The problem arises from the fact that the course he takes is either right or wrong, regardless of principle. To do the right thing is to do the right thing whether it is done as a matter of principle or a matter of pragmatism, whereas to do the wrong thing as a matter of principle is to allow dogma or vainglory to take precedence over reason.

The only principle that matters in politics is a desire for a particular outcome. “This is what I wish to achieve … [add one's desired outcome here]” is the principle, the method of achieving that end is a matter of practicalities not of principle.

During my lifetime there have been many examples in the UK of the successful implementation of principled policies.

One of the most striking examples is The Race Relations Act 1976 which expanded greatly on provisions in two earlier similarly named Acts of Parliament. There has been, and continues to be, much debate about how the aims of the Act should be implemented, but those debates are a matter of practicalities not of principle. Because the 1976 Act states a principle clearly, and has been supported by all major political parties, that principle has become one of the mainstays of our society.

There is no discernible principle behind the proposal for an extension to 42 days of the maximum time a suspect can be held in custody without charge.

A principle undoubtedly exists, namely that the maintenance of law and order requires the state to have the power to detain some people who are suspected of having committed serious crimes while investigations continue to seek sufficient evidence to allow that person to be charged with an offence. How long that maximum period of detention should be is a matter of practicalities not of principle.

For Mr Brown to argue that he stands by 42 days as a matter of principle is utterly meaningless.

Why wont they do it ?

Because the Over riding issue is the Eradication of National Identity and the Nation state.

‘They are creating a new race of People, they call them EUropeans’

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865

The Terror Laws are ultimately for use against YOU.

If he said that it went entirely against his principles, but was an unfortunate practical necessity, his argument might hold more water, especially if he was prepared to give some examples of where suspects have not been able to be charged because of the current limit.

But there is no evidence, it’s just macho posturing.

And the alleged “concessions” that require emergency detention to be ratified by Parliament are no such thing – the Legislature shouldn’t be able to lock people up arbitrarily either.

As we are celebrating Tax Freedom Day, spend a while on these two essays from David B Smith. Just in case you get too excited today. The two quotes following will give you the flavour of the content.

“… It can be argued that the state cannot fund itself, and that a more relevant measure of the tax and spending burdens is their ratio to the non-socialised element of national output. This is currently [2001] some 57¼% of the basic price measure of GDP, which has partly replaced, and is broadly equivalent to, the factor cost measure in the new ESA-95 national accounts. Put this way, the state and its beneficiaries are now spending, in total, 74¾p for every pound spent in the private sector and extracting 74½p in non-oil taxes.”

“… It can be argued that the state cannot fund itself, and that a more relevant measure of the tax and spending burdens is their ratio to the non-socialised element of national output. This was some 51.25 per cent of the factor cost measure of UK non-oil GDP in 2005/06, for example. Put this way, the state and its beneficiaries are now spending in total 95.25p for every pound spent in the private sector and extracting 83p in non-oil taxes.”

The first is
http://www.cf.ac.uk/carbs/econ/matthewsk/pubspendnew.pdf

The second is
http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=book&ID=394

Exactly. We’ve tried the Left’s approach with the welfare system (which to be fair, does not look much different to what they inherited from the Tories) and it clearly does not work. So let’s give your ideas a go – how about reducing the marginal withdrawal rate and tax burden on benefit claimants and lower earners? Maybe reduce or scrap Employer’s National Insurance to cut cost to employers of employing people? That looks like a win-win to me.

I had hopes of Brown as an acolyte of Adam Smith, patron of the Barker report that said the way to cut the housing shortage was to build houses & generally more techn ocratic & less smiling than Blair. The only Labour leader who appreciated Thacher & her achievements (facing the only Tory leader who, at the time, appeared not to.

The problem is that he hasn’t really done anything.

He should cut corporation tax & our whole government regulatory mess & generally get on with improving our competitiveness in ways he MUST know would work. If he could get Britain’s long term growth rate significantly up he might still lose (or he might not) but he would have established a place in history & given Labour a chance to win again, having achieved far more in 3 years than Blair did in 10.

Mind you, I can’t really see what principle would make him breach human rights in such a spectacular fashion and expect to get away with it.

http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com