Right honourable my arse

These past few months have seen some of the most interesting and important political events in the history of the United Kingdom. I mean this is the stuff that they're going to be writing in the 2050 version of Lowe's Mastering British History. This is on the same level as the fall of David Lloyd George, the fall of Thatcher, and the election of the Liberals in 1905. In fact, as I write, Mr Brown has undertaken a press conference which could possibly see the fall of his government.

Nevertheless, as much as I'd like to write about Brown, and believe me, I would, I'm going to blog today on the expenses scandal and political reform.

The expenses scandal. Wow. One of the biggest scandals ever. Its one that involved the whole of Parliament, not just one party. MPs have been labelled by many as 'greedy wankers', and I couldn't agree more. Taking our money to fund their own lavish lifestyles, many of whom had them anyway.

But, is this not merely human nature? Madison defined human nature as 'acquisitive and vindicative', which thus leads me to believe that if any normal human being was to be in their situation, they would take advantage of it. I know I would, because until recently, I could have gotten away with it. It is very easy to say that you wouldn't do it, but I guarantee that if you were in that position you would do the same as them.

If the system has existed for years, as the morons at Westminster have said, then the great Churchill probably ripped us off, so probably did Thatcher, and the dastardly left wingers such as Kinnock.

I'm not saying give MPs a break, they bloody well deserve to be put in prison, but at least consider what you would have done in their situation. Honestly though.

Political reform is something that is on the lips of the nation. Well actually no it isn't but if you watch the news then it may interest you. Some say get rid of First Past The Post, some say have fixed term Parliaments. But really, what difference is it going to make?

PR may sound all well and good, but if you want things to get done, and I know I do, PR is not the answer. We will get coalition governments, who can't agree on anything, even the colour of the curtains in 10 Downing St. There would also be the possibility of the 3rd place party holding the balance of power, which is basically handing power to a party that most of the country didn't vote for. Would YOU want the Lib Dems holding the country to ransom, or even worse, Labour? Unless you support them, which is probably very few people, the answer will most certainly be no.

The main problem here is not the system, but the way that politics is conducted. The current people are snivelling weasels who couldn't give a shit about the country, only themselves.

There is only one solution. Elect me as Prime Minister. Or Jeremy Clarkson.

Let’s Not Get Carried Away With The Obama Bandwagon

Now, this is not a racist slur in any sort of way. I think it is fantastic for America to elect it's first black prime minister, a new dawn for a new age one may say. I think it just reflects the time and effort the Civil Rights movement has put in over the last 40 years to finally install a black president. For those who think he got in on just the 'racist ticket' I strongly disagree with you, Obama is America's Blair, whether or not he's black or white is irrelelevant, he was a fresh breath of air! Let us hope he is more successful then our own fresh breath of air!

The point of this comment is more of a warning then anything else. After reading the comments section of The Times and such papers, there has been a lot of comments suggesting could minority ethnics become presidents and Prime Minister's across the world? There have been calls for a white man to stand for President of Israel and there's been the obvious cause of a British version of Obama.

There are many problems with this. Firstly, this is not the time to start electing presidents or Prime Minsiters because of the colour of their skin. More than ever, the man/woman for the job should be selected for his/her policies. We cannot make the Americans select their leader due to his or hers policies, but we can make sure we don't 'Americanize' our own electoral contests. One evident thing that stood out when Thatcher stood for Prime Minister, was the claim that she was the first female Prime Minister was largely played down, she reverted into making it work in her favour, in terms of mixing it in with her policies, which made her one of the most successful Prime Ministers ever. However, what we have to worry about in future elections in Great Britain is that we don't suddenly start electing our leader due to his/her personality. As I said earlier on, this is not the time to start playing with the fabrics of government in order to look more diverse and different. Massive challenges await ahead for this country, times are going to become very difficult. I am not saying that we shouldn't elect an ethnic Prime Minister due to doubts over whether they would be able to run the country, I have no doubt that regardless of the candidates ethnicity the right man would be selected for the job. We just have to make sure that our prime ministerial contests don't degrade into a discussion around race. To say the American election was based around policies would be an untrue statement in my opinion, I do believe there was a lot of racism directed at both candidates. Indeed that is going to be a problem for Obama in the up coming election and times will be difficult for him, in a still quite a racist society.

The second problem with this is that the UK is not America and it isn't 1990s South Africa. We do not have a problem with racism in this country on the scale of these two countries. One of the greatest things about this country is our multi-ethnicity, I would like to think that if a minority ethnic person stood for election, his/her ethnicity would only be slightly noted. I am not saying there aren't incidents of racism in this country, and I am not saying the US is a racist country, but we did not have such a rampant racist group such as the KKK dotting through our history. Tolerance has always been Britain's high point, yes there was racism when immigration first started on a mass scale, but this was phased out extremely quickly in British society. Also, something one can note is that America has a lot higher proportion of minorities than the UK. We do not need a British Obama to herald the cause of the ethnics in this country, this is already safe gaurded by a tolerant society why race is not an issue. Also we do not have such heightened racial hatred in this country, on the whole we all live in harmony, not saying there is a lot of racial hatred in the States, but it's certainly at a higher level than it is in the UK

I hope when you read above that you don't think this is a racist slur at all, when I truely believe in something I will say it how I think it. I am not saying at all we shouldn't have a ethnic minority candidate in the Prime Ministerial elections, I am simply saying that if we do, when the time is right, that person's campaign should not be directed at the ethnics living in this country. Similary the rival candidate, if he/she is white, shouldn't direct the campaign at the ethnic majority in this country. Politics is about policy and charisma in the 21st century, not race.

Disclaimer: I am not saying at all that Obama's and McCain's presidential campaigns and subsequent election/defeat was due to racism, I truely believed both candidates tried to avoid the point. However, unfortunately things got nasty along the way and a lot of America's bigots (white and blacks) decided to use the election to demonstrate their dislike of each other.

Peter Self TPN's EDITOR and International Editor

Where should Interest rates go?

The Bank of England is currently in a bit of a tricky situation. Do they cut Interest rates to help economic growth, raise them to combat inflation, or simply leave them alone?

Interest rates have remained at around 5% for some time now, and this is in response to inflation being at 4.4%(August 2008) far above the BOE's target of 2%. Some, therefore, argue interest rates should go up even more to get inflation back down to the Banks target. It is important to keep inflation down, because it can result in second round effects such as wages rising, which then causes inflation to go up even more.

However the BOE, also has to consider Economic growth, which has severely slowed, in fact the UK's economy neither grew nor shrank in the second quarter of 2008. In order to stimulate the UK's economy the bank should really cut interest rates to stimulate demand, and also things like the housing market, which has slowed massively due to the credit crunch.

So what should the bank do? Cut interest rates to help the economy, or raise them to combat inflation? Well it is my belief the bank should cut interest rates. This is because yes higher inflation can lead to second round effects such as higher wages, but i do not believe we will see this. This is because as the economy slows, many more people will become fearful of losing their jobs, and will therefore not go demanding 5% pay rises to combat inflation. We have definitely not seen this yet (except oil tanker drivers). Furthermore if the economy goes into a major economic downturn inflation will not even become a problem because consumer spending, and spending in the economy as a whole will massively decrease. Finally interest rates mainly control inflation, which has been caused by demand. The inflation, we are seeing is caused by rising commodity prices, such as oil, gas and food. Therefore, raising interest rates is having little effect on inflation, because these types of goods are things we have to buy no matter what (they are inelastic). The price of these goods are also expected to come down in the near future, thus easing inflationary pressure.

The BOE, therefore in my opinion, should worry less about inflation, and concentrate more on the very fragile economy, like the FED did in the USA.

The Bonkers TUC

Right, I don’t know about how many of you have heard about the TUC‘s plan to introduce a super-tax on the rich, but I’m against it wholeheartedly!

Now I have no problems with a bigger tax on the rich per se, as I believe that if such a tax were to exist then it wouldn't necessarily harm the rather deep pockets of the "elite." It may also bring in some extra funds for a treasury which, thanks to a certain Mr Brown, is significantly out of pocket at the moment. This in turn may provide some sort of help for an economy is on something of a downturn, hint hint Mr Darling/Mr Brown. Thus I don't believe a tax on the very rich would necessarily be a bad thing. Shocked, aren't you?

However, don't get the idea that I am backing what the TUC have suggested. They are suggesting a super-tax on those who earn more than £100,000, which I think is utterly preposterous. As the previous article stated, now 1 in 100 tax payers have jobs which pay salaries of over £100,000. A large tax on these people would, in my view, be totally un-just. I know several people in the north, who are on these salaries. However to earn it, they have to commute to London weekly, often spending up to 4 nights away from their families. This, inevitably leads to stress and I believe that another huge tax on these people will be even more stressed. (A weak argument I know, but I have witnessed it firsthand.)

My other argument (probably the more relevant one) is that those in the highest bracket of tax are already being taxed too much. Those who earn £34,600 or more are forking out 40% of their income to tax. Those who are earning £100,000 p.a. are realistically earning around £60,000. But that is before ludicrous energy bills which are costing everyone a massive amount these days. Then there are mortgage repayments, ever more important in this era of banks not lending to each other. In addition there are food prices which are soaring thanks to huge demand from the emerging economy. But that's beside the point. I'm trying to convey the message that a super-tax would not be beneficial to many people.

With the very rich, the tax wouldn't affect their lifestyles in any way shape or form, with the exception of maybe having to buy a cheaper car. However with those with salaries of £100,000 the tax would affect them on such a scale that it is unrealistic to introduce the tax.

Monthly report (Aug 08)

This month has been one of the most successful TPN months so far, a big thank you goes out to Sam, Paul and Kunal who have all provided us with very interesting and thought provoking articles about the state of the UK politically and economically and the emergence of India.

Some stats for Aug:

highest amount of visits: 29 (Aug 22nd)
Total amount of visits: 547
Avrg time on site: 1m 46 Secs

Visits by countries (top 6)
UK (82.88%)
US (10.96%)
Australia (2.74%)
Spain (2.05%)
Thailand (0.68%)
China (0.68%)


By Cities (T.10)
London (56.85%)
Watford (6.16%)
South Tyneside (6.16%)
Newcastle (4.11%)
Edinburgh (2.74%)
Sydney (2.74%)
Malaga (2.05%)
Poway (1.37%)
Washington (1.37%)
Glasgow (1.37%)


In total:
highest amount of visits: 59 (Jul 19th 07)
Total amount of visits: 3,625
Avrg time on site: 59s

Top 10 Countries:
UK (44.89%)
US (28.45%)
Canada (4.09%)
China (3.49%)
Malaysia (2.04)
France (1.87%)
Germany (1.36%)
Singapore (1.28%)
Australia (1.02%)
Turkey (0.85%)

Top 10 Cities:
London (16.44%)
Washington (7.07%)
New York (4.43%)
Ann Arbor (2.81%)
Birmingham (2.30%)
Edinburgh (2.21%)
Hangzhou (2.21%)
Cumbernauld (1.62%)
KL (1.53%)
Singapore (1.19%)