Political Rants

¡Ole Catalunya! The end of bullfighting in Catalunya

Martyn Richard Jones — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:42:25 GMT

¡Ole Catalunya!

It ended in tears, joy and applauses, but following three months of intense public debate, Catalonia has exercised its autonomy by giving a big "no" to bullfighting, and in doing so joins the Canary Islands (they did so in 1991) in banning this tradition.

The debate and vote in the Catalan parliament, and within the wider Catalan community, was the result of a democratic response to a popular petition to prohibit bullfighting in Catalonia, one that was supported by more than 180,000 signatures.

Up until the vote in the Catalan Parliament (Wednesday) it looked too close to call, but for realists, the rejection of the proposed new Catalan Statute by Spain´s Constitutional Tribunal, was the last nail in the coffin of pro-bullfighting hopes; confirmed today, as Catalan nationalists and socialists voted in their Parliament for the end of the fiesta nacional in Catalonia.

The vote in favour of the ban (68 to 55, with nine abstentions), has provoked mild hysteria in the ranks of the Spanish conservative party. Jaime Mayor Oreja has talked of "provocation" and "revenge for the success of the national (football) team" and of "a deep national crisis", María Dolores de Cospedal described the decision as "nonsense" and attributed it to the "mania" of the ruling socialist party to "prohibit and deny freedom of the Catalans and the Spanish people", and the chairman of the Popular Party in Catalonia, Alicia Sánchez-Camacho, suggested that her party will seek to ensure that Congress and the Senate will overrule the decision in favour of bullfighting, because it's "a festival of cultural interest", whilst elsewhere, the pro-bullfighting community in France fear a knock-on effect.

The political tension is surreal yet palpable, not on the streets, but within the leadership of the Popular Party, who seem more concerned about the Catalans banning bullfighting than in fixing the economic crisis. But, for all the hubris, the legal precedent of the ban on bullfighting in the Canary Islands makes one thing clear; the Popular Party have very little wiggle room on this issue.

So why now and why Catalonia?

For more than two decades animal rights campaigners in Spain have been working hard trying to make people aware of issues related to the cruelty to animals, and have pursued many avenues in many areas where the tradition and cruelty has trumped sensibility and reason; sometimes with success. But, nowhere has the active presence of animal rights advocates been more palpable that in Catalonia.

For this motive it is perhaps reasonable to suppose that the rationale for the ban on bullfighting in Catalonia is simply make a nationalist statement to the rest of Spain, but this would be a mistaken reading, as many people in Spain already understand, and are frequently sympathetic towards the aspirations of the Catalan nationalists, even if they don't always fully understand their motives or even agree with them.

That said, it is perhaps the case that many people in the Catalan speaking regions have an innate aversion to the old tourism marketing idea that "Spain is different" (after all, who in this day and age wouldn't be against such a horribly stale characterisation), it's an anachronism after all, but especially where Catalans are concerned, because although many (broadly)) have a profound sense of identity and local tradition (and pride of place in Catalonia is quite strong), the Catalans as a nation also have strong affinity and connection with the enlightenment, arts, philosophy, theology, science, technology, political thought and the democratic traditions of Europe; and to which a number of Catalans have made significant contributions.

But, the whole range of speculation regarding motives surrounding the vote are mainly irrelevant, as I suspect that the Catalan parliamentarians, who voted for the ban, did so after carefully examining the arguments between tradition and acceptable practice in a contemporary civil society. The fact that it irritated the right-wing was just the cherry on the ensaimada – not that ensaimadas usually come with cherries – but this is a celebration.

Martyn Richard Jones

28th July 2010

Stephen Pollard: No Worries

Martyn Richard Jones — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 03:43:53 GMT

Walk away whistling

The always thought-provoking Tim Worstall asks this question, to which we all know the answer:

Absolutely every commentator even vaguely left of centre says that
the fiscal contraction (ie, the combination of spending cuts and tax
rises) is going to devastate the economy. We’re going to get a double
dip recession, unemployment will go over 4 million etc.

Let us imagine that this doesn’t happen: will we then have put to
bed the idea that only government spending can get us out of such
recessions?

Or if, in two or three years time, this hasn’t happened, will they just walk away whistling, hoping no one will have noticed?

MartynInEurope

24 June, 2010 - 04:36

Rate this:

squllion billiion points

"Or if, in two or three years time, this hasn’t happened, will they just walk away whistling, hoping no one will have noticed?"

Stephen Pollard, do you really think that people who might expect or think the worst to be somehow punished for their pessimism?

We can all imagine what we like, we can imagine that bad things will not happen, and where has that lead us, time and time again?

Really, what are you thinking?

Open season in the NHS

Martyn Richard Jones — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:05:29 GMT

Tim Montgomerie, the editor of the ConservativeHome.com blog has suggested that the NHS budget should lose its ring-fenced status; I think he is fundamentally wrong, and is completely mistaken in this proposal, wrong about the nature of the NHS and wrong about the rationale for its very existence, I also think that similar suggestions come from a dark cavernous recess of highly dubious instrumental reason and fetid dogma, rather than being the result of any well thought out, coherent, cohesive and humane rationale. Of course, I could be wrong. This is speculation and opinion after all. Occasionally, some things are idle taxi driver speculation at best, never to be taken to the level debate.

Here are my responses to an article that appeared on The Guardian's highly respect blog "Comment is Free".

The strapline on Tim's article is "If Osborne is brave enough to share out the pain equally – health cuts included – a VAT rise won't be needed". Let's look at some other things we might look at before we touch the NHS:

1. Cancel Trident
2. Nationalise the banks
3. End privatisation in Health and Education
4. Tell everyone what the deal is, how much needs to be cut - take the "we're all in this together" approach, and just don't cut because it's politically expedient but because it's an economic necessity - socialise profit and loss, and make it fair.
5. Introduce real democracy - there's an economic war on, and real democracy, from grassroots - community - up, is needed more than ever.
99. Close down parasitic think tanks.

Time goes on to say that " George Osborne's favourite slogan is "we're all in this together" and he has gone a long way to prove it". But what does that really mean:

Ring fencing essentially necessary public service is not fiscal irresponsibility but social responsibility. If the UK needs to cut into NHS spending it means that every other avenue of saving has been explored, which is clearly bollox. This is not thinking out of the box, it is thinking inside the darkest recesses nastiness. Old grassroots Tories saw that gradual socialization was not only inevitable but desirable, their major concerns were with controls and the speed of change. In that respect the old Tories were not mean minded, just very cautious - I didn't agree with that stance either, but at least it was socially responsible and intellectually responsible, as well as being relatively coherent.

Tim says that "Fairness is ingrained in the British psychology", but then goes on to completely miss the point of the reason being something taken on face value and used a s a sound bite.

The worst Tories of the Thatcherite era were clearly people who just took an instrumental reasoned approach to everything, without considering for one moment the human consequences, as if their pornographic market dogma were all that mattered. There is no place for anti-social dogma in world that cries out for justice, reason and humanity, no matter if the dogma comes from the left, the right, the centre or an intellectual cesspit. It's a mistake to misuse terms like Nazi, but in strict terms, how does the inhumane instrumental reason of the Nazis differ from the inhumane instrumental reason of anyone else?

Then ... the anonymous spanows jumps in:

spanows:

    21 Jun 2010, 10:13PM

        @MartynInEurope

        If the UK needs to cut into NHS spending it means that every other avenue of saving has been explored, which is clearly bollox.

        or perhaps teh stawman in your sentence is the real bollox. You seriously believe that the NHS budget has no flexibility? No waste? Not trimming possible?

    I didn't agree with that stance either, but at least it was socially responsible and intellectually responsible, as well as being relatively coherent.

So you would prefer a Tory government, not this coalition?

You are mistaken spanows. Just because some people hate the non-Tory voting poor, doesn't mean we all do. There is no place for anti-social dogma in world that cries out for justice, reason and humanity, no matter if the dogma comes from the left, the right, the centre or an intellectual cesspit.

hmmm, know what? I believe you'd accept anti-social dogma from the left.

You know spannows, some people will question my ideology, and hats of to them too, because I have no ideology beyond social justice, no matter who provides it. Does that mean that I respect dogma, dogma that is nothing better than the putrid ideas of those who would go against their own, their country men and women and against the welfare of their own? No,for them let's be clear about this, I have no respect, zero respect, null respect, zilch respect, iteratively and absolutely no respect, and I don't have a problem stating as much. In a democracy, decent people with decent arguments deserve respect, people who just want social aggro by pursuing hate via a socially divisive, racist and aggro position, deserve zero respect.

Now, FUCK OFF!

Liberals, who'd trust 'em?

Martyn Richard Jones — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:19:44 GMT

Comment on: George Osborne defends tax gamble as prospective chancellors clash live

MartynInEurope 30 Mar 10, 11:27am

Cable is a populist - do the liberals have any policies that they are prepared to stick with, even if it means less votes? Anyway, at least people should know where Darling and Osborne are coming from.

· Comment on: Nick Clegg at Hay: call for questions

MartynInEurope 02 Jun 10, 1:44pm

In relations between Liberals and Tories would you advise the use of protection?

· Comment on: Image conscious

MartynInEurope 15 Jul 08, 7:21pm

I dont personally know anyone on the left who is seriously interested in the US Presidential race, never mind arsed enough to be bothered by some cartoon in the New Yorker. Maybe they were liberals?

· Comment on: A postcode protest against the BNP

MartynInEurope 21 Nov 08, 6:29am

Are some people annoyed by the BNP solely because they are really disgustingly horrible, or because they stole their tactics as well? Sometimes I don't know who is more to the right, Thatcherites or Liberals.

· Comment on: It's little wonder liberal Muslims feel betrayed

MartynInEurope 16 Mar 09, 12:17am

When Nick refers to "liberals" I assume it is self-referential and nothing to do with the left, that's why I thought it was a reasonable article.

Oh well!

· Comment on: Labour's listing

MartynInEurope 12 Jan 09, 4:29pm

Why do liberals think they are leftwing?

· Comment on: Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition hopes end in recriminations

MartynInEurope 12 May 10, 9:29am

So quite a few people were suckered by Clegg and the populist Cable, but it just goes to confirm that you can fool some of the people almost all of the time.

As for a Clegg and Cable betraying their "progressive" support, it's about time that "progressives" got a clue, and stopped being so bloody naive.

· Comment on: Nick Clegg – where have you been?

MartynInEurope 29 Aug 09, 9:53pm

BeautifulBurnout:

29 Aug 09, 6:38pm

Vince Cable for PM.

That's all.

I can understand your bias, but personally I'd rather have you as PM than Vince.

· Comment on: My big idea to fix politics

MartynInEurope 20 Sep 09, 4:15pm

I have just read the comments by Vincent Cable, Jo Swinson, Norman Baker and John Curtice, and have one question.

Considering that the UK lacks a decent democratic, secular, egalitarian and just constitution; considering that the electoral system weighs rather than counts votes; and, considering the effectiveness of republican federalism in supporting the needs of a modern civil society, is this collection of frail soundbites really the best that the Lib Dems can come up with?

· Comment on: We were wrong to allow so many eastern Europeans into Britain

MartynInEurope 06 Jun 10, 4:00am

So populist it would make Hugo Chavez and Vince Cable blush.

· Comment on: George Osborne defends tax gamble as prospective chancellors clash live

MartynInEurope 30 Mar 10, 11:27am

· Comment on: Cutter Clegg

MartynInEurope 14 Sep 08, 12:37pm

In an interview with The Observer, Vince Cable, the Lib Dem treasury spokesman, abandoned the party's historic commitment to 'ever closer' European integration and its decade-long push for rapid British entry into the euro system.

Liberals = Sentimental Tory Gits.

So, 21st Century Enlightenment, is it?

Martyn Richard Jones — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:40:46 GMT

In the UK, Matthew Taylor of the Royal Society of Artists has come up with a brand new big idea, which is being touted as a call for calling for a "21st-century Enlightenment". This was my response to an article by Madeleine Bunting (guardian.co.uk, Sunday 13 June 2010 21.00 BST), Comment is free - Hail the 21st-century Enlightenment - Ideas don't come much bigger. We need to live very differently, argues a bold new text. And that calls for nothing less than a revolution of the mind.

Here is my response:

Over the two decades we have seen leaders of western democracies failing to heed the lessons of history; we have seen the likes of Blair and Bush turn western enlightenment on its head in order to justify the unjustifiable, and the abuse and misuse of institutions born out the lessons of history and the spirit of the enlightenment.

Of course, the values and notions of empathy and empathic concern are not new, even though the results of scientific research have provided additional theoretical support – see Jeremy Rifkin, The Empathic Civilisation.

But, is Mathew Taylor really doing anything more than polymorphism to represent a unified and repackaged view of aspects of the enlightenment, evolutionary biology, neuro-cognitive science, pedagogy , child development, Judaeo–Christian values, etcetera, and in order to revive interest in the fundamentals of the original enlightenment and its impact on society, as it were, a re-launch of the enlightenment dressed in 21st century social-democratic clothing?

Of course, conspiring to pretend that 21st Century Enlightenment is new and as potentially significant as the first European Enlightenment, relies on a mirage, the mirage of the enlightenment seen from a 21st century perspective. That is, our current viewpoints and our modern references can be used to recreate the enlightenment, even to the extent of pretending all of this was invented by some bloke in New Labour in 2010. Of course it can be claimed to be new, but that is a mistake. From the fundamental aspects of its broad sweep of philosophy we can even call 21st century Enlightenment modern, but in reality, it is not something new, and is certainly something far older than New Labour’s philandering with bourgeois liberalism and it’s dalliances with the soulnessness and debasing influence of the third way.

Of course, I take issues with academics who take intellectual autism to extremes, and I find Gray’s criticism of Rifkin’s ideas to be somewhat problematic, because they seem to have been derived not only from an intellectual stance, but one that seems far from empathic. In addition, whilst agreeing that empathy (as defined by Simon Baron-Cohen, etc) is something very important in a decent society, there are other aspects and values that must also be considered, such as: gratitude, honesty, sincerity, responsibility, generosity, solidarity, wisdom, learning, self-control, sensitivity, sacrifice, constructive criticism, detachment, optimism, love, compassion , responsibility, will, understanding, patience, friendship, loyalty, respect, joy, etc.

Simply stated, after the neo-liberal, neo-conservative and post-modern mugging that the European Enlightenment has suffered in the last decades, and with all the subsequent obfuscating spin, bluff and bluster that has been used against the values of the enlightenment, it’s perhaps time that we were reintroduced to the fundamental richness, values and the lessons that can be learned from the enlightenment.

But, my main concerns are thus:

1) Are the people who have brought it upon themselves to re-launch the enlightenment in the UK, really the most appropriate people to do so, and, does it matter?

2) Is this re-launch of the enlightenment going to be anything like the third way re-launch of Labour in its New Labour guise, a re-foundation that is deliberately designed to exclude a whole swathe of public and published opinion, whether they are atheists, liberal democrats, democratic-socialists or the Marxist left.

3) Is this a cunning way of reformulating the enlightenment by going back and reforming Locke, picking and mixing some Rousseau and some Kant (conveniently forgetting the categorical imperative), and then fast forwarding to the future, conveniently missing out Hegel, Feuerbach and Marx, to name just three, and packaging it all in the same way that New Labour was branded?

Let’s hope this isn’t just some more cynical and expedient posturing and manoeuvring, eh.

UK Financial Sector versus Manufacturing Sector: It's not a game you know

Martyn Richard Jones — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:44:33 GMT

The article, written by Jonathan Todd, and published on Saturday 12 June 2010, was titled "No need to choose between finance and manufacturing" with the argument "Broad-brush commitments to rebalance our economy are an incomplete response to our economic growth challenge". The following text was essentially my response.

Let’s be clear about this, the suggestion that a sector of a business should contribute a larger percent to the overall business does not, in any capitalist sense, mean necessarily that you will deliberately diminish the net contribution of other sectors, and even large corporations are fully aware of the inherent dangers of allowing the balance between lines-of-business to get out of control. On the other hand, from an Inland Revenue perspective, reducing profit in certain sectors by increasing taxation on those activities, does make a lot of sense, even if this type of policy will bring howls of anguish from certain sectors of published rather than public opinion.

Now, as far as I can see, the UK has organised itself into a corner as far as systemic economic risk is concerned. This hasn’t been caused by one party or by one sector, but part of the blame can be reasonably laid at the doors of blind-faith in neo-liberal economics. Putting aside the sound-bites of Cameron, Cable and Mandelson for one moment, they still have respectable views on what I would term the poverty of business diversity in the UK. Moreover, I think to state that a rebalancing necessarily means a diminishing of the actual contribution of the financial sector is rather a problematic argument in itself.

This is not a choice between one thing or another, but of increasing overall contribution of strategic businesses, and to control things like systemic risk and the positive implications that has on government cash flows.

Now, the problem with classifying business activities can be problematic, especially when new professions come into being, but this is not the case with any of the traditional activities, whether that is in the financial sector, manufacturing, R&D or the liberal professions, and to be quite frank, in that respect, I don’t know what the fuss is about. Some financial services organisations are purely service organisations, staffed with managers and administrators, but with not one investment adviser, banker or trader in sight, keeping, as they do, their business confined to activities such as processing subscriptions, checking paper-work, processing corporate actions, paying dividends, custody and bookkeeping.

So, all in all the argument that we have concerns and proposals based on an either/or scenarios is moot. This is just not the case, reducing the overall percentage contribution of the financial sector by boosting other sectors, i.e. manufacturing, does not diminish net contribution, per se. An asset management organisation would be incredibly foolish to create such systemic risk, so to does any government that allows the economy to be too dependent on a given sector.

As for the claim that British manufacturing isn’t declining, well, it might not be at the moment, but for those who were born in the years BT (before Thatcher) we know full well that at one time manufacturing contributed more than 40% to Britain’s wealth, and now it stands at half of that. I don’t know what they teach at schools these days, but a 50% drop does seem a tad like a decline, even given the prevailing FX advantages now available.

So, should Cameron, Cable and even Mandelson be concerned about the under investment in British manufacturing? Absolutely! Not only that, they should actually do something about it. One of the first steps I would take would be to take the nationalised banking assets and turn them into full-blown Industrial Investment Banks, the second thing I would do is to create additional tax advantages and protection mechanisms for nascent manufacturing initiatives, and thirdly, invest more in developing skills needed for innovation in manufacturing, i.e. in education.

Now, coming on to the notion that you cannot have a successful climate policy without heavy involvement of traditional institutions, focusing perhaps on CO2 trading and Alternative Energy The assertions here fly in the face of facts in the ground, and without going into lengthy detail, it is best to illustrate it with a couple of questions: E.ON, RWE and Iberdrola owe what to “heavy involvement of financial institutions”? and, what do EEX and Nordpool, for example, owe to the “heavy involvement of financial institutions”?

So yes, Cameron, Cable, Mandelson and others are essentially on sound ground when they hint that to up the overall contribution of sectors other than the financial sector is the right thing to do. It’s not a complex proposition; the secret is in the ratios, contribution and systemic risk. Britain will not force-march its way out of the financial crisis – and it is most definitely a financial crisis – by expanding the ability to open doors for each other, to the detriment of everything else. An educated and willing workforce cannot be wasted on activities that can be eventually taken off-shore; it’s just not the way to go.

The link to the article on CiF: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/12/finance-manufacturing-rebalance-economy

JM and the Bank Bail-out

Martyn Richard Jones — Thu, 20 May 2010 10:37:02 GMT

John McDonell - Trades Union Bill

Martyn Richard Jones — Thu, 20 May 2010 10:34:06 GMT

John McDonell for Labour Party Leader

Martyn Richard Jones — Thu, 20 May 2010 09:37:30 GMT

John McDonnell is the best hope for Labour supporters, for a fast return to an honourable, decent, democratic, egalitarian and inclusive Labour Party. John McDonnell is the best candidate, and one of the very few potential leaders who can avoid a humiliating six or more years in the wilderness, consisting of in-fighting, bickering and destructive abrasion between New Labour factions/sects.

Get back to Labour basics, bring back the Labour party of real values, kick out the spin, the superficial policies of surfaces, the meaningless sound bites and more importantly, scrap notions such as "doing what the market wants, because".

In a democracy, the politicians should dictate policies to the market, not the other way around. This is what New Labour ignored. This is what a John McDonnell leadership will bring back to the party and to UK politics.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/19/ed-balls-john-mcdonnell-labour-leadership-contest

The Guardian

Stupid Boys and Tall Stories

Martyn Richard Jones — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:21:00 GMT

WORK IN PROGRESS

Work in progress. Check back for updates. Okay, here is the hall of stupid. Exhibits in no particular order.

Item 1: 1peter

02 Jul 09, 6:23pm (48 minutes ago)

MartynInEurope wrote:

And for the record, a 60/40 split is neither a "vast majority" nor "same same".

.....and for the record, how strange that you haven't been chasing down whatever his name is for claiming that the "vast majority" of Jews live outside Israel.....
yet you bluster on and on ad nauseum that it isn't 1/2 the Jewish population that lives in Israel, its 42%.

1peter wrote in reply: pedantry is your game.

MartynInEurope wrote: Because one (claiming a vast majority) is exaggeration and the other is blatant BS and mendacity. There is no way that 60/40 will ever be the same as 50/50. Never, ever, only in someone's alternative universe.

Wouldn't it have been simpler just to state the facts, rather than just to make it up, as you clearly did.

I'm not being pedantic for calling out BS, especially when the BS is so gob smackingly obvious BS. An exaggerated qualitative statement is nothing like the same as a mendacious quantitative statement.

Item 2: More explanation for idiot

MartynInEurope wrote: For every 400 Jewish people living in Israel, there are 600 Jewish people living in the diaspora.

Is the Jewish population of the Palestinian West Bank added to the total Jewish population of Israel? If so, better take them out. They don't live in Israel.

Are the figures for Germany based on Jewish people who have registered, or all Jewish people resident in those countries? In Germany there are roughly 110,000 people registered as Jewish, because AFAIK, the number of Russian Jews alone is around the 200,000 mark.

So you see, if one actually looks at the details of the statistics, and some of the assumptions, the more realistic figure might be: for every 340 Jewish people living in Israel, there are 660 Jewish people living in the diaspora.

Item 3: A cunt, is a cunt, not works as a cunt

      1peter

      02 Jul 09, 9:10pm (about 2 hours ago)

      MartynInEurope

      Is the Jewish population of the Palestinian West Bank added to the total Jewish population of Israel? If so, better take them out. They don't live in Israel.

      LOL you're beyond pedantry now....fantasy on top of obsession.

      12 posts of.....OMG.... zealous indignation LOL, at my stating that half the world's Jewish population lives in Israel in reply to the lie of the VAST MAJORITY of Jews live outside Israel.

      Yet not a single post about the initial claim.

      As I said, all bluster and pedantry

      Who let the trolls out,
      who,who,who,who

    *      MartynInEurope

      02 Jul 09, 11:20pm (1 minute ago)

      1peter:

          02 Jul 09, 9:10pm (about 2 hours ago)

          MartynInEurope

          Is the Jewish population of the Palestinian West Bank added to the total Jewish population of Israel? If so, better take them out. They don't live in Israel.

          LOL you're beyond pedantry now....fantasy on top of obsession.

      Didn't Pretzelburg bust this type of juvenile minded donkey-assedness a few days ago?

      Why do you persist 1peter, you have been proved wrong, time and time again.

      And you call me a pedant? LOL ...