The Gift of Freedom...

The title of this post sprang to mind when I was trying to find the best way to describe Margaret Thatcher.  For all her rights and wrongs; her strengths and weaknesses, nothing in my view encapsulates Thatcher more than personal liberty and freedom.  Upon her death, it is something that we might do well to remember and be grateful to her for, whatever your political persuasion.

A sense of shock overcame me as I heard the news yesterday lunchtime.  This shock, although still with me as I write, is more likely a deep sadness in disguise, for we all knew very well of the ill-health that plagued Margaret Thatcher in recent years.  Her time, like that of all of us, would eventually come; and come it did.  Immediately the Pandora's box of political division opened, for there was little question that it didn't exist.  Margaret Thatcher remained divisive because of the unique challenges she faced and her responses to them, and her death yesterday, a little more than 22 years after leaving Downing Street, reopened old wounds, and reignited the debate of her actions and legacy, both amongst those that lived through the Thatcher years, and those who have been politically-socialised since.  Some people will now feel a release, and others will feel this as a sad and poignant moment that would be faced one day or another.  I am part of this latter group.

I don't intend to follow too closely the structure of most of the other articles I have been reading in the past 24 hours, or interviews I have been watching.  I do however want to acknowledge the divisiveness.  Those on the Right have praised her relentlessly; those on the Left, whilst being polite and diplomatic for the most part in their tributes, have not hidden their continued contempt for her policies. In their name there have been parties on the streets, most notably in Brixton, but ironically, Thatcher embodied the freedom that allows  such celebrations against her to take place.  It's just extremely unfortunate and hypocritical that if it I wanted to celebrate the death of a terrorist-who-still-cannot-be-deported, I would be arrested for inciting racial hatred and offending a minority group.  More on freedom later.

Essentially, the extent of polarisation is a fact that must be accepted but it shouldn't frame the entire debate.

Let's take a more pragmatist approach.  Margaret Thatcher made some incredibly difficult decisions - and these decisions had incredibly difficult consequences.  She was never going to be universally liked, but this is true of every politician.  Every leader makes decisions that has a disproportionate impact on some parts of society more than others.  She couldn't possibly have pleased everyone, and in the same way Blair didn't please many of us (initiating long-term deeply unpopular campaigns, particularly in Iraq vs. a short campaign in the Falkland Islands) we cannot as a nation continue to hold Margaret Thatcher solely responsible for many of society's ills.  While she might in some cases be the root of a particular problem, her party ruled for 7 years after she left office, and then Labour for a whole new political generation of 13 years.  She made difficult decisions, but there has been ample time for successive administrations to change those decisions if they wanted to attempt to reverse the consequences.  The problem was, as we now know from today's wide press coverage, was that Thatcher's "greatest achievement," (as she put it) Tony Blair, didn't care to reverse her decisions or change the consequences of them.

Margaret Thatcher made such difficult decisions and stuck to them because she understood politics and her role within it.  As Prime Minister and the personification of the executive power of the State, her number one priority was the defence of the realm.  In the Falkland Islands did she demonstrate this, and upheld her duty.  The primary task of Government was fulfilled.  Then, throughout the 1980's as a whole, she demonstrated another major obligation she had to the country as the power behind the state, which was to make the nation prosperous - because she understood that only a strong capitalist economy could bring true wealth and prosperity, as supposed to the failed communist-planned ones, that brought nothing but shortages.

If that prosperity created happiness was not however in her remit for the state mustn't control every aspect of people's lives.  She understood that her role was to create prosperity; to create opportunity, and then to give each and every individual and family the freedom to choose what they made of those opportunities.

To repeat and summarise this essential point, she simply understood that a real politician in public service defended their country, created wealth and gave people the freedom to make their own choices and build their own lives in a safe environment underpinned by the security and certainty of the rule of law.  She passed  all of these tests consistently with flying colours.

I am not masking her weaknesses, and I'm sure on many occasions, wrong decisions, but what she didn't do was ever lose sight of the fundamentals.  Security, freedom and the rule of law are paramount precisely because without them, those who criticise her wouldn't have the freedom to do so today.  Indeed, since she left office, successive governments have undermined all three of these most basic requirements - and our security today is seemingly constantly threatened by terrorism, our freedom severely undermined by the Labour years, and the rule of law overruled by the supranational European Union and other doctrines demanded by political correctness in a multicultural society. The earlier point of the celebration if the terrorist-who-we can't-deport died, and the subsequent probable arrest of the partygoers, shows that under such present-day circumstances, Thatcher reminds us of what is really important - and thus what was at the base of every political action she took.

Thatcherism produced both winners and losers, but the paradox is often ignored - there were winners who were ALSO losers, and vice versa.  By focusing on how we won AND lost might go some way to dispelling the strength of polarisation that Margaret Thatcher brings.  We hear a lot today about how the British public became wealthier through being able to buy their own council homes, and we won't forget of course the many thousands whose employment (and way of life based upon it - as mine was) was lost.  But it was also those who lost their jobs, and were most likely affected by Thatcherism in its economic form, who also gained by being able to realise the dream of most Britons - home ownership.  With the certainty that this brought, and the rapid economic growth that replaced the difficult decline of some sectors of the British economy, new opportunities arose.  Those who lost, lost. But they also won. Would they care to deny it?

With opportunity, the other crucial issue of personal responsibility becomes central to any discussion of Thatcher.  She committed herself to opportunity creation, but she cannot be held responsible for how people responded to those opportunities.  It is individuals themselves.  Thatcher believed in personal responsibility, with the state there both to facilitate the process, and to act as a safety net via the welfare system for those who sadly found themselves without work, or direction.  The 80's were extremely sad for so many communities in this regard, but what more could we reasonably have expected from the Government?  Did we really want Thatcher and her Government to continue with failed cradle-to-grave policies whilst demanding she take all of our problems away from us because "she" caused them?  Ridiculous.

In my rather spiritual view, one of the fundamentals of the human condition is personal responsibility and Thatcher applied this to her politics.  This basic knowledge and wisdom helped to create an empowered Britain, and since it was lost in 1990, we have lost sight of its importance to such a degree that we now live in the "benefits" Britain of 2013, which should tell us quite a lot about what happens if one doesn't take responsibility for bettering their circumstances.  Finally, Thatcher understood that your position in life had to be earned on merit - indeed, she explicitly linked success to hard work and merit, and rewarded those who worked with her on merit.

In summary, her job was the creation of opportunity, yours as an individual was personal responsibility by taking advantage of those opportunities, and success and prosperity would come through hard work and the recognition of effort on the basis of merit.  All of this though has been undermined since Thatcher's day, with the twin to "benefits" Britain - the Britain of "equal opportunities," underpinned by hundreds of pages of diktat  legislating that opportunities have to be shared out, regardless of who should receive them on merit; thus placing positive discrimination above common sense.  Jobs are not always earned anymore as much as they are given or "rewarded" to a candidate based on a raft of arbitrary criterion that have only served to undermine the ideals of the benefits of hard work, competition, and everything Thatcher believed in. Ultimately, we all suffer as a nation in the end, for our collective prosperity is eroded through a weaker economy.

To conclude my contribution to yesterday's sad news, I would reiterate my first observation that everything Thatcher did was for freedom, personal liberty and a society based on the rule of law.  She loved Britain and what it stood for, and had a deep respect and appreciation for the struggles of British history which brought about the supremacy of parliamentary democracy.  She understood her fundamental duties as a politician, and carried out her duty in good faith, not waning even in the most difficult, and sometimes cruel, consequences that emanated from her choices.  Thatcherism made winners and losers of us all - and both winners who were also losers, and losers who were winners - which category we are most comes down to personal perspective.  But I would say that for the prizes of freedom, personal liberty and the rule of law, tripled with economic prosperity and the security of the realm (not only by fending off Argentina but by bringing about the end of the Cold War) on balance we have been winners more than we have been losers.

Without the freedom that Thatcher embodied, I might not have been able to make these arguments at all.  For that I am grateful, and I hope that you feel grateful too.  Thank you Baroness.

Lisbon Treaty SECOND Vote October 2009...

I am blogging rather late on the whole Lisbon Treaty issue.

Aside from being busy, I wanted to give myself some time to absorb various perspectives from the press, as well as decide for myself my position given the vast range of commentary available.

However, the blatant fact is that I haven't been able to blog because I feel truly sickened by what's going on. Previous posts on the Lisbon Treaty remain consistent with this one - I am essentially against anything that puts substantial powers into the hands of the unelected. I feel that given British history, and its pivotal moments such as 1649 and the absolutist-wannabe James II in 1688, and the civil war and subsequent Bill of Rights in 1689, that RIGHTS evolved for good reason.

I have felt proud of the notion and idea that a Brit instinctively knows his or her rights - although that does not always mean literally. We have been comfortable with the idea that we didn't need our rights written down, documented, and in our face - rather offensive was the idea for anyone to tell us our rights - we just "instinctively" knew.

And so the question of rights yet again becomes a pertinent one. The Lisbon Treaty, with respect to my limited knowledge and understanding, (because I am not a lawyer) does indeed appear to seriously threaten what we consider to be fundamental English/British freedoms. I am worried for the future of trial by jury and presumed innocence until proven guilty, especially when coupled with some of the dranconian measures now in place across our wonderful democratic "EU" - NOT to even mention the attack on our own civil liberties from this Labour government.

I see here my most passionate political issues delicately intertwined. For the EU with the kind of powers it will assume under Lisbon is an attack on the British understanding and culture of civil liberties. On the one hand, I do blame the EU establishment. Their increasing political and economic power over this country does certainly bear fruit. However, the blame must be apportioned on the British government/political establishment, and the vast swathes of Euro-cash in which they swim. To cash in traditions that were justly fought for, could, as one newspaper put it today (05/10/09) be the "ultimate betrayal in history." However, I would beg to differ, and cite the complete destruction of civilisations (such as the Aztecs by the Spanish) as far more of a disastrous event. However, with the impact of Lisbon still unknown, I may well change my mind in the near future to come.

Casting my mind to the Irish, I don't wholly blame them. They made the decision that they wanted to. What saddens me is how they were completely manipulated into doing so. Crisis, burned economically into their hearts, threats of EU money running dry, scare tactics and horror stories - and the biased-ness of the entire media and political establishments - all perfectly combined into one nasty cocktail of scaremongering and fear tactics. And it worked perfectly - after all, what better way to control a country if not through economics? Make a crisis, and reap the rewards, depending on where you sit in the power triangle.

To reiterate, it is incredibly sad how our Irish brothers and sisters (yes, brothers - for the hostility in my eyes that is so famously stereotyped appears to me to be one-way, aimed AT the English, and yes, English not British) have given into this fear. Did we all forget the scaremongering the last time? The exposure that the Irish Commissioner in Brussels hadn't even read Lisbon? What really makes me despair in the idea of how the choice to say yes to Europe would reinforce Ireland's position in the EU, and free it of the "influence" of others - a blantant reference to the United Kingdom if there ever was one. In actual fact I concur with the idea that Ireland will become MORE irrelevant in the Union, probably labelled as the land of the Celts.

Overall, I must respect the decision of the Irish people, and if it is really true that such hostility remains towards the English, as well as the Irish political establishment, (I take Daniel Hannan's view on this) that the undemocratic EU is the only way out, then so be it. It was their choice to make, and the No camp did their best under estremely biased circumstances, with a political and media machine that they did well to survive with, let alone try to convince.

From one sad story to the next. The focus after all must be the United Kingdom. It is not the fault of the Irish that we were not granted a referendum, and anyone blaming them for our woes are terribly misguided. Grant the Irish their wish, lament the clear impact on our country, but the blame for this lies squarely with Brown. Lament the sick nature in which he turned up late to sign away the sovereignty of Parliament. Lament the shame to stand with his fellow European leaders in a photocall, where he would be standing on the side so they can airbrush him out after May 2010 from the official photo. Betrayal yes, and unforgivable.

The question becomes what to do now. David Cameron is quite rightly under pressure, and must spell out his position. But I believe that despite this pressure his approach is rational, if not extremely difficult to maintain. This really is a day-by-day battle now. Heaven knows the pressure on the Polish and Czech Presidents to sign the treaty already ratified by their Parliaments. I don't want to say the word "inev.." but the turn of events will certainly come to be historically significant. I believe that the media has highlighted the dilemma well - what will Cameron do if Lisbon is ratified in all states? It truly will become a choice of whether we stay in the EU, if Cameron wants to force a referendum.

But I believe that at heart that David is Pro-European (I believe many Tories are) but the idea of the EU (Please note, not Europe) has always been an economic one for the British, and resistance to Political Union is not unusual! So to read today about a possible change to the European Communities Act is a step in the right direction - after all, this is no different to the German approach that would require their Parliament to decide to veto EU laws coming into Germany. The problem, however, lies in practice............with EU law already established as superior, how do you override that? With Lisbon creating the mechanism to make changes without the explicit consent of member states, how do you override that? With news of an EU Common Security Policy, how do you override that? (a.k.a ID cards through the back door) With news of France and Germany wanting greater cooperation in the EU, do you just withdraw altogether and let this club be what it wants to be? Or do you sacrifice British sovereignty to maintain influence over the club? Many burning questions.

Finally, we must consider the international ramifications of Britain and Lisbon. The US is already cavorting with Russia, China and Japan - and openly talking of a G4. China and Japan talking about beginning the road to some form of Union - really? Who would they talk to in Europe? The signs are discouraging - the UK would completely be absorbed and lose international prestige and influence at the hands of an unelected EU President. Is this really in our long-term interests? Many say we should just accept the reality, but no, we create our reality with our decisions everyday, and Lisbon without proper consultation, education and a referendum decision, is plainly wrong.

I haven't even mentioned the impact on UK politics, where being governed from the Continent will surely spell the end of the Union - the Scottish and Welsh Governments may be pleased, because in line with the EU's principle of subsidiarity, they would be seen as the recognised powers in their "region" - and the UK Government an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy through which to govern - however they will just end up like Ireland - giving away power in the name of distrust of London, and becoming insignificants in somethin much bigger and more powerful than they are. However if it means that the Scots can make new songs to celebrate Europe Day in their own language - surely it's worth it?

I will stop writing on Lisbon right now, as I must return to burning the midnight oil. However I close with one thought and one interesting idea written in a national newspaper. My personal thought is that the world is awash with a history of the rise and fall of Empires - I see another one coming - why do we feel the need to consolidate, supposedly based on the common good, (or in the past by sheer imperalism and domination) just to reach critical mass, become too big, and blow apart in spectacular fashion? A thought I must invest more time in.......

The interesting idea I mentioned is that of riding on a train. We are passengers, and we were always asking questions to the conductor. He/She would always tell us where we were going, how long it might take to get there - there was a good relationship. Now with Lisbon, the reply would be to where we are going, "that is no longer your business, but ours." Of course I have interpreted the story for myself, and must find the relevant link, but the idea is poignant and struck me. No longer the UK's business, but that of an unelected President and his best friend in the unelected Commission.

God save the Queen for as long as the monarchy survives, for as long as the Union survives, and for as long as our relationship with our Commonwealth friends survives.

As the Sun says goodbye - why I ditched Labour.

So the Sun has decided to ditch Labour for the Tories. A long overdue decision, and simply a reflection of the once-again changing political times. I agree with the decision, because it is clear to me that Brown simply cannot live up to what he says he can - he mentions "policies," but the time has passed to make any real difference - and we are left with many of the same challenges as twelve years ago.

To give Labour some credit though, of course it is in the Sun's interest to back who they percieve to be the "winner" and I am slightly cynical as to the ultimate motive - more sales. But putting this aside for a moment, I really do hope that the primary motive of the newspaper is to reflect the collective feelings of their readership, and to present political reality as it is.

Labour was needed in 1997. Hopes were high - achievements have been made. But over the past few years - and particularly since the 2005 election - what a failure. I have a list I made more than a year ago listing what I percieve to be failures - and my attention has been brought to more. To get to the crunch however, my biggest three problems with this government remains their stance towards the EU, their endless attack on civil liberties, and the divison that devolution has created - all policies that might be right in principle, but certainly not in practice.

I personally decided to forget Brown and Labour the day he arrived late to sign the Lisbon Treaty - trying to do it out of the limelight, in such an underhanded manner that HE KNEW how wrong his decision was. This is the moment that people will not forget Brown, for its effects will be felt for years to come. My decision is not just based on the classic argument of sovereignty, but on the idea that what Lisbon advocates is simply not what we want as a people from the process of European integration!

Now we just have to wait and see what Cameron does when he refers to "making a decision at the correct time" in relation to if Lisbon will be ratified before he enters office next year.

The weekend, and a Monday dose of Civil Liberties

After the weekend just rushed by, where I spent most of it in bed and/or just feeling completely lazy, I have returned to work this week determined to keep this blog and up and continue to recount all kinds of experiences that cross my path!

The weekend was very nice, with much less work to do. Did some preparation for my Business English class - and these are going much better now that the last 20 minutes is essentially private in nature with fewer students.

Had a bit of a scare over the weekend when I saw a huge spider in the bathroom, late on Sunday night. I don't really want to say much than that, except that boy could it run - and it had to be killed with boiling hot water. Days like this just make me want to leave - I really can't stand it!

Returning to work today, it has been a nice day - clearing up odds and ends and making progress in my English class. Nothing beats a nice tikka masala at lunchtime too. I am sitting here now getting ready to finish work and go to the gym, but I wanted to share this article regarding the topic of Civil Liberties - one in which I have come to feel as passionately about as Europe. I do feel compelled to try and get involved somehow in the fight to retain civil liberties, as we learn more and more of how they have been supressed under this Labour Government.

The Assault on Civil Liberties

Perhaps it was inevitable, given the advances of technology, that we would lose what we consider to be "freedoms." But by and large this is an issue I feel more and more strongly about. Hearing shock-horror stories concering cameras, Big Brother, and the erosion of British legal principles such as Habeus Corpus just make me very afraid to come back and live in the United Kingdom. Some lament that the "Great" has gone in Great Britain, but this is too simplistic. What has gone is years of evolution that in many cases worked well. And for what? Terrorism? Unparalleled threats? Please!

This is the first post of many that I will bring up this subject. I shall consider it a new passion, as I consider Europe and the EU to be another political passion and issue that will always determine my vote. I leave this post just wondering to what extent it is true that the Left are actually the ones destroying these freedoms, leaving the Right to champion them! However, despite the tendency of the right to advocate less state intervention, I don't feel that they are necessarily as opposed to British civil liberties as they are portrayed to be...........the evolution of these freedoms that we have taken for granted took place under all political administrations after all.

Comments on the article most welcomed!

Ireland says No - wonderful news! Sad day for EU and UK

Let me make clear first of all that I remain, on the whole, pro-European, (although that really depends on the actions now taken by the other EU governments to force this treaty through in the wake of a No vote to the Lisbon Treaty by Ireland) but the people of Ireland have spoken and rejected this Treaty. I must say that I agree completely with the decision. If the EU is to truly have a purpose it must be close to the people of Europe. Sadly, it is not. From the corruption that forced the resignation of the entire Commission in 1999 to the sheer arrogance of re-packaging the Constitution and forcing it through 26 of the 27 EU countries without a referendum, the EU simply needs to understand the concept of ACCOUNTABILITY. For this we have the Irish people to thank. They really looked at this issue, said "Hold on, we don't understand it at all" and voted No. How right they were, especially when the Irish Commissioner in the EU admitted that he hadn't even read the document himself. How right they were, even when the new Premier Brian Cowen hadn't read it either.

Take a look at this brilliant summary

First point: It is more than sickening to think that the whole "Yes" campaign stated the dire consequences if the Treaty was rejected, but without having read the document it wasn't able to state what these were.

Second point: The arrogance of the Yes campaign is breathtaking. Betting shops (Paddy Power) paying out early, the whole Irish elite political machine against the No vote, biased media coverage (I'm not so sure of this claim in Ireland itself, but the British press has HARDLY covered the issue over the past few days) and to top it all off, the erosion of more civil liberties in the UK itself yesterday with the extension of the time that someone can spend in detention to 42 days. Why do I connect the two issues? Because this seems to have been the week that the elites were going for it - to swipe away a lot of fundamental freedoms all at the same time - to get it over and done with. I would even like to go as far as to say that the detention vote in the Commons was probably planned to coincide with this referendum in Ireland to take away attention. How cynical some of you might say I have become - however, with the ever-increasing intrusion of the state in our lives; of political correctness and local Councils using terror laws against innocent people, I believe that cynical is not the word - lifting the wool would be the term.

Third point: Corruption. I would be the first to defend the UK in terms of corruption. Regardless of a deep subconscious awareness of the corruption of any government, I have always defended rigorously to my students the general anti-corruption stance in the UK. The way in which we are a "fair" people, and the way in which the police serve the people, being two examples. I feel I seriously have to keep my mouth shut now because I cannot transparently justify such assertions. We are becoming a police state; these "terror" laws prove that - ID cards prove it - the political correctness of the police proves it - and linked to all of this, the Lisbon Treaty enshrines the transfer of an unacceptable amount of British sovereignty to Brussels. I really feel that we have learned, at a government level, some of the tricks of the trade of corruption, and that some of those tricks come directly from the EU.

The EU is becoming less accountable, more corrupt by the day, and ARROGANT.

a) Holding off on a raft of proposals such as tax harmonisation until after the Irish vote.
b) The EU insisting the continuation of ratification procedures despite the Irish rejection.
c) Rumours that the EU will get the Lisbon changes into EU law anyway by playing with their own rules.


This is all incredibly sad for me to see. Sad for somebody who was so passionately pro-European. Sad to see so much corruption and lack of democracy. Sad to see decisions taken by people that I don't even know. The EU could have been so much greater if it hadn't taken this path.

A welcome sad day for the EU, a disaster for British democracy, and a great day to say thank you Ireland for your courage and common sense. The Irish people looked at the reality and made the right decision. Like the British, they wanted to be part of the EU for its economic benefits. If there were to be political integration, it had to be something that came more naturally, instead of forced upon the populations of 26 out of 27 countries without a vote - Ireland wasn't going to forget why it joined the EU, and for a long time to come, the Irish two finger-salute to the EU will be remembered, as will the shame that now arrives as I believe the elites will try to push the treaty through anyway. The good thing is that this time, they can't attempt to push it through privately. All is out in the open.

I would like to finish by saying that I think it's time to take a holiday - to Ireland.


Thank you.



I will attach some links below, if you feel like me you will see the huge biased-ness for the Yes campaign and the current opinions of the British and Irish press.


1) This is probably the article that sums it all up - the arrogance and the wrong attitude, and the exact reasons why the Irish have rejected this. EU leaders plotting to get around the rejection in defiance of their own rules. The arrogance and lack of trust that this makes me feel is enough to make me vote out this Labour government, for it is the only democratic protest that I have. I hope many choose to follow, for what UK would there be left if we integrate so deeply into a club that operates in these ways?

2) EU referendum: What part of 'No' don't you understand?

3) EU referendum: Ireland's debt to the EU

4) We're fighting the EU treaty in the courts

5) Well done, Stuart Wheeler

6) This article makes me sick, especially when it talks about "Bridging mechanism" to isolate Ireland to still get the Treaty through - the rules are the damn rules guys, you can't change them now.