After world war two wise senators set about to prevent the economic instability which has blighted the American economy and which had made any reconstruction of German impossible and thus has sped up the Second World War.
They sought to separate out the consumer banks (those which provide our loans and accounts) from those they called casino capitalist, the short sellers and share dealers. Indeed they very correctly argued that loaning people money to “invest” in short term share gain causes share bubbles and very shortly afterward cause share crashes leading to massive economic conflagrations; which in turn led to social disharmony and occasionally war.
It is a pleasing accident of history that the names of these two senators so closely parallel the era of glass and steal towers which there division brought in. For as Capitalism can benefit from war, it is true to say it flourishes under stability.
Glass and Stegal stood as long as the Keynesian economic model was dominate; as long as government direction of macroeconomic policy was widely accepted, however, in the 1970 this dominance ended. Western material economic progress ran to a halt and western economies were left becalmed by stagflation and the “red menace” was still on its relentless march.
So the opponents of Keynesian grew stronger and strong and as they gained more and more influence, they slowly very slowly dismantled the protections offered by glass and stegal. They in short followed Marx’s prediction that capitalism can bear not limits and sought to remove all limits to its own free movement and one of those targets was the glass Stegal act.
It was not difficult to erode the boundaries, it was always odd that a companies which owned both retail banking division and higher risk divisions (and they all did) would operate without collusion between the two parts of it. Unless you disallow any connection between the two parts it is invertible, regardless of regulatory bodies that the organisations will erode these boundaries internally; even with a total division the economic interest of the high risk bankers would be to buy out the retails banks, so they can better flog their products and gain accesses to their funds.
I have no issue with the banking reforms, its seems wholly prudent to me to separate out retail baking from higher risk financial services, however, unless it is international it will fail, unless it is total it will fail; even then it will fail. Not because it is a bad idea but because it is an obscure limit on capitalism which the majority will never concern themselves with in the good times and only partially care about in the bad.
Monday, 12 September 2011
Saturday, 13 August 2011
The economic conflagration and you.
So you dear reader are like me; employed in what seems a prosperous and thriving company, your income has not fallen and if you have any debts the rates you are paying to service them will have most probably dropped. So what is there to fear from the global economic conflagration and why is everyone so upset about it anyway.
There is an excellent book / poem (yeah you read right poem) called the grumbling hive, in this piece the author describes the entire economy like a hive of bees, millions of individuals bees labour and strive and the outcome of all the millions of individual action is the market. I sometime think that the global economic system looks to us as the hive must look to the bee. Oh we sort of know we are a part of it but when we look upon it we see something gigantic disorder and almost wholly detached from us.
So why should us lowly bees care about the giant economic hive. Well let’s start with are employed status. We receive money for are labour, we buy things with this which in turns provides other with their labour and the whole labour circle is entered in. The trouble is we only buy, when we feel it safe to do so. I.e. if consumer confidence is low people don’t like to buy stuff.
Yes, yes, all fairly basic stuff so what causes a recession, well first what is a recession. Every nation calculates the amount of business they generate called GDP, if GDP falls for 6 months (2 quarters) then you’re in a recession and they are common. Now there are many causes for recession; if we look at the most recent it was caused by massive levels of debt.
The current economic conflagration is caused by national government effectively buying this debt from the banks. Nations which were already in debt, incurred more debt to buy these banks and their bonds. Therefore national debt increased and the amount government paid for this debt effectively rested on their credit rating. As you know the better your chances of paying back the cheaper you can borrow; well it’s the same for nations.
So the amount nations had to pay (an amount funded by tax) increase at the same time due to lack of credit in the economy and decrease demand due to falling consumer confidence, unemployment level rose and thus tax take decreased. The worse this paradox was the worse a nations credit rating and the more likely they be unable to pay their debts (some owned to foreign banks) and thus the more likely these banks where to fail and thus the worse consumer confidence and higher loan rates.
This circle of contraction is normally slowed by the birth of new businesses and a expansion of government spending. The expansion of government spending is impossible as they have increasing problems merely servicing there debt and the growth of new business have been effected by the banking crises, which lead to a glut of credit in the system and a lack of consumer demand caused by economic uncertainty and high employment.
There is an excellent book / poem (yeah you read right poem) called the grumbling hive, in this piece the author describes the entire economy like a hive of bees, millions of individuals bees labour and strive and the outcome of all the millions of individual action is the market. I sometime think that the global economic system looks to us as the hive must look to the bee. Oh we sort of know we are a part of it but when we look upon it we see something gigantic disorder and almost wholly detached from us.
So why should us lowly bees care about the giant economic hive. Well let’s start with are employed status. We receive money for are labour, we buy things with this which in turns provides other with their labour and the whole labour circle is entered in. The trouble is we only buy, when we feel it safe to do so. I.e. if consumer confidence is low people don’t like to buy stuff.
Yes, yes, all fairly basic stuff so what causes a recession, well first what is a recession. Every nation calculates the amount of business they generate called GDP, if GDP falls for 6 months (2 quarters) then you’re in a recession and they are common. Now there are many causes for recession; if we look at the most recent it was caused by massive levels of debt.
The current economic conflagration is caused by national government effectively buying this debt from the banks. Nations which were already in debt, incurred more debt to buy these banks and their bonds. Therefore national debt increased and the amount government paid for this debt effectively rested on their credit rating. As you know the better your chances of paying back the cheaper you can borrow; well it’s the same for nations.
So the amount nations had to pay (an amount funded by tax) increase at the same time due to lack of credit in the economy and decrease demand due to falling consumer confidence, unemployment level rose and thus tax take decreased. The worse this paradox was the worse a nations credit rating and the more likely they be unable to pay their debts (some owned to foreign banks) and thus the more likely these banks where to fail and thus the worse consumer confidence and higher loan rates.
This circle of contraction is normally slowed by the birth of new businesses and a expansion of government spending. The expansion of government spending is impossible as they have increasing problems merely servicing there debt and the growth of new business have been effected by the banking crises, which lead to a glut of credit in the system and a lack of consumer demand caused by economic uncertainty and high employment.
Sunday, 7 August 2011
Prophets
I awoke before the lord of host sat before, with all nations bowing before him, he was sitting as a judge before them sorting the wheat from the chaff.
The lord spake:
I have held my judgment from the tribes of the earth for my eon, my son convinced me to hold my hand for they had been saved by him and by the work of my grace but I look upon the tribes and I cry bitter tears, I have freed then, I have saved them and they cut me to the bone with their sins. Look child, look at the wounds they have inflicted upon me.
Two angles spake
“I am Guantanamo and I am Some , we have been exiled from your world, we have been taken and whipped, we were rapped and tortured to satisfy the lust of evil men. No man looks upon us, not even with shame for what they have done to us”.
“Lord what do you want of me, I have innocent against your angelic host. I have never seen them or heard there cries; I am blameless for your injuries for I have kept your laws and venerated your son as you commanded Lord. What do you need of a mortal man like me
And thus the Lord spake.
You have walked in the desert for too long, you have been your own master for too long, you have blinded yourself and left the people to their own fate. You have closed you heart to my word and close your hand to me and I have burned you for it, I have burned you with the flame of the sprit to make you pure, to reform you as my vessel so I give the word to give to my people. You will leave the desert and enter the world of man once more.
I awoke once more in the world of men with the news of the word within me and it burned like the sun within my soul, even if I had not wished to shine this light unto the people I would have or yhr flesh cage would have weekend and burned off.
This is what the lord said unto me:
The lion has fallen, the great beat of the west has finally fallen, it has been rotten from within, it has been poisoned by the Lord. Look oh Israel, look at your great guardian rot and fall, look how he is laid low before the earth because he has forsaken the law.
Oh Israel he roared his fealty, he erected temple unto me but he never worshiped there; he worshiped in shrines to himself. To has erect shine upon shrine to himself, he has made a mockery of the shines he erected unto me, yah he has made them a physical sign of his hearsay and faithlessness .
You oh faithless Israel have placed you faith in bows and horses, in the ore of the earth and not in the maker of the earth. I have lifted my vengeful hand from you and gifted you food so bountiful that no man could go without and yet the poor are still with you the wealthy man still lords over them and you still horde your earth gains as proof of your lack of faith in me.
I will make you weep Israel your lion will be consumed by ants, your neighbours who you have turned into enemies will sweep you into the sea, they will sweep way your insetiouse leaders and blinded priests. Your nation was born in blood and has wallowed like a pig in blood and it will be swept from the face of the earth in blood.
I found my voice and spake thusly.
Lord there our good people, people who care for the poor and house the homeless; there are those who have carried the cross of Christ before them and whom have kept your laws. There are more than fifty good men in every town of every tribe on earth. I beg you lord of Host spare us for these men.
The lords final judgement:
Good men! Do not speak unto me of good men! There are none, they serve evil men; they serve evil forces and corrupt leaders. Age after age after age of the poor and the disposed all caused by the whim of evil men and whom do you blame me. Your good men visit their sins upon me, not only do their sins scare me but they perjure me.
They dress as innocent men but dress there temple to me like whores, there children dress like whores and there whores like children. The good men, the evil men who am I to tell them apart, even the good men worship themselves m, worship their own false wisdom, even these men make my gospel the whore of man. Nay there are no good man, there is no decent man, nay I say.
So my hand will be withdrawn, my spirit will be withdrawn from the world of man least you treat it like my angles and make a whore of it. My judgement will be seen though the tribes who have forsaken me, without the lion they will consume themselves, they will be like savages again, evil will build upon evil, dead body will pile upon dead body. You will see it and proclaim surely the holocaust was but naught compared to this.
Yeah on Israel you will lament at this cannibalism, you will reap the fruits of the evil and greed that you have sown and tended in lieu of my temple and regarding my law. Woe oh Israel as you see your inescapable fate. This is the judgement of the lord.
The lord spake:
I have held my judgment from the tribes of the earth for my eon, my son convinced me to hold my hand for they had been saved by him and by the work of my grace but I look upon the tribes and I cry bitter tears, I have freed then, I have saved them and they cut me to the bone with their sins. Look child, look at the wounds they have inflicted upon me.
Two angles spake
“I am Guantanamo and I am Some , we have been exiled from your world, we have been taken and whipped, we were rapped and tortured to satisfy the lust of evil men. No man looks upon us, not even with shame for what they have done to us”.
“Lord what do you want of me, I have innocent against your angelic host. I have never seen them or heard there cries; I am blameless for your injuries for I have kept your laws and venerated your son as you commanded Lord. What do you need of a mortal man like me
And thus the Lord spake.
You have walked in the desert for too long, you have been your own master for too long, you have blinded yourself and left the people to their own fate. You have closed you heart to my word and close your hand to me and I have burned you for it, I have burned you with the flame of the sprit to make you pure, to reform you as my vessel so I give the word to give to my people. You will leave the desert and enter the world of man once more.
I awoke once more in the world of men with the news of the word within me and it burned like the sun within my soul, even if I had not wished to shine this light unto the people I would have or yhr flesh cage would have weekend and burned off.
This is what the lord said unto me:
The lion has fallen, the great beat of the west has finally fallen, it has been rotten from within, it has been poisoned by the Lord. Look oh Israel, look at your great guardian rot and fall, look how he is laid low before the earth because he has forsaken the law.
Oh Israel he roared his fealty, he erected temple unto me but he never worshiped there; he worshiped in shrines to himself. To has erect shine upon shrine to himself, he has made a mockery of the shines he erected unto me, yah he has made them a physical sign of his hearsay and faithlessness .
You oh faithless Israel have placed you faith in bows and horses, in the ore of the earth and not in the maker of the earth. I have lifted my vengeful hand from you and gifted you food so bountiful that no man could go without and yet the poor are still with you the wealthy man still lords over them and you still horde your earth gains as proof of your lack of faith in me.
I will make you weep Israel your lion will be consumed by ants, your neighbours who you have turned into enemies will sweep you into the sea, they will sweep way your insetiouse leaders and blinded priests. Your nation was born in blood and has wallowed like a pig in blood and it will be swept from the face of the earth in blood.
I found my voice and spake thusly.
Lord there our good people, people who care for the poor and house the homeless; there are those who have carried the cross of Christ before them and whom have kept your laws. There are more than fifty good men in every town of every tribe on earth. I beg you lord of Host spare us for these men.
The lords final judgement:
Good men! Do not speak unto me of good men! There are none, they serve evil men; they serve evil forces and corrupt leaders. Age after age after age of the poor and the disposed all caused by the whim of evil men and whom do you blame me. Your good men visit their sins upon me, not only do their sins scare me but they perjure me.
They dress as innocent men but dress there temple to me like whores, there children dress like whores and there whores like children. The good men, the evil men who am I to tell them apart, even the good men worship themselves m, worship their own false wisdom, even these men make my gospel the whore of man. Nay there are no good man, there is no decent man, nay I say.
So my hand will be withdrawn, my spirit will be withdrawn from the world of man least you treat it like my angles and make a whore of it. My judgement will be seen though the tribes who have forsaken me, without the lion they will consume themselves, they will be like savages again, evil will build upon evil, dead body will pile upon dead body. You will see it and proclaim surely the holocaust was but naught compared to this.
Yeah on Israel you will lament at this cannibalism, you will reap the fruits of the evil and greed that you have sown and tended in lieu of my temple and regarding my law. Woe oh Israel as you see your inescapable fate. This is the judgement of the lord.
Sunday, 31 July 2011
Conservative Vs fascism
My dear brothers the ideals (limited as they our) and the practices of conservative are under attack. They are under attack from the embittered, power crazed neo cons who instead of respecting money they worship it. From the other side a new threat to civilisation has arisen, one so huge that the last time it arose it dimed the light across Europe this threat is the far right.
The far right is are bastard son; the market worshipers like to fain they have nothing to do with us, that they our left wing. This is based on their “left wing” economics. Well whilst I concede there economic stance is not that of the market worshipers this does not make them left wing. The far right is not collectivist nor is it international in any meaningful sense. Indeed the fascist often reduces politics to us or communist dichotomy, or in there modern from it’s either us or the end of western civilisation (effectively the same argument). Given this choice brothers we know, whose side we would fall on but this dichotomy is false.
A nation run on fear and repression is a broken nation; it has failed. Oh it my stagger on as a Zombie nation held together by fear and blood but one day that will not be enough, one day there will be no one left who will fear death because death would be sweeter than life in the zombie nation. On that wonderful day what is left of your nation will consume itself and if you have been co-opted by the almighty state you will live just long enough to see the noose being place around your neck.
So why dose fascism our bastard child cause such harm? Well instead of respecting the central tenants of conservative thought, perverts and destroys them. The first conservative tenant that fascism perverts is love for one’s nation. We promote this because the nation is colourless, it is classless, it is natural to love and to serve and die for. Anyone who is willing to die for his nation is by their blood your fellow in that nation , anyone who suffers or strive to make that nation greater by the meanest of means is your brother under God and under the flag you pertain to serve.
The fascist pervert this clean and saintly love into a hate a hate not for the real enemies of the nation, those who would incur upon her sovereignty and impose upon it but imaginary internal enemies. They make the nation exclusive for a certain type of person, they base nationality not on loyalty or the truth held in the heart of men but on blood but brother blood is cheap, blood is not loyal. Indeed so deeply held is this insanity that they would harm their own nation by killing or expelling people because of their race treason but I say brother no such thing exist. It is treason to weaken your nation through hatred, it is treason to kill those who like you enjoy the simple love of the nation they are the traitors.
The Second tenet of conservative thought is the centrality of God and of the weakness of man. It is the most central of central conservative principles that man is only saveable by the blood of Christ and that he remains unredeemed in this life and only is made perfect in the life here after. Now I am well aware we no longer live in faithful times, however, even the atheist who lives by morals not elected by him can be said to be living in proper accordance with Conservative principles.
The fascist believe that the state and thus man can and should determine its own morality. Man is debase and what sane man would follow morality written by the most debase, the most double dealing aka those obsessed with power and would renounce God to do so. It is clear to any man of good sense knows that any morality coming forth from such a source will be self-serving and only serve to empower the demi-god that has issued it forth. Indeed once the hand of man is freed from the golden chain of God’s law it can never lead to freedom or reason but to fear and anarchy.
The third principle is the idea of balance – Conservative ideals are based on the four pillars see http://piemandmu.blogspot.com/2010/09/principles-of-conservative-thought.html for a longer exploration of these pillars, these pillars keep the state, economic, community and morality interconnected but separate from each other. Fascism destroys these pillars and seeks to replace them with just the one, the pillar of the party. The free pillar of the community is taken over by party organisers, the free pillar of the market is hijacked by central planners and even the church is brought into line.
So what you may ask, where is the harm in this, unity is strength. Well division is weakness but that is not the same. Man wants to live at peace and in freedom, he wants a gap between him and others but the merging of all the pillars of civilisation into the party robs him of that, it robs him of his freedom to think beyond the party, believe beyond the party or even exist beyond it. Indeed you could ask what is the point of existence within such a stifling atmosphere, you could ask your selves what would become of your nation, your community your soul if you give everything over to one man, one ideal one party.
The far right is are bastard son; the market worshipers like to fain they have nothing to do with us, that they our left wing. This is based on their “left wing” economics. Well whilst I concede there economic stance is not that of the market worshipers this does not make them left wing. The far right is not collectivist nor is it international in any meaningful sense. Indeed the fascist often reduces politics to us or communist dichotomy, or in there modern from it’s either us or the end of western civilisation (effectively the same argument). Given this choice brothers we know, whose side we would fall on but this dichotomy is false.
A nation run on fear and repression is a broken nation; it has failed. Oh it my stagger on as a Zombie nation held together by fear and blood but one day that will not be enough, one day there will be no one left who will fear death because death would be sweeter than life in the zombie nation. On that wonderful day what is left of your nation will consume itself and if you have been co-opted by the almighty state you will live just long enough to see the noose being place around your neck.
So why dose fascism our bastard child cause such harm? Well instead of respecting the central tenants of conservative thought, perverts and destroys them. The first conservative tenant that fascism perverts is love for one’s nation. We promote this because the nation is colourless, it is classless, it is natural to love and to serve and die for. Anyone who is willing to die for his nation is by their blood your fellow in that nation , anyone who suffers or strive to make that nation greater by the meanest of means is your brother under God and under the flag you pertain to serve.
The fascist pervert this clean and saintly love into a hate a hate not for the real enemies of the nation, those who would incur upon her sovereignty and impose upon it but imaginary internal enemies. They make the nation exclusive for a certain type of person, they base nationality not on loyalty or the truth held in the heart of men but on blood but brother blood is cheap, blood is not loyal. Indeed so deeply held is this insanity that they would harm their own nation by killing or expelling people because of their race treason but I say brother no such thing exist. It is treason to weaken your nation through hatred, it is treason to kill those who like you enjoy the simple love of the nation they are the traitors.
The Second tenet of conservative thought is the centrality of God and of the weakness of man. It is the most central of central conservative principles that man is only saveable by the blood of Christ and that he remains unredeemed in this life and only is made perfect in the life here after. Now I am well aware we no longer live in faithful times, however, even the atheist who lives by morals not elected by him can be said to be living in proper accordance with Conservative principles.
The fascist believe that the state and thus man can and should determine its own morality. Man is debase and what sane man would follow morality written by the most debase, the most double dealing aka those obsessed with power and would renounce God to do so. It is clear to any man of good sense knows that any morality coming forth from such a source will be self-serving and only serve to empower the demi-god that has issued it forth. Indeed once the hand of man is freed from the golden chain of God’s law it can never lead to freedom or reason but to fear and anarchy.
The third principle is the idea of balance – Conservative ideals are based on the four pillars see http://piemandmu.blogspot.com/2010/09/principles-of-conservative-thought.html for a longer exploration of these pillars, these pillars keep the state, economic, community and morality interconnected but separate from each other. Fascism destroys these pillars and seeks to replace them with just the one, the pillar of the party. The free pillar of the community is taken over by party organisers, the free pillar of the market is hijacked by central planners and even the church is brought into line.
So what you may ask, where is the harm in this, unity is strength. Well division is weakness but that is not the same. Man wants to live at peace and in freedom, he wants a gap between him and others but the merging of all the pillars of civilisation into the party robs him of that, it robs him of his freedom to think beyond the party, believe beyond the party or even exist beyond it. Indeed you could ask what is the point of existence within such a stifling atmosphere, you could ask your selves what would become of your nation, your community your soul if you give everything over to one man, one ideal one party.
Friday, 22 July 2011
Famine
I have been accused by some of not caring about the famine in the horn of Africa; I have indeed been accused of promoting euthanasia in relation to my position on it. Well I intend to lay my views out and allow others to draw whatever conclusions they want.
First the issue at hand; due to weather conditions, a lack of infrastructure and overpopulation the peoples of the horn of Africa have quite simply run out of food. This is nothing new of course, the idea that a famine suddenly erupts is a myth. Nations which slip into famine do so due to long term structural reasons. One of these structural reasons is the west give Aid first and invest latter, another is of course the having of children to provide in there old age and another is the extension of advance medical care and treatments to these areas.
I refuse to condemn these laudable and Christian pursuits or lament about the law of unintended consequences but these are the facts. Malthus laid out that any population is kept in balance with the resources it can command by sickness, war, infirmity and worse of all starvation. Due to external influence of these nation we have targeted the outward manifestations of these pressures and thus increased the population but we have done nothing to increase in command of the “necessities of life” leading inevitably to famine.
So what should the we / the west do? Well to my mind a country that slips into famine should be treated like we treat a failed economy. The IMF do not keep them just above oblivion with never ending aid payments, they force them to accept hard hitting structural changes. When a nation go bankrupt the international community steps in and sets it’s failed economic polices straight. Indeed one cannot get IMF funding without handing over economic sovereignty for some period of time.
So, who dose this apply for resource bankrupt nations? Well of course we give them short term aid but it has to come with strings. We need an International Food Fund to act like the IMF would. Forcing though the deep structural changes requited and imposing population reduction strategies these nations badly need. They need our help to reduce birth rates, increase food production and distribution and they should have it, so what I am arguing for is the end of aid and the birth of structural reform.
First the issue at hand; due to weather conditions, a lack of infrastructure and overpopulation the peoples of the horn of Africa have quite simply run out of food. This is nothing new of course, the idea that a famine suddenly erupts is a myth. Nations which slip into famine do so due to long term structural reasons. One of these structural reasons is the west give Aid first and invest latter, another is of course the having of children to provide in there old age and another is the extension of advance medical care and treatments to these areas.
I refuse to condemn these laudable and Christian pursuits or lament about the law of unintended consequences but these are the facts. Malthus laid out that any population is kept in balance with the resources it can command by sickness, war, infirmity and worse of all starvation. Due to external influence of these nation we have targeted the outward manifestations of these pressures and thus increased the population but we have done nothing to increase in command of the “necessities of life” leading inevitably to famine.
So what should the we / the west do? Well to my mind a country that slips into famine should be treated like we treat a failed economy. The IMF do not keep them just above oblivion with never ending aid payments, they force them to accept hard hitting structural changes. When a nation go bankrupt the international community steps in and sets it’s failed economic polices straight. Indeed one cannot get IMF funding without handing over economic sovereignty for some period of time.
So, who dose this apply for resource bankrupt nations? Well of course we give them short term aid but it has to come with strings. We need an International Food Fund to act like the IMF would. Forcing though the deep structural changes requited and imposing population reduction strategies these nations badly need. They need our help to reduce birth rates, increase food production and distribution and they should have it, so what I am arguing for is the end of aid and the birth of structural reform.
Sunday, 26 June 2011
A letter to my MP
Dear Mr Wilson.
I wish to say a few words before I get to the reason for this letter. The first is I am a good and true conservative. I joined the party at the tender age of thirteen and have never wavered from my steadfast and true support. Indeed I have suffered both physically and mentally for my support as during my younger years the party was devoutly disliked but I sir, I remained true.
I say this so you can understand my deep displeasure at the parties wilful attack on me and those of my kind, you see Sir I am dyslexic and Dyspraxia and I ask nothing Sir, nothing but a computer for my exam and to be left alone. I accepted a long time ago that despite my MA in political theory and BA in public policy that no public body would ever accept me due to the discriminatory English and maths test they alone see fit to impose and I have sought not to rectify this imbalance.
For I, sir, I am a conservative it tooth and claw. I am a fellow of Burke I will hear no nonsense speech of human right or acts which try and indivertibly fail to enshrine them. My view is that of the great man himself “the liberty of mischief and never of good order”. I was aghast to see the last government wasting hours institutionalising pseudo constitutional laws in a system not equip to processes them and t wasting further hours equalising the marriage laws (where a simple amendment would have served the equal purpose) whilst freely stripping those unprotected freedoms which are the foundation of any decent state.
So I am left stuck when are education secretary further discriminates, belittles and discriminates against dyslexic by further increasing the English and math standards required for teaching, alongside increasing the standards we are supposed to achieve. In doing so he has set standard I and my fellow disabled could never hope to reach.
Indeed this emphasis on English and maths though terribly popular amongst a people hardly renowned for it (i.e. the media) further stigmatises an already stigmatised class of people. I am sure you know who may of my fellows rot in prison – mostly due to their own fault but hardly helped by the almost total lack of positive role; models dyslexic teacher being akin to unicorns . Indeed beyond a few business people most dyslexics school life will be harsh extra English and ignorant teacher blaming us for are disability.
Then when we graduate, we are further belittled, we are refused to become teacher to help are fellows, we are prevented from joining the civil service (as there is a numerical and literal test) and thus can be of no aid there and we are excluded from the media and from other occupations.
I ask you how many dyslexics have failed to achieve their full potential because of the closed minded attitude which elevates spelling test above MA’s? How many other disabilities have to endure test which take no account of their disabilities, how many are asked to take lower wages, or excluded from the civil service due to a genetic mutation?
Therefore Sir I ask the party this one thing, outlaw this discrimination, rid are state of it, or we will be forced sir to seek justice in Europe and the ECHR. I ask the party to stand up for good decent people who only wish to see their children do well and wish not to treated like a social disorder. Indeed I ask nothing more than any minority for the government to waste a little time on us.
This letter and any further to it will be put on Twitter, for though, as no doubt you can tell, my grammar is awful. I have a considerable following and I would like them to see, despite some recent unfortunate comments the conservative party will always protect the weakest in are society and enforce the rights and liberties of those who have done nothing to forsake or be undeserving of them.
I wish to say a few words before I get to the reason for this letter. The first is I am a good and true conservative. I joined the party at the tender age of thirteen and have never wavered from my steadfast and true support. Indeed I have suffered both physically and mentally for my support as during my younger years the party was devoutly disliked but I sir, I remained true.
I say this so you can understand my deep displeasure at the parties wilful attack on me and those of my kind, you see Sir I am dyslexic and Dyspraxia and I ask nothing Sir, nothing but a computer for my exam and to be left alone. I accepted a long time ago that despite my MA in political theory and BA in public policy that no public body would ever accept me due to the discriminatory English and maths test they alone see fit to impose and I have sought not to rectify this imbalance.
For I, sir, I am a conservative it tooth and claw. I am a fellow of Burke I will hear no nonsense speech of human right or acts which try and indivertibly fail to enshrine them. My view is that of the great man himself “the liberty of mischief and never of good order”. I was aghast to see the last government wasting hours institutionalising pseudo constitutional laws in a system not equip to processes them and t wasting further hours equalising the marriage laws (where a simple amendment would have served the equal purpose) whilst freely stripping those unprotected freedoms which are the foundation of any decent state.
So I am left stuck when are education secretary further discriminates, belittles and discriminates against dyslexic by further increasing the English and math standards required for teaching, alongside increasing the standards we are supposed to achieve. In doing so he has set standard I and my fellow disabled could never hope to reach.
Indeed this emphasis on English and maths though terribly popular amongst a people hardly renowned for it (i.e. the media) further stigmatises an already stigmatised class of people. I am sure you know who may of my fellows rot in prison – mostly due to their own fault but hardly helped by the almost total lack of positive role; models dyslexic teacher being akin to unicorns . Indeed beyond a few business people most dyslexics school life will be harsh extra English and ignorant teacher blaming us for are disability.
Then when we graduate, we are further belittled, we are refused to become teacher to help are fellows, we are prevented from joining the civil service (as there is a numerical and literal test) and thus can be of no aid there and we are excluded from the media and from other occupations.
I ask you how many dyslexics have failed to achieve their full potential because of the closed minded attitude which elevates spelling test above MA’s? How many other disabilities have to endure test which take no account of their disabilities, how many are asked to take lower wages, or excluded from the civil service due to a genetic mutation?
Therefore Sir I ask the party this one thing, outlaw this discrimination, rid are state of it, or we will be forced sir to seek justice in Europe and the ECHR. I ask the party to stand up for good decent people who only wish to see their children do well and wish not to treated like a social disorder. Indeed I ask nothing more than any minority for the government to waste a little time on us.
This letter and any further to it will be put on Twitter, for though, as no doubt you can tell, my grammar is awful. I have a considerable following and I would like them to see, despite some recent unfortunate comments the conservative party will always protect the weakest in are society and enforce the rights and liberties of those who have done nothing to forsake or be undeserving of them.
Friday, 17 June 2011
Philip Davies
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/01.htm#d2e63
Philip Davies : I went to visit a charity called Mind in Bradford a few years ago. One of the great scandals that the Labour party would like to sweep under the carpet is that in this country only about 16%—I stand to be corrected on the figure—of people with learning difficulties and learning disabilities have a job. The others are unemployed, but why is that? I spoke to people at Mind who were using the service offered by that charity, and they were completely up front with me about things. They described what would happen when someone with mental health problems went for a job and other people without these problems had also applied. They asked me, “Who would you take on?” They accepted that it was inevitable that the employer would take on the person who had no mental health problems, as all would have to be paid the same rate. Given that some of those people with a learning disability cannot, by definition, be as productive in their work as someone who does not have a disability of that nature, and given that the employer would have to pay the two people the same, it was inevitable that the employer would take on the person who was going to be more productive and less of a risk. The situation was doing the people with learning difficulties a huge disservice.
As I said at the start of my remarks, the national minimum wage has been of great benefit to lots of low-paid people. However, if the Labour party is not even prepared to accept that the minimum wage is making it harder for some of those vulnerable people to get on the first rung of the jobs ladder, we will never get anywhere in trying to help these people into employment.
Philip Davies: I made my position clear in my earlier remarks but, given how uninteresting I am, I forgive the hon. Gentleman for perhaps nodding off during that section. I did make it clear at the outset that I did not agree with the national minimum wage in principle. I said I thought that what somebody was prepared to work for and what somebody was prepared to pay was a private matter between two people and it should not be interfered with by the Government. The big difference between him and me is that I would much prefer the person with the learning disability to be given the opportunity to get a job, do something worth while and contribute in a way that they want to, whereas he would prefer them to be sat at home, unable to get a job in the first place. He may think that he is taking the moral high ground by believing that it is far better for these people to be sat at home unemployed without any opportunity, but I do not
Philip Davies: I will tell the hon. Gentleman what is an outrage. It is an outage that in 1997, 47,000 people had been on incapacity benefit for five years or more, but by the time his party had ruined the country that figure had risen to 1.5 million. That is an outrage that he should be reflecting upon. He should think about the fact that so many people were either priced out of the jobs market or were just out of that market as a result of his Government’s policies. That happened either because of the national minimum wage or because the benefits system penalised people for going out to work. That is the real outrage, rather than what he is pointing out.
Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, it is very easy for everyone to try to sweep such matters under the carpet, but we would be doing this place a great disservice if we did. I am appalled that Labour Members, who supposedly—as they claim—represent the most vulnerable in society, are perfectly happy for those people never to be given the opportunity to get a job as a consequence of Labour’s policies either on this matter or on benefits.
Mr Leigh: My hon. Friend is making an important contribution and it is important that we have thi
Philip Davies: The point is that if an employer is considering two candidates, one who has disabilities and one who does not, and if they have to pay them both the same rate, which is the employer more likely to take on? Whether that is right or wrong and whether my hon. Friend would or would not do that, that is to me the real world in which we operate. The people who are penalised are those with disabilities who are desperate to make a contribution to society and who want to get on the employment ladder, but find time and again that the door is closed in their face. If they could prove themselves earlier and reassure the employer who took them on that they would not cause a problem in the way the employer might fear—I am sure that there are a lot of myths out there and that many of these people would be just as productive as those without a disability—they might well move up the pay rates much more quickly. At the moment, they are not getting any opportunities at all.
We all know that some employers break the law and pay below the national minimum wage, but it strikes me that the only way employers are likely to get away with that is if they employ illegal immigrants. If an employer is employing a British citizen or someone who is here legally and tries paying them below the minimum wage, legal action can be taken against them, they will face a huge fine and the employee can do something about it. If that employer is employing an illegal immigrant, the power rests with the employer, because they will judge that the illegal immigrant will not take up the case officially. If they do, their illegal status in this country will be exposed and they will be turfed out of the country.
One consequence of the national minimum wage is that it encourages illegal immigration into this country. Illegal immigrants know that they can get employment below the national minimum wage and are happy to do so because it is probably higher than the wage they would earn back in their country. They also know that they will have no problem getting a job because some employers will be crying out for someone whom they can pay less than the national minimum wage. I am not sure whether any research has been done on this, but I would be interested to know how much illegal immigration into this country has come about as a result of the introduction of a national minimum wage.
Whatever the effects on employment of a minimum wage are in general, its effects in a recession must be worse. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch may well have made this point before I entered the Chamber, as I was a few minutes late, but people will recall that at the start of the credit crunch, or recession, a couple of companies—my hon. Friend, who is more knowledgeable on this than I am, will correct me if I am wrong, but I am sure that those companies were JCB and Corus—told the people working there that the wage bill needed to be reduced by 20%, so either 20% of the staff could be made redundant or everyone could take a 20% pay cut. One way or another that wage bill had to be reduced. If I remember rightly, the workers in those places—JCB sticks in my mind in particular—got together and voted to take a 20% pay cut. They made that choice themselves. Rather than being made redundant, they chose to take a pay cut.
Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is right and reinforces my point. Those people decided they would prefer a 20% cut to risking a 20% chance of being made redundant.
Philip Davies : I went to visit a charity called Mind in Bradford a few years ago. One of the great scandals that the Labour party would like to sweep under the carpet is that in this country only about 16%—I stand to be corrected on the figure—of people with learning difficulties and learning disabilities have a job. The others are unemployed, but why is that? I spoke to people at Mind who were using the service offered by that charity, and they were completely up front with me about things. They described what would happen when someone with mental health problems went for a job and other people without these problems had also applied. They asked me, “Who would you take on?” They accepted that it was inevitable that the employer would take on the person who had no mental health problems, as all would have to be paid the same rate. Given that some of those people with a learning disability cannot, by definition, be as productive in their work as someone who does not have a disability of that nature, and given that the employer would have to pay the two people the same, it was inevitable that the employer would take on the person who was going to be more productive and less of a risk. The situation was doing the people with learning difficulties a huge disservice.
As I said at the start of my remarks, the national minimum wage has been of great benefit to lots of low-paid people. However, if the Labour party is not even prepared to accept that the minimum wage is making it harder for some of those vulnerable people to get on the first rung of the jobs ladder, we will never get anywhere in trying to help these people into employment.
Philip Davies: I made my position clear in my earlier remarks but, given how uninteresting I am, I forgive the hon. Gentleman for perhaps nodding off during that section. I did make it clear at the outset that I did not agree with the national minimum wage in principle. I said I thought that what somebody was prepared to work for and what somebody was prepared to pay was a private matter between two people and it should not be interfered with by the Government. The big difference between him and me is that I would much prefer the person with the learning disability to be given the opportunity to get a job, do something worth while and contribute in a way that they want to, whereas he would prefer them to be sat at home, unable to get a job in the first place. He may think that he is taking the moral high ground by believing that it is far better for these people to be sat at home unemployed without any opportunity, but I do not
Philip Davies: I will tell the hon. Gentleman what is an outrage. It is an outage that in 1997, 47,000 people had been on incapacity benefit for five years or more, but by the time his party had ruined the country that figure had risen to 1.5 million. That is an outrage that he should be reflecting upon. He should think about the fact that so many people were either priced out of the jobs market or were just out of that market as a result of his Government’s policies. That happened either because of the national minimum wage or because the benefits system penalised people for going out to work. That is the real outrage, rather than what he is pointing out.
Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, it is very easy for everyone to try to sweep such matters under the carpet, but we would be doing this place a great disservice if we did. I am appalled that Labour Members, who supposedly—as they claim—represent the most vulnerable in society, are perfectly happy for those people never to be given the opportunity to get a job as a consequence of Labour’s policies either on this matter or on benefits.
Mr Leigh: My hon. Friend is making an important contribution and it is important that we have thi
Philip Davies: The point is that if an employer is considering two candidates, one who has disabilities and one who does not, and if they have to pay them both the same rate, which is the employer more likely to take on? Whether that is right or wrong and whether my hon. Friend would or would not do that, that is to me the real world in which we operate. The people who are penalised are those with disabilities who are desperate to make a contribution to society and who want to get on the employment ladder, but find time and again that the door is closed in their face. If they could prove themselves earlier and reassure the employer who took them on that they would not cause a problem in the way the employer might fear—I am sure that there are a lot of myths out there and that many of these people would be just as productive as those without a disability—they might well move up the pay rates much more quickly. At the moment, they are not getting any opportunities at all.
We all know that some employers break the law and pay below the national minimum wage, but it strikes me that the only way employers are likely to get away with that is if they employ illegal immigrants. If an employer is employing a British citizen or someone who is here legally and tries paying them below the minimum wage, legal action can be taken against them, they will face a huge fine and the employee can do something about it. If that employer is employing an illegal immigrant, the power rests with the employer, because they will judge that the illegal immigrant will not take up the case officially. If they do, their illegal status in this country will be exposed and they will be turfed out of the country.
One consequence of the national minimum wage is that it encourages illegal immigration into this country. Illegal immigrants know that they can get employment below the national minimum wage and are happy to do so because it is probably higher than the wage they would earn back in their country. They also know that they will have no problem getting a job because some employers will be crying out for someone whom they can pay less than the national minimum wage. I am not sure whether any research has been done on this, but I would be interested to know how much illegal immigration into this country has come about as a result of the introduction of a national minimum wage.
Whatever the effects on employment of a minimum wage are in general, its effects in a recession must be worse. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch may well have made this point before I entered the Chamber, as I was a few minutes late, but people will recall that at the start of the credit crunch, or recession, a couple of companies—my hon. Friend, who is more knowledgeable on this than I am, will correct me if I am wrong, but I am sure that those companies were JCB and Corus—told the people working there that the wage bill needed to be reduced by 20%, so either 20% of the staff could be made redundant or everyone could take a 20% pay cut. One way or another that wage bill had to be reduced. If I remember rightly, the workers in those places—JCB sticks in my mind in particular—got together and voted to take a 20% pay cut. They made that choice themselves. Rather than being made redundant, they chose to take a pay cut.
Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is right and reinforces my point. Those people decided they would prefer a 20% cut to risking a 20% chance of being made redundant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)