforce the law of the land and act as public servants. It sounds rather like Inspector Dave Buckley is talking down to us.

This seems to be a problem in police forces across the country, which is why you get people like Ian Blair with their attitudes. When the law was represented by the bobby on the beat, local and familiar, it didn't seem to be a problem. Now, though the police are too far removed from the people they are supposed to serve, rather like the politicians that now direct them.

Nothing To Say

There are a couple of interesting stories in the International Herald Tribune this week, both connected, although it is probably not apparent on initial reading. The first is a report that "Britain’s involvement in the war has come under the fiercest criticism yet at home as a result of a steep increase in British casualties, including the deaths of 15 soldiers in the past 10 days".

Interestingly, the article massively exaggerates the effectiveness of the British education system, putting the growing criticism partly down to "Britain’s 19th-century history of catastrophic military ventures in Afghanistan, when it sought to secure the outer defenses of British imperial rule in India".

As a consequence, "the government faces an uphill task in rallying public opinion to the current conflict". Hence defences of the "war" coming down both from the Foreign Secretary and Gordon Brown, both of whom have assured us that the current strategy is the right one and continued involvement is necessary to "not allow Afghanistan to be a safe haven for al-Qaeda".

We also saw an intervention earlier this week from Nick Clegg, an intervention covered extensively by more knowledgeful commentators. They point out that the errors in Clegg's discourse prove that he, more than likely, simply being opportunistic.

But at least he's made an effort. At least he's seen the opportunity. The IHT informs us that the "criticism has come from the opposition leaders in Parliament". Has David Cameron actually talked about it? So far as I'm aware, he's been busy apologising for Section 28 and apologising to gay voters.

Which brings us onto the second interesting story, from midweek, which attempts to answer the question, "Can David Cameron redefine Britain’s Tory Party?" The writer moreorless concludes that he can and is. But 'redefine' is a contentious word. It implies removing one definition and replacing it with another. In dragging his party to the fuzzy, blurry 'centre-ground', he has certainly acted on the first part of the process.

The problem is that he hasn't really given the Conservatives anything to stand for afterwards. A real opposition party should be have set and strong principles that it builds a political strategy out of. So far as we're aware, all David Cameron wants to do, in the style of the post-war Conservatives, is to manage the current system slightly better.

As a result, some people have tended to superimpose onto the party their own ideas about what it should stand for and believe it to be true. No one has any idea where it stands on so many issues. Once in a while we get the odd speech about specific things, but it's always half-hearted, unconvincing, and usually contradicted by another speech from someone else, on everything from the EU Constitution to spending on education.

So far as we're aware, David Cameron does not have a foreign policy. He does not have a defence policy. He doesn't seem to have a lot to say about anything really important. And even as public concern and interest begins to grow about Afghanistan after so many years of relative indifference, Cameron and the Conservatives still have very little, if not nothing, to say.

Regional Pacts

The leaders of the G8 countries no doubt dismissed themselves from today's meeting in Italy feeling pretty happy with themselves. According to the Telegraph, the Messiah has convinced his fellow leaders to back a plan for "investing in increasing developing countries' own capacity to grow and store food".

The article tells us that the "UK's Department for International Development estimates that a quarter of all food harvested in Africa is never eaten because of inadequate storage and transport facilities". In addition to investment in these specific areas, the new 'plan' "calls for farmers in developing countries to be given greater access to seeds and fertilizer".

Bob Geldof's 'anti-poverty' group ONE, however, claims that "most of the money being pledged towards the $15 billion fund was not new money and will come from countries' existing aid budgets". Not that this changes the argument that spending money on infrastructure is better than throwing it away as food aid, which as Kanayo Nwanze, head of UN International Fund for Agricultural Development, says, is "like providing medication after the child is ill".

Infrastructure is all well and good, but it's no good without strong property laws, and the concept of 'the law' is still only a concept in a good deal of these "developing nations". What's more, they're never really going to 'develop' without being able to trade with external markets. And this is where the G8, or most of them at least, should really stop being so happy with themselves:

Poorer countries will also encouraged to establish regional trade pacts allowing them to sell more of their crops.

The problem is that these "poorer countries" tend to be in regions that contain a lot of other equally "poorer countries". Two of the big markets, that of the EU and the USA, are, in part, inaccessible, particularly and notoriously the former, which despite claiming to be "the world's biggest free trade area" certainly is not.

And what can Britain do about it? Nothing.

Legitimate Defence

BBC News: Labour has been defeated in the Lords over the issue of free speech and laws against inciting homophobic hatred. Ministers were trying to remove a clause passed in a bill last year which permitted free speech to be used as a legitimate defence in such cases.

The Lords once again demonstrating their worth as (occasional) defenders of our liberties. No wonder all the parties are so desperate to destroy its power once and for all.

We await the jeers from lefties that the Lords are "backward" and "homophobic", etc., etc.