Dec
31
Open Post 31st December
Filed Under Uncategorized | 3 Comments
I’d just like to wish you all a happy new year.
Dec
31
As noted by Megan McArdle at The Atlantic:
The good is that some people who cannot now acquire insurance will get it; even if this does not make them noticeably healthier, it will make them less worried, and insulate them from catastrophic medical bills. If our technocrats get things right, we may improve the practice of medicine–the most hope probably lies in improving IT and streamlining the bloated provider administrative processes.
The bad in my opinion, is that I’m not particularly sanguine about the ability of our technocrats to deliver unmitigated fabulousness, nor our politicians to resist the lobbying groups who will be steadily pressing them to make everything less fabulous. I think we’ll probably end up eventually with price controls that reduce innovation, providers that turn into horrid quasi-public utilities, brain drain out of the medical profession, and pretty serious rationing, which as David Cutler told me the last time I interviewed him, no other country has managed to avoid.
Oh, and there’s a good chance we’ll also end up with a fiscal crisis. Those are usually pretty bad for everyone, but particularly the everyones who rely on government benefits.
Does the good outweigh the bad? You decide.
Dec
31
Real Leadership
Filed Under British Politics | Leave a Comment
The documents relating to Margaret Thatcher’s first year in office have been released under Britains “30 year rule” which determines when previously secret government documents can be released for public perusal. They are evidence of a very determined Prime Minister not prepared to dance around the important issues of the day.
What they show, was a new Prime Minister who was felt to be too inexperienced (even by those on her own side), but who was prepared to stand up to those who may have perceived her as weak, to face up to the problems that beset the country at the time and to set the tone for her subsequent premiership.
Whether it was European bureaucrats, the Soviets, American support for the IRA or her own cabinets measly attempts to reduce the nations debt, Mrs Thatcher was prepared to draw a line in the sand as to what was acceptable to her new Britain, a Britain no longer prepared to be the sick man of Europe. Whatever they thought of her, those that would lock horns with Margeret Thatcher certainly knew where the battle lines were to be drawn.
An interesting example of leadership, which is definitely worth reading about here. I wonder if any other recently elected western leaders might find some useful tips about what is meant by leadership in these examples?
Dec
30
The Wrong Kind Of Commentator
Filed Under General Politics | 14 Comments
Clive and Simon over at Clivedavisconfab.com are worried about the wrong kind of commentators that, in their view are over-represented in the blogosphere. Quoting Tom Harris, Clive Davis puts this on his blog:
There are two types of those blog commenters who spew out an uninterrupted and mostly irrelevant stream of poison: those who use the anonymity of the internet to exaggerate their views, almost as a release mechanism, and who would never say such things to my face because they were brought up properly and, like most people, have a basic concept of decency and civility.
And then there are the others who, I have no doubt, speak in their private lives in exactly the same way that they write on blogs. They’re the scary ones. They’re the ones who genuinely believe everyone around them is as utterly obsessed with the EU, the smoking ban, and the imminence of Labour’s police state as they themselves are.
Simon, in the comments adds:
it’s small group of of mostly old sad and bitter losers who sit at their keyboards all day using the anonymity of net to spew their poison in the worst, weakest and most cowardly way.
Yes, to our technocratic leftist friends, being concerned about the undemocratic nature of the EU, or being worried about the erosions of civil liberties that the smoking ban and the creeping nature of laws that impinge upon our freedoms, is a sign of being a “nutter” or a “sad and bitter loser”.
Why is this a problem? Far better, that strength of feeling is expressed through the medium of commentating on blogs, than using violence to protest in Copenhagen or plotting the murder of hundreds in the skies over America. An inarticulate or ranting blog comment harms no-one and yet the left seem unduly obsessed by the phenomenon. It would be better if they looked in the mirror from time to time and worried about the assaults on our freedoms that their policies are designed to bring about.
Dec
22
Christmas Open Post
Filed Under Uncategorized | 48 Comments
I’m probably not going to be blogging over the Christmas period. Will come back in the new year.
I’d like to wish you all a very very Merry Christmas and would like to thank you all for the support you’ve given this blog in the past year.
Have a wonderful time and I hope to see you all back here in the new year.
Dec
19
An Agreement In Copenhagen
Filed Under American Politics | 13 Comments
Barack Obama touts the agreement as:
“a meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough”.
So that’s a non-biding agreement to aim for no more than a 2 degree increase in temperatures. The fact that “we’re in this together” mentality will serve as the watch-dog to ensure this happens, nothing more binding than that, and that countries will have to self-declare and self-monitor what there targets and actions are.
Well that’s good then. Worth every penny of the $100 billion that the Obama administration are prepared to give away, worth the two weeks and the massive carbon footprint that the Copenhagen summit was. A bugger all solution to a bugger all problem that unfortunately doesn’t cost bugger all.
Gordon Brown calls the agreement a “vital first step”. Couldn’t a “first step” be possible without everyone jetting into Copenhagen in this modern connected world? One would think that this Copenhagen boondoggle should have aimed for “final step” or the “almost there step”. I’m sure the “first step” could have been achieved without private airplanes and chauffeur driven cars. But then how else would Al Gore have been able to promote his ‘poem’?
Sarcasm aside; I think one are in which Obama should get some plaudits, is that he was able to get the agreement with Russia and India. In the present debate, that’s no small achievement. The question is, what did he have to do to get them on board as they were threatening to pull out. Obama had to have some agreement out of his visit to Copenhagen. Another failed visit to that city (the Olympics being the first) wouldn’t have served his reputation as someone able to persuade the world very much.
Dec
19
Open Post 19/20th December
Filed Under Uncategorized | 8 Comments
Dec
19
Rep. Alan Grayson Is Nuts
Filed Under American Politics | Leave a Comment
Democratic pitbull Congressman Alan Grayson has written to Attorney General Eric Holder asking that Angie Langley, a Republican activist and proprietor of the website www.mycongressmanisnuts.com, (you see where I got the title for this post?) be imprisoned for five years. The essence of his complaint is that as she doesn’t live in his congressional district, using the “my” in the website title is fraudulent. Well that’s something worth five years in prison!
Laughingly, Alan Grayson makes this reference in the letter to Eric Holder:
Ms. Langley has chosen a name for her committee that is utterly tasteless and juvenile. Of the thousands of campaign committees reporting to the FEC, I doubt that any other one sinks this low.
Let us remind ourselves of what really is “tasteless and juvenile”:
1. Alan Grayson on national television said that Dick Cheney should “STFU!” (that’s “shut the f**k up!” for those who don’t get the acronym).
2. He called a female advisor to Ben Bernanke a “K Street whore”.
3. He said that Republicans wanted sick Americans to “die quickly”
4. And of Dick Cheney, he said:
“I have trouble listening to what he says sometimes because of the blood that drips from his teeth while he’s talking.”
So to hear a national politician who can enter that kind of political dialogue into the national debate, accuse a non-politician of being “tasteless and juvenile” is really quite pathetic. And then to request the nations Attorney General imprison that person for five years because of a website title says a great deal about how this liberal hero views freedom of speech.
Well at least the Cook Report has listed Alan Grayson’s district as a toss-up, one of those that the Democrats are most likely to lose in 2010. So America won’t have to put up with this thin skinned certifiable joke for much longer.
You know? I think he might in fact be “nuts!”.
Dec
17
From Despair To Hope
Filed Under American Politics | 53 Comments
My heart sunk as I started reading this post at HotAir.com about a gay conservative organisation called GOPROUD seeking to participate at CPAC, the conference for conservative activists. It seems some conservatives aren’t all that keen on them taking part:
The Conservative Political Action Conference is the pinnacle of events for conservative activists. Held annually in Washington DC in the winter, it aggregates hundreds of conservative activist groups and thousands of attendees, and attracts high-profile figures on the Right, including national and regional politicians hoping to tap CPAC’s energy. Not all of these groups agree with each other on all issues, and sometimes the close quarters results in some entertaining debates (and sometimes just silly displays, such as the porpoise that followed Mitt Romney throughout the Omni in 2007). But the inclusion of a conservative coalition of gays, GOProud, has created calls for the ACU and CPAC to cut off GOProud’s sponsorship and attendance at CPAC as well as a few rumblings of a boycott among social conservatives.
Has it come to this? One can’t be welcomed under the conservative umbrella just because one is gay? If that were the case, the conservative movement would deserve all the criticism it gets. Just so we understand how GOPROUD define themselves, here are their ten principles reported at HotAir:
1 – TAX REFORM – Death tax repeal; domestic partner tax equity, and other changes to the tax code that will provide equity for gays and lesbians; cut in the capital gains and corporate tax rates to jump start our economy and create jobs; a fairer, flatter and substantially simpler tax code.
2 – HEALTHCARE REFORM – Free market healthcare reform. Legislation that will allow for the purchase of insurance across state lines – expanding access to domestic partner benefits; emphasizing individual ownership of healthcare insurance – such a shift would prevent discriminatory practices by an employer or the government.
3 – SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM – Bringing basic fairness to the Social Security system through the creation of inheritable personal savings accounts.
4 – DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL REPEAL – Repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.
5 – HOLDING THE LINE ON SPENDING – Standing up for all tax payers against wasteful and unnecessary spending to protect future generations from the mounting federal debt.
6 – FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS – Standing strong against radical regimes who seek to criminalize gays and lesbians.
7 – DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION – Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment.
8 – ENCOURAGING COMMUNITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP – Package of free market reforms to encourage and support small businesses and entrepreneurship in the gay community.
9 – REVITALIZING OUR COMMUNITIES – A package of urban related reforms; expanding historic tax preservation credits; support for school choice.
10 – DEFENDING OUR COMMUNITY – Protecting 2nd amendment rights.
With the exception of the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, principles don’t really come more conservative than that. If they aren’t allowed into the big tent, who is?
So that was my despair (somewhat exacerbated by a Christian work colleague who declared today that “all gays should be wiped off the face of the earth”. Nice chap).
But then I read the comment thread for Ed Morrissey’s post supportive of GOPROUD and by a massive majority, the commentators are fully supportive of GOPROUD’s inclusion in the conservative movement.
For a while there I slipped into the liberal mindset that conservatives aren’t interested in welcoming all and sundry into their movement. It’s nice to be reminded just how wrong-headed that view is.
Dec
17
A Seismic Shift!?!
Filed Under American Politics | 9 Comments
Last week a Rasmussen poll asked the hypothetical question about who people would vote for should a tea-party party exist. It outpolled Republicans:
Democratic Party 36%
Tea-Party Party – 23%
Republicans – 18%
They’ve now shot into the lead in the latest NBC/WSJ poll:
Tea-Party Party – 41%
Democratic Party – 35%
Republican Party – 28%
In truth, NBC are asking a different question to Rasmussen; not “who would you vote for”, but “do you have a favourable/unfavourable view of the respective parties?” But even so, that’s a remarkable ascendancy.
To be honest, I don’t see the Tea Party phenomena being maintained as thoughts are concentrated towards the 2010 election. Once the Democrats get the healthcare fiasco behind them (win or lose), they’ll put forward some sort of jobs bill* which should get them some of their mojo back and Republicans will focus on a unified electoral message that will encapsulate much of the Tea Party philosophy. The Tea Partiers will be pulled in both directions.
But it is yet more evidence of the potential dramas ahead for incumbents of both political parties. Very few Congressional seats will be seen as safe as we head into the electoral season.
* However, if they try an illegals amnesty bill, then that could boost the tea-partiers even more.