Here comes communism?

"Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalized, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism."

Karl Marx, Das Kapital, his doctrine of the theory of surplus value


UPDATE:
It appears that I have been spoofed, this is not a Karl Marx quotation; oops.




Thanks(?) to Theo Spark for the spot.

Baby elephant aah time

Bless

Good boy Crick, good boy

Most of the media are full of the allegations about four Labour peers agreeing to take money to try and change laws. Meanwhile the BBC are trying to spin the story into one about House of Lords regulation and reform. And I note that Michael Crick has popped up with a reminder of the "Tory sleaze" story of last year - the Caroline Spelman Nannygate affair. Well done Michael; Gordon, Peter and Alastair will be pleased with you.

Free speech in the "Mother of Parliaments"

Archbishop Cranmer brings news of a worrying affront to freedom of speech.

"It appears that a member of the House of Lords had invited the Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, to a private meeting in the Palace of Westminster. She had intended to invite her colleagues in the Lords to a private viewing of his ‘documentary’ Fitna, followed by discussion and debate in true parliamentary fashion. This is, after all, a liberal democracy, and their lordships enjoy the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of association, not to mention certain parliamentary privileges for the protection of their function in the legislature.

But no sooner had the unsuspecting baroness sent out her invitations, Lord Ahmed raised hell. It is reported that he ‘threatened to mobilise 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr Wilders from entering the House and threatened to take the colleague who was organising the event to court’.

And so Fitna has been cancelled: it shall not now be screened in the House of Lords on 29th January.

The Pakistani Press is jubliant, and Lord Ahmed is praising Allah for delivering ‘a victory for the Muslim community’."

Since the BBC will not be reporting this story or any background I suppose I shall
have to.

This is the same Lord Ahmed who in February 2005 hosted a book-launch for a known anti-Semite in the House of Lords. The Times report of the time includes the following:

"On February 23, Lord Ahmed hosted a book launch in the House of Lords for a man going by the name of Israel Shamir. “Israel Shamir” is, in fact, a Swedish-domiciled anti-Semite also known as Jöran Jermas.

The gist of Shamir/Jermas’s speech at the meeting can be gleaned from its title, “Jews and the Empire”. It included observations such as: “All the [political] parties are Zionist-infiltrated.” “Your newspapers belong to Zionists . . . Jews indeed own, control and edit a big share of mass media, this mainstay of Imperial thinking.” “In the Middle East we have just one reason for wars, terror and trouble — and that is Jewish supremacy drive . . . in Iraq, the US and its British dependency continue the same old fight for ensuring Jewish supremacy in the Middle East.” “The Jews like an Empire . . . This love of Empire explains the easiness Jews change their allegiance . . . Simple minds call it ‘treacherous behaviour’, but it is actually love of Empire per se.” “Now, there is a large and thriving Muslim community in England . . . they are now on the side of freedom, against the Empire, and they are not afraid of enforcers of Judaic values, Jewish or Gentile. This community is very important in order to turn the tide.”

Why would Lord Ahmed have hosted such a man in the Lords? It is, of course, possible that Lord Ahmed had no idea that Shamir/Jermas was a rabid anti-Semite. Yet it takes only a quick Google to discover his views and background. He has worked for Zavtra, Russia’s most anti-Semitic publication, and is allied with the Vanguard News Network, set up by an American, Alex Linder — a man so extreme that he was even ostracised by the US neo-Nazi National Alliance.

Indeed, Shamir/Jermas’s own website proudly reprints his views: “Jews asked God to kill, destroy, humiliate, exterminate, defame, starve, impale Christians, to usher in Divine Vengeance and to cover God’s mantle with blood of goyim . . . ” “The Ashkenazi Jews believed that spilled Jewish blood has a magic effect of calling down Divine Vengeance on the heads of the Gentiles . . . The picture of Jews slaughtering children for cultic reasons exerted huge impact on the Christian peoples of Europe.” On and on it goes. "

And how did Lord Ahmed respond to questions about Shamir/Jermas? -

"On learning of its contents, I wrote to Lord Ahmed, asking him two questions. Did he consider the invitation to have been a mistake? Did he condemn the remarks? He did not reply.

Yesterday, I phoned him. When I told him that I planned to write a piece drawing attention to his actions in hosting Shamir/Jermas and that I wanted to give him every opportunity to respond, he replied: “I am not even going to speak with you.” He then put the phone down. "

Maybe Lord Ahmed could explain why it is acceptable for him to host a book launch for a known anti-Semite but not for a Baroness to host a Dutch MP, show his film 'Fitna' and hold a discussion.



In case you were wondering, I believe that this is the same Lord Ahmed that in November last year was "to be prosecuted for dangerous driving after someone allegedly sent a text message from his mobile phone shortly before a fatal motorway crash.". Another story about a Labour politician that the BBC saw fit to only minimally cover.



If you want to see Fitna, then Wikileaks currently have it available to view.

Are the BBC going easy on Labour

The answer is clearly yes and it has been the case for a long while. Here's an article from the Mail via Prison Planet from September 2008:

"The BBC was at the centre of a political bias row last night over claims a senior executive told reporters to ‘go easy’ on the Labour Government now it is lagging behind the Tories in the polls.

According to a well-placed source, the man in charge of BBC Radio 4’s flagship Today In Parliament told his staff that it was right to be ‘aggressive’ when things were going well for the Government but not when it was in trouble.

Some of those present were outraged by the comments attributed to Peter Knowles, editor of the BBC’s parliamentary programmes, at an ‘away day’ gathering in London.

‘He appeared to be saying the BBC should lay off Gordon Brown because Labour was in trouble,’ said a source.

‘It was appalling. The BBC should be rigorous and fair at all times. To suggest anything else – especially when a General Election is not far off – is extraordinary. It did not hold back when John Major’s Government was in trouble.’

BBC management strongly denied Mr Knowles had made the comments and said it was ‘absurd’ to claim orders had gone out to ‘go easy’ on Labour.

A spokesman confirmed Mr Knowles, 46, discussed political impartiality at the away day for staff on Radio 4’s Today In Parliament and Yesterday In Parliament. But he insisted the purpose was to stress the importance of avoiding political bias. ‘We do not discuss private team meetings,’ said the spokesman. ‘But any talks about the impartiality of BBC News are aimed at ensuring complete impartiality for all political parties, not the reverse.’" "

For the BBC to call itself impartial is a sick joke, their political bias is clear and obvious and I am sure that I (and others) could list their built-in prejudices with ease.

Here comes another "run" on a bank

The Mail reports that:

"The Post Office has written to 500,000 account holders telling them their money is no longer covered by the UK savings protection scheme. Instead, they will have to put their trust in the Irish version. But with banks there in as bad a state as our own - and the economy probably worse - is it time to bring your money home?

Two Dublin-based banks - Anglo Irish and Bank of Ireland - have attracted hundreds of thousands of UK depositors in recent years.

At various times, Anglo Irish has offered best-buy fixed-rate bonds. And Bank of Ireland, through its joint venture with the Post Office, has hundreds of thousands of UK account holders, with more than £6billion in cash Isas, bonds and easy-access accounts.

The systems to safeguard these deposits are complex and have changed in recent months. Protection for savers with those two banks now depends solely on the strength of the Irish economy, which is being questioned more than ever before.

...

The problem for savers locked into fixed-rate deals with the Post Office or Anglo Irish is especially acute. They must weigh up any risk of losing their money against the higher returns they may enjoy and which they would lose if they pulled out their money and put it into a UK bank. But what would happen to small savers if the Irish government failed to keep its banks afloat?

The scary answer is that nobody knows.

The FSCS and the Financial Services Authority say that legally they can take no responsibility in cases where banks are not part of the UK scheme. Commentators say it is possible - though by no means certain - that the European Central Bank would help because Ireland is in the eurozone.

But that would not necessarily mean UK deposits were secure. Equally, the UK Government might decide to step in and assist UK depositors, as it did partially in the case of Icelandic banks, but there is no guarantee of that."

Could this lead to a "run" on one of these banks?

The answer is probably not, but it is yet another nail in the coffin of confidence in the World banking system.

Israel and its new gas reserves

Are these two news stories connected? "Israel finds huge natural gas reserve" and "Will Bible lead to oil reserve under Israel? - Company using verses to map out drill sites in Holy Land"?

In the past it often struck me as unfair that Israel had no real oil or gas reserves whilst many of its neighbours were awash with the stuff. That was one of the reasons that I was impressed when Israel gave back the Sinai desert including its oil wells back to Egypt in return for peace. I have my fears that Israel will be destroyed from without and within over the next 10 years, maybe this gas find will help delay this.

Another story that the BBC won't be covering, preferring instead to cover Israel's wickedness

Reuters report that:

"A bomb attack by Sudanese government planes on a town in southern Darfur killed and wounded civilians, peacekeepers said on Sunday in the first independent verification of civilian fatalities.

The joint U.N./African Union UNAMID force said it did not know how many were killed when the jet fighter dropped at least two bombs on rebel-held Muhajiriya on Saturday.

Sudan's armed forces were not available for comment.

Air attacks in Darfur are forbidden under a 2006 peace deal and U.N. Security Council resolutions.

The raid followed more than a week of clashes and air attacks in and around the south Darfur town that have amounted to some of the worst violence in a year, said analysts."

So why would the BBC ignore a story about an African government's armed forces bombing a town and killing civilians in contravention of a peace deal and UN Security Council resolutions? What is so special about the Israel/Palestinian conflict that the BBC have to report every story about it whilst ignoring the more serious conflicts in Africa?

"I believe there were no gas chambers"

Pope Benedict XVI has rescinded the ex-communication of Bishop Richard Williamson who has publicly denied the murder of six million Jews during World War II. You can see a video of "Bishop" Richard Williamson explaining his views in the video below, the title quotation can be heard 0:53-0:55.

"‘Soviet’ Britain swells amid the recession"

True but very worrying article.

Laying myself open to ridicule

Political Betting have published "The PB100 predictions for 2009". I am in the competition, this could get embarrassing. Oh well so long as I beat Iain Dale, interestingly I am at position 28 to Iain's 30.

The George Orwell Prize

The George Orwell Prize is worth following.

Matthew Parris has some really bad news for us

Matthew Parris has some really bad news for us - "There's no new motor to drive the economy". Do read the whole article and then sleep well...

Ken Clarke seems to at least partially agree.

As does Peter Oborne.

Sleep might be getting even trickier than normal tonight.

Is the UK economy really that screwed

Fraser Nelson reports that:

"CitiGroup is now forecasting a 3.3% contraction of the economy this year – last month it was forecasting a 2.5% drop. It says in the note “Apologies for the frequent updates, but the economy is in freefall”. So is Britain well placed to handle the downturn?, I hand over to Michael Saunders from Citi when discussing the 3.3% GDP drop he now expects for this year:

“To put that in context, no G7 country has recorded a GDP decline of more than 3% in any year during the last 50 years. And it may be even worse. If GDP continues to fall by 1.5% QoQ during 2009, then GDP will fall by about 5% in 2009 as a whole. To put that in context, this would be similar to the worst year of the 1930s slump (1931),which saw UK GDP plunge 5.5%.... From here, a recession that lasts for only a year or two would qualify as a relatively good outcome.”

I believe a 10% drop in GDP constitutes a depression, looks like we are heading for a depression.

Although if you want to think positive, Chris Giles and Andrew Bounds in the FT think differently:

"So rather than a sudden bust, recourse to the IMF and a collapse in sterling, the most plausible outlook in these highly uncertain times is that a deep and nasty recession eventually ends and a new economy emerges for the next decade.

But that will feel like no new dawn. The overhang of debt is likely, in contrast to the past decade, to result in lower growth, persistently higher unemployment, lower house prices, extremely tight public expenditure, higher taxes, higher borrowing costs and a slower rise in prosperity. It is not much to look forward to."

We have come a long way when the above sentence can be described as a positive view...

Do read the whole of Chris Giles and Andrew Bounds' piece, I found it strangely reassuring. I would like to believe their premise that the UK is not on the edge of a precipice with nothing but poverty and despair to come, I really would. Should I believe them with their positive reports of Moody’s Investors Service view that:

"Britain was not about to be downgraded, saying “the UK has enough vitality as an economy to rebound” and “the government has enough room to cut spending when the crisis abates and, even more, to raise taxes to keep debt dynamics under control over time”."

and that:

"Investors agree. Yields on government bonds remain at historic lows – even if the spread between gilts and German bunds has risen a touch in recent weeks. There have yet been no problems in financing the government in recent bond auctions – unlike Germany – and the fall in sterling makes the values more attractive to many foreign investors.

Most UK economists have also been irritated by Mr Rogers’ suggestion that rats should be leaving Britain’s sinking ship. Ross Walker, an economist at Royal Bank of Scotland, was so riled he joined a colleague in writing an open letter to Mr Rogers accusing him of lacking rigour. “As with most developed economies, manufacturing is shrinking as a share of [gross domestic product] but – even in the UK – is still larger than the financial intermediation sector,” he wrote. Britain remains the world’s sixth largest manufacturing power."

or should I believe the alternative and more popular (!) opinion that we are economically screwed.

Barack Obama's choice as Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner

Timothy Geithner has problems...

"Timothy Geithner apologized to Congress Wednesday for what he called "careless mistakes" in failing to pay $34,000 in taxes and moved closer to confirmation as treasury secretary and the Obama administration's point man in reviving the economy."

Read the rest, business as usual in the Chicago political machine man's camp.

1929 parallels

Back in December 2007 I first blogged about the parallels between now and 1929. In fact I have been linking our economic prospects with that of 1929 for around four years. Up until two weeks ago I was being derided for this opinion but now colleagues are a bit more worried.

"How Gorbals Mick used our money to pulp guide to MPs' expenses"

The Mail has the details:

"Commons Speaker Michael Martin was accused last night of a ‘disgraceful waste of money’ after pulping a new guide on MPs’ expenses over fears it would reignite the row over his own travel claims.

The Speaker ordered officials to scrap a report outlining a new regime for MPs’ expenses just hours before it was due to be published when he discovered it referred to travel claims between Westminster and his home city of Glasgow.

To the astonishment of MPs and officials, the 57-page document was withdrawn at public expense and two references to Glasgow were replaced by Edinburgh – just to spare Mr Martin’s blushes.

Mr Martin sparked protests last year when it emerged that he had used air miles earned on official business – including flights to and from his Glasgow constituency – to fly members of his family from Scotland to London.

And the former sheet metal worker also came under fire over a £24,000 bill for flying his wife Mary to and from Glasgow – all paid by the taxpayer."

Michael Martin what an adornment to the Country he is.

Protecting the party (update 2)

News Sniffer reveals the first version of the story that I reported upon here and then here as being somewhat less protective of the Labour party. Here is the original headline of version 0: "Peer denies cash for law changes" and the opening sentences:

"The former Energy Minister, Lord Truscott, has denied offering to put down amendments to legislation in the House of Lords in return for money.

A Sunday Times investigation claimed an undercover reporter had discussed fees of up to �72,000 with the peer. And it said three other Labour peers were prepared to help get legislation amended in return for cash. Lord Truscott told the BBC that "to suggest I would offer to put down amendments for money is a lie". The peer did admit to having had "discussions" with the reporter."

What is the BBC up to? The latest BBC news article tells us that the BBC cannot keep this story quiet, apparently:

"The Liberal Democrats have called for a police inquiry into allegations that four Labour peers were prepared to accept money to change proposed laws.

Home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said if the claims, made in the Sunday Times newspaper, were true a criminal offence would have been committed.

The four are said to have offered to amend laws in return for up to £120,000 - claims that they all deny.

The Leader of the House of Lords has promised a full investigation.

Lady Royall said she had spoken to the men concerned and would be "pursuing the matter with utmost vigour", while a Lords committee is expected to undertake an inquiry soon. "

This one could run and run, I suggest keeping an eye on Guido Fawkes site this week.

UN secrecy

Read this story and wonder why we bother with the pretence that the UN is a force for good.

"A television production crew was expelled Thursday from a United Nations meeting discussing freedom of expression and defamation of religions.

Two journalists from the French-German cultural channel ARTE were asked to leave a meeting room at the UN's European headquarters during a public session of a human rights body preparing for a racism conference in South Africa later this year.

The journalists were working on a documentary on how the issue of human rights is debated at the United Nations.

According to a diplomatic source, the expulsion announced by the chairman of the session, Russian representative Yuri Boychenko, was requested by the Organisation of Islamic Conference and by the African group of states."

Protecting the party (update)

Further to my post this morning it seems that the BBC have changed their coverage of this story. The relevant page now reads:

"Allegations that four peers were prepared to accept money to change laws will be fully investigated, the leader of the House of Lords has said.

The Sunday Times alleges they offered to help amend proposed legislation in return for up to £120,000, claims which all four of them have denied.

Lady Royall said she had spoken to the men concerned and would be "pursuing the matter with utmost vigour".

She also said House of Lords members must "abide by its high standards." "

Remember this morning the page started: ""'Concern' over peers cash claims - The leader of the House of Lords says she is "deeply concerned" over allegations four peers were prepared to accept money to put down amendments.

The Sunday Times claims they offered to help make amendments to legislation in return for up to £120,000.

Lady Royall told the BBC she had spoken to the four Labour peers concerned and would be "pursuing the matter with utmost vigour". ""

So the BBC have reacted to complaints about their tardiness in covering this story and their hiding of the Labour party links by removing the Labour party links from the beginning of their coverage.

Do the BBC realise quite how biased they are? Do they care? Are they so tied up with Labour that they just don't care any more?