Blair knows best

Blair's "we know best" style of government had two more outings this week. First, Ruth Kelly ignores an education reform report that her own department commissioned, and then the man himself gets all in a tizzy because some senior MPs and Lords dare to criticise Charles Clarke's new anti-terror proposals.

Council tax must go

Michael Howard announced today that if elected, the Conservatives would introduce discounts on Council Tax for pensioners.
Talk about second-hand and second-rate initiatives.
The Lib-Dems have been advocating the aboliton of Council Tax for ages (pdf file - see page 5). The Lib-Dems would replace the Council tax with a local income tax, so pensioners would automatically pay much less. So would the low-paid. Middle income earners would pay more, but it would be a far more equitable system than one based on arbitrary, and out of date property valuations. I would pay a bit more, now when I am working, but I would pay a lot less when I retire (or if I became unemployed).
A local income tax would also force central government to allocate resources more fairly to the councils that needed them most- the councils where low-income families live. Part of New Labour's spin has been to allocate local government support with more reference to politics than to need. While they have introduced legislation forcing councils to provide new services, they have not provided funding. (An example was the increase in teacher's pensions that local councils had to pay, but for which no increased grant was allocated.) This has allowed Blair and Co. to criticise Conservative and Lib-Dem local councils that have been forced to raise council tax, when in fact the tax was being raised to fund a central government - that is, a New Labour - policy.

The devil in the details

There's a new university course at a Vatican-linked university in Rome, according to an AP report in the Washington Times. It's a course on Satanism, black magic, and exorcism.
Now I wonder if Education Secretary Ruth Kelly would be keen on seeing that sort of course in a British University?

Some sense at last

I have long believed that the expression "military intelligence" was a contradiction in terms, especially when applied to the senior echelons of the Israeli Army. Imagine my surprise when I read in today's Ha'aretz newspaper that an Israeli military committee have concluded that demolishing the family homes of terrorist suspects causes Israel more harm than good.
According to the report, the committee has found that

the damage to Israel caused by the demolitions was greater than the benefits because the deterrence, limited if at all, paled in comparison to the hatred and hostility toward Israel that the demolitions provoked among the Palestinians

I am astounded. What will they think of next?

Told you so

The other day I commented that Ken Livingstone's refusal to apologise over his tasteles remarks to a Jewish journalist might gain him plaudits from quarters whose support he doesn't usually enjoy.
And today, my prediction has come true: Boris Johnson thinks he shouldn't apologise!

"I'm not a racist"

Ken Livingstone refuses to apologise for comparing a newspaper reporter to a concentration camp guard (see The Guardian, 16th February 2005)

The comparison would be odious in any circumstances - clearly not everyone who defends themselves by saying they are only doing their job is totally devoid of all morals, as Mr. Livingstone would have us believe. It is particularly odious as the journalist in question happens to be Jewish, and when he pointed this out, Mr Livingstone persisted in his analogy. The fact that the journalist works for a newspaper that Mr. Livingstone detests is also no excuse.

The most serious aspect of Mr. Livingstone's refusal to withdraw his remark is that he is giving succour to the real racists and anti-semitic bigots. Comparing Jews to Nazis is part of the standard repertoire of extreme right-wing propganda. It is racial stereotyping of the worst kind. The exact nature of the stereotype is unimportant (Jews may equally identified as Nazis, Commies, or Capitalists), but the message is clear. The Jews are villainous outsiders, and not to be trusted or even tolerated.

By refusing to recognise the implications of his remarks, Mr Livingstone risks alienating liberal-minded voters and attracting the support of those very racists whose thoughts and actions he claimns to abhor.

"Tories are terrorists"

I've just read the article "Tories are terrorists" on the anti-Blair website BackingBlair. I certainly agree with the analysis in this article. It is clearly true that Blair's favourite rhetorical device is the "false dichotomy". This is the idea that there can only ever be two sides to any argument. If you disagree with me, you are obviously wrong and obviously support my enemies. If you disagree with the war in Iraq, you clearly want Saddam back in power. If you don't support Blair, you are a Tory. If you don't support Blair's reforms of public services, you are part of "the forces of conservatism" and so on. So, the article goes on, if the terrorists are against Blair, and the Tories are against Blair, the Tories are terrorists.
Of course, the Tories and terrorists are alike in one respect - I can't stand either of them!