UK taxpayers fund Islamist enemy

Anjem Choudhary leads Islam4UK, an Islamist group that wants UK residents to embrace Islam and the UK government to submit to it, and for the UK to become an Islamist state.

He has received much publicity lately for organising a protest march in the town of Wootton Bassett, which holds unofficial public mourning events when the coffins of soldiers returned from Iraq and Afghanistan arrive from the nearby RAF Lineham base.

Choudhary wants a counter protest to represent the "Muslims who have died" implicitly due to UK involvement in war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He claims they are the true victims.

Choudhary has long expressed views contrary to that of Western civilisation, celebrating the 9/11 terrorists as "martyrs", he refused to condemn the 2005 bombings in London and has long called for Sharia law to be implemented in the UK.

Now it is discovered that this enemy of the British political system and way of life is being funded by the taxpayer. He is a welfare parasite according to Guido Fawkes, getting around £25,000 a year from the taxpayer. The beloved welfare state funding, feeding, clothing, housing a man who effectively incites terrorism (but dances delicately along the line of not breaking the law as he does). He can't be deported as he was born here, but he gives a damned good reason for why the welfare state should be abolished.

Meanwhile, the appropriate response is to counter the views he expresses, to damn Islamism and damn the idea of an Islamic state for the UK. His views need to be confronted, his lies about what British troops are doing in Afghanistan exposed for what they are, and it's a good enough reason for serious questions to be asked as to why this man can claim so much on welfare.

Iceland's revolt

Iceland has suffered more than most countries in Europe from the recent recession, not least because it became the host for a series of financial institutions that have since failed. The most notable one is Icesave, which borrowed heavily to establish itself as an institution engaged extensively in providing credit for property and offering high interest bearing bank accounts.

Like other banks that have failed in this part of the world, none of those in the sector drew any attention to the nature of the operation, and the UK regulator - the Financial Services Authority (FSA) - happily rubber stamped it all. In other words, what it did was officially approved as being robust. With Icesave, among others, very highly leveraged, the financial crisis saw it unable to rollover its debt facilities, so it all came to a tumbling end. Hundreds of thousands of depositors in the UK, Netherlands and Germany found their accounts frozen, all assuming that with state "endorsement", their money would be "safe". So the UK government decided that other UK taxpayers should bail out the depositors. Not for a moment did Gordon Brown argue that depositors should have thought more carefully, not for a moment did he seek to fire the FSA for being effectively useless, not for a moment did he think about taxpayers over investors.

So having done this, the UK looked to recover some of this from Iceland, effectively demanding Icelandic taxpayers pay the UK for its policies. Quite what Icelandic taxpayers have to do with a private Icelandic company is beyond me, after all it was a policy choice by Gordon "borrow" Brown to bail out depositors. The Icelandic government agreed to cover a portion of the deposit costs, under significant pressure, but Iceland's taxpayers have turned on their government.

The total cost of this foolish promise is £3.6 billion, for a country with the population of greater Wellington. Allister Heath in City AM points out the scale of this, which explains why nearly a third of Iceland's adult population has signed a petition demanding the President veto legislation authorising the deal:

the proposal will now be put to a referendum and crushed. The sums involved are huge: 40-60 per cent of Iceland’s national income, taking the national debt to 200 per cent of GDP. Each of Iceland’s 304,000 citizen would have to pay £11,700 without getting shares or any assets in return. The money would be gone for good. Imagine if UK taxpayers were asked to pay £700bn to overseas governments because one of our banks had messed up. We too would be up in arms.

Yes, the bank was irresponsible, but it was a private entity.
Yes Iceland's government shouldn't have agreed to help pay part of the bailout to the UK and Dutch governments, but then given the UK economy is 144x the size of Iceland's how could the UK expect much from it?
A better response from Iceland's government would be to state that its banks operate in a free market are not government guaranteed so creditors beware.

So Iceland's taxpayers, who didn't own the failed bank, didn't invest in it and never promised to bail it out and saying "enough". Good for them. Whilst some noise was made about Iceland voting in a new leftwing government, which has supported the deal, the protests have clearly rattled both it, and its belief that taxpayers are there to be fleeced for "their own good".

Big bully Brown is threatening to veto a forthcoming Icelandic application for EU membership. Iceland ought not to be too concerned, since all such membership will do is mean Iceland, as (still) a relatively wealthy European country will probably be a net payer to the socialist subsidy schemes of the EU, and Iceland's ample fisheries would be plundered by the parasitical subsidised fishing fleets of France, Spain, Portugal and the UK.

As Allister Heath continues: "The bankers were incompetent, as were the Icelandic authorities, the UK authorities, the EU and the depositors who didn’t do their research. Egged on by price comparison websites and personal finance pages, the public assumed regulators would ensure every newfangled online bank was safe and forgot that high returns often mean high risk. Instead of acknowledging this, Brown is pursuing a vendetta against Iceland, trying to recoup all of the cash from its government."

Iceland's voters will no doubt say no in a forthcoming referendum, not wanting to put themselves and their children under enormous state enforced debt. If it means pariah status from the IMF and the EU, Icelanders are likely to prefer that to being under servitude to bail out policies from other governments.

As the Daily Telegraph points out, this marks a new low in relations with the UK since the Cod Wars. The UK government classified the Icelandic Central Bank alongside Al Qaeda, under anti-terrorism laws, just so it could seize its assets. Iceland is a member of NATO.

So Iceland has served as a warning, that taxpayers will only take so much from governments claiming to speak on their behalf. Sadly, the UK is too big, and British taxpayers too inert to revolt against state kleptomania.

2010: New Zealand

To start things off I thought I'd observe, what I think will be the key things of note in various countries. Given my absence for some months, I thought New Zealand would be a good place to start.

It's been just over a year since the National - Maori/ACT/Peter Dunne government was elected, and what's been of note is that things are pretty much business as usual. After all, having defeated Helen Clark, fully supporting her candidacy to lead the UNDP (of which she is doing a less than sterling job) and granting her the Order of New Zealand, speaks volumes. Labour lite indeed.

There has been hysteria from the union and environmental movements about John Key's government being another "New Right" revolution. It shows little sign of this at all. Nothwithstanding tentative steps to open part of ACC's business to competition (deliberately mislabelled "privatisation" by Marxists), National's solution to most areas of state activity has been to spend more money. Education and health have been tinkered with, and there is more interest in using private contractors to carry out activities paid for by taxpayers. There is a tougher stance on welfare, yet the most recent expansion of the welfare state - Working for Families - remains intact. In transport, the Nats are less willing to throw good money after bad on rail (but still willing to do so), and more willing to throw bad money on roads.

There have been modest tax cuts, but little other sign of wanting to shrink the size of the state. At best, it has been slowing the growth. Auckland is to get a mega-council, without its powers constrained, only avoiding race based political representation by the skin of its teeth. The rest of New Zealand local government will still exist within the Labour/Alliance model of virtually unlimited general competence, with only some barriers to privatisation removed.

On the core activities of state, the main response has been to increase powers of surveillance and to remove presumptions of innocence around possession of property suspected to have been acquired through crime, including drug offences. There have been no apparent moves to reduce regulation or increase individual liberty, at all.

In fact, besides some minor steps, about all that's noticeable is rhetoric that is more pro-business, without the unionist tint, and a change in personnel. National is being pretty much what it said it would be, and what I expected it to be. A conservative party that changes little, that slows down the growth of the state, and is not overtly socialist, but unwilling to reverse policies that are essentially socialist in nature. Why be surprised? It was how National always has tended to be. Only from 1990-1993 did it show some promise on economic freedom, and only partly.

With the Nat's overwhelming dominance, what can be said of its political partners?

ACT can say what? It has helped create the Auckland megacity? It fought to keep it from being contrary to ACT and National party by being partly race based? It got a Brash led inquiry commissioned that the government has largely ignored? It has little to show for, which can be seen in why perhaps its greatest achievement might be Roger Douglas finishing off eliminating compulsory tertiary student union membership. Good, but little else. Will ACT supporters feel a bit cheated after three years or are they satisfied in simply being the Nat's alternative to the Maori Party?

The Maori Party of course can say it has accomplished getting more booty from taxpayers. Money for Maori homes (!) to get insulation, and support for the beleagured World Cup Rugby broadcast bid. Beyond that, perhaps the Maori Party is most satisfied at getting portfolios outside Cabinet, and not being booted out for Hone Harawira's vile bigoted comments. The Maori Party can say it is in government, and no doubt the Labour Party is likely to need it if it ever wishes to be in power again. So in essence, it can say to Maori it is better to be in power, getting something than not being there. Its core constituency is unlikely to have been burnt yet, as National doesn't NEED the Maori Party, but chose it.

Peter Dunne of course continues his career as a one man band as Minister, showing himself willing to switch sides to keep in power and now able to show off his totem of the Transmission Gully motorway as his personal achievement, at your expense.

Meanwhile, Phil Goff has sought to distance Labour from the "nanny state" past under Helen Clark. However, as long as National doesn't rock the boat, and Labour is partly blamed for the recession (or lack of growth), it faces an uphill struggle in campaigning for 2011. The Greens meanwhile face life without Jeanette Fitzsimons or Sue Bradford, and trying to cope with what is increasing scepticism about the climate change agenda. It is a brand that remains strong and full of dedicated vehement supporters, and is probably the more effective opposition. However, it is difficult to see it breaking too far out of its base. Meanwhile, expect Jim Anderton to announce his retirement, and Winston Peters to attempt to kick start his political career yet again, and fail.

The bigger event of the year politically is the local body elections, which will see most attention fall on Auckland. Some ACT supporters have suggested the mega-city will inherently be conservative and centre-right, though quite what that means other than being less fiscally loose is unclear. Leadership of greater Auckland will be coveted, because it will for the first time be the largest political entity controlled outside central government. It will potentially be a formidable ally or challenge to the Government. I for one will only be interested in whether it reduces the rates and regulatory burden on Aucklanders.

Beyond it all is the economy, which will be driven by export demand, which is likely to pick up in Australia and parts of Asia. However, the outlook for tourism remains bleak. Inbound tourism from Europe, especially the UK is unlikely to recover in the next year, likewise from North America. As the two main sources of premium value tourists, this will especially hit tourist centres, only partly offset by Australians and higher volumes of budget value Chinese tourists. Japan's long running recession will continue to hurt. New Zealand will remain vulnerable to trends towards protectionism or at least not changing the status quo in both the US and Europe, as Obama is uninterested in the WTO round, and Europe remains unmotivated.

Meanwhile, little will be done to address competitiveness. Spending more will be seen as as the solution to health and education, along with nanny state type regulations and campaigns. The RMA largely unchanged, will continue to be a barrier to the exercise of property rights and economic growth, as well as genuine environmental protection. The Nats will still seek to bind New Zealand to treaties to reduce CO2 emissions, notwithstanding that it will harm the economy and do nothing at all to the environment (and positively allow many countries to grow unhindered).

I would dearly love to be wrong, but all I can see are not enough reasons to come back. There are reasons enough to live away from NZ in terms of opportunity, pay and excitement, but nothing has been done to change my point of view. This is even though I have a standing job offer I can take if I wish, it isn't really enough to make it worthwhile.

So 2010 wont be a revolution, it wont be much of a change at all, in fact it's probably exactly what many of you wanted - change in personnel and rhetoric, but not so much change in policies.

Happy New Year

Hope 2010 brings you happiness, prosperity and freedom.

Gordon Brown's gift to the people of the UK is for VAT to increase back up to 17.5%, along with an end to the Stamp Duty "holiday" (which is a tax on real property sales of between 0 and 4%).

Hopefully UK voters will remember this before 3 June when the election deadline is.

So may 2010 bring a year when people don't initiate violence against each other, when governments don't initiate force against their citizens and people use reason not faith, values not whims.

Most of all, it would be particularly welcome if people didn't bash, rape, torture or neglect children.

No, I'm not holding my breath in hope.

2009: the year to devalue awards

After Barack Obama being granted the Nobel Peace Prize for absolutely nothing, the New Zealand Government has now granted Helen Clark the Order of New Zealand.

However, given the list of those who already hold it includes:

- Ken Douglas, who spent a good part of his career cozying up to the brutal murderous dictatorship of the Soviet Union, before softening up;
- Jonathan Hunt, a man whose Parliamentary career includes NZ$29,000 of taxi expenses, a man whose greatest achievement was being part of the reforms of the 1980s, like well just over half of the Labour caucus then (who aren't there); and
- Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan, whose greatest achievement was winning a Ballroom and Latin American Dancing contest, otherwise she has been thought of by more than one as one of the laziest Cabinet Ministers in recent history;

then you already know it's barely worth using such an award to help hold a door open.

The Key government in granting this to its political enemy speaks volumes of how nothing much has really changed. Clark's record at the UNDP is at best disappointing, at worst appalling. As Prime Minister she was notable for being a control freak, notable for increasing taxes, dramatically increasing the size of the state, widening the role of the state and using personal attacks instead of arguing politics on philosophy, economics and merit. She presided over increasing the range of people dependent on the state on income, she demanded the bureaucracy not give free and frank advice when she didn't like hearing it, but most of all she made no great particularly historic contribution. Jim Bolger at least led a government which for three years, did implement some significant reforms (not all being steps forward, the RMA being the worst).

So that's 2009 ending, with a major international award being rendered meaningless, and New Zealand's highest domestic honour proving that mediocrity remains the standard of achievement lauded by New Zealand politicians. Most of all showing that after one year, the majority might have voted out Helen Clark in 2008, but enough of you voted in her philosophical and spiritual kin at the same time, with a blue tinge. Which is, of course, what National has really always been, except for a three year period when Ruth Richardson gave the Nats a bit of testicular fortitude.