Canada, key allies storm out of UN nuclear meeting in protest of Iran’s ‘Israeli genocide’ remarks

Iran accuses Israel of genocide, some countries' representatives walk out but not William 'all mouth no trousers' Hague.

National Post have the details of which country's representatives have a moral backbone and which don't.

John Redwood is not impressed with the latest piece of Quantative Easing

John Redwood is not impressed with the latest piece of Quantative Easing

'How silly of me not to realise we could simply create £75 billion to sort out our problems.  Now we are told we can, maybe we should ask what we should do with the new money?

It seems such a pity just to go on buying government bonds with it. After all, taxpayers have £199 billion of them in the Bank already. They are not a lot of fun, and do not seem to do a lot of good. Once you have  got some, having more does not add a lot.

We could, for example, give every man, woman and child  in the country £1250 each to spend as they like. They could use it to pay off the credit card debt, or meet the tax bills on their petrol. It would help with the Council  Tax and the VAT. As the main problem over the last year has been the drop in  consumer spending, this would offer a way of boosting it. Funny how the authorities never want the punters to have any of the new money.

Or we could use the £75 billion to recapitalise the state owned banks. They could write off  their losses for that, and have a load of new capital to lend. That too could do a lot to promote recovery.

We could decide to spend it on a big capital programme. It would buy plenty of roads, railway capacity, energy supply and broadband access. We could all be given free shares in the projects and companies established with the money.

Or the government could just use the money to pay its bills direct, instead of going through the mechanics of buying in old government loans, and then issuing new ones to pay for the excess of spending over income.

Come to think of it, why don’t we always pay for public expenditure like that? Why do we go through the painful process of demanding tax revenue from people, when you could just print some more tenners? Is there a snag the MPC haven’t spotted yet? Why pause at £275 billion?

The Bank will have a nice tidy income from the gilts it buys in. The government could simply cancel all the bonds the Bank owns, to get its interest bill down. Come to think of it, why stop at just £275 billion for doing that? The more you   buy in and cancel , the less interest you have to pay.That would monetise the lot, and should prevent the deflation the Bank must fear.

Why do so many spoil sports and jeremiahs write in to this site to say this is a bad idea?  Does the Bank think there are any   limits to electronic money?

We are owed a proper explanation from the Bank of why they think printing money when inflation is already 5.2% is a good idea.  Just telling us yet again that inflation will fall and that we are in the midst of the worst crisis ever is not a sufficient argument for actions that savers will fear.

Maybe the Bank does  worry that the banking problems remain acute. If so, the right approach is to seek actions to create strong banks out of the weak banks that currently spook the system. We need honest money.

In the UK there is no substitute for sorting out RBS.'

I could not put it better myself, so I haven't.

This country's economy is heading for disaster and the 'Conservative led government' seems to be accelerating the process.

Theresa May and the Human Rights Act

I was preparing a barnstorming piece on Theresa May's missed opportunity to attack this iniquitous piece of legislation but then I read Gildas the Monk's article on Anna Raccoon and I thought why bother; this article says it all and far more eloquently than I could have managed. So go read it all, here are a few excerpts to whet your appetite:

'I quite like Theresa May. It may be because I am an inveterate flirt and quite like posh women with fancy tastes in shoes. I don’t know. And when she makes a serious point that the legal system is being abused by a motley collection – nay, army – of thieves, murderers, drug dealers and malefactors who make hay in the United Kingdom by virtue of the “Yuman Rights” Act, she should be on solid ground with me.

The “Yuman Rights” Act, by the way, is an Act of Parliament which says that if you are a law abiding citizen of this country you are not allowed to complain if some Somali pirate with a penchant for knife crime stabs someone in the neck and we cannot throw him out of the country, back into the nasty pit whence he crawled. Provided, that is, he has managed to sire some offspring with one of his crack whores first, in which case he has a “right to family life” and is entitled to remain here. Usually at public expense.

...

Why can’t politicians get their speeches to back up what they are saying with hard fact? As I leafed through the Sunday Times a couple of days ago, for example, I noticed an article on page 20 which detailed the systematic abuse of Human Rights law to avoid extradition by Albanian criminals found guilty in their absence of crimes, including murder using a sub machine gun (at a cost of millions to the tax payer).

And the case of a Mr Siraj Yassin Abdullah Ali. Mr Ali was sentenced to nine years for helping the 21/7 bombers who killed more than fifty innocent people and maimed and seriously injured many more, but he can’t be deported because he might face “inhuman treatment” in his native Eritrea. Which begs some questions. Why was he here in first place? How was he allowed in? How did he get here? What will happen when, not if, he is released? Presumably he will vote Tory and join a golf club? Maybe not…

I am a great believer in the maxim that if you are going to do something, you had better do it well. If you are going to put the boot into the lunatic Human Rights industry, take a good long run up, and put that boot in properly and hard, right where it hurts. Get your facts rigorously right. If you wish to complain about the bloody cat, quote the judgement, quote the words, set the context…

Be relentless, merciless, dry, and to the point. Find the best examples. Spell them out in soulless, cold, unremitting and accurate detail. Tell us the costs of the fiasco in lawyers fees. The case is crying out to be made.'

Interesting breaking news re the killer of WPC Yvonne Fletcher

I hear rumours that the Libyan rebel 'governmnet' has confirmed that they know the whereabouts of Matouk Mohammed Matouk, the man suspected of shooting WPC Yvonne Fletcher dead outside the Libyan Embassy in 1984. Will they extradite him back to the UK to finally face trial, or will they prove as obstructive, on this matter, as was Colonel Gadaffi's regime? If the latter then this should be unacceptable to UK government bearing in mind how much money UK have helping Libyan rebels defeat Gadaffi. However don't expect strong words, let alone deeds from William Hague.