|
|
You are in the
company of
Roger Warren Evans |
|
| Part of www.LivePolitics.net < Back to Home Page |
|
Living Diary Index
|
item0078C 1084, 1085 1084 12 April 2005 Wicked
Howard’s campaign on immigration is just plain wicked. His campaign is devious and malicious, drawing upon the very worst of human nature in a desperate attempt to gain electoral advantage. For every word of the headline statements, there is an unspoken parallel text of racial resentment, cultural antagonism. And for those of us who know the situation “on the ground”, the campaign is also deeply dishonest, in ways which demean democratic politics. This is wickedness of a very high order.
And I must acknowledge that my own Party does not come to the issue with clean hands. Political pressures have dismantled the moral inhibitions of earlier generations. My Government has clearly schemed to make life nastier and nastier for asylum-seekers, to the despair of those us working to assist them in their distress. For me (as a human rights lawyer) it is particularly distressing to know that my Government has suborned our judicial and legal-aid systems, in the pursuit of nastiness. But through all this, it is vital that we find the right language in which to debate these profound issues. My Labour Government has sought to keep the temperature of public debate low, keenly aware of its societal explosiveness. Under Blunkett, nastiness to asylum-seekers was balanced by liberal immigration strategies elsewhere, with work permits and other entry schemes. And Blunkett deserves great credit for his EU Workers Registration Scheme. Howard has rejected all caution, to unleash the forces of racism and xenophobia. His Australian advisers clearly hold out great electoral returns, as a racist electoral dividend. Ignore the measured “reasonableness” of their text: it is the sub-text that matters. Howard is clearly praying that “immigration” will carry him into Downing Street, upon a tidal wave of racial antagonism and cultural resentment.
What is your response to Howard? Drop me a line
1085 18 April 2005 Corporate Kleptocracy I never dreamt I would call the Financial Times naive. But that is now my accusation. Editorial disgust was recently expressed for Directors who plundered their own companies, by rigging their own salaries, bonuses and pensions in unjust ways. The whole naive article is reproduced here: I cannot click you through to the Financial Times itself, because it is a subscription website, and it would not let you in.
Do they not realise that the facility of stealing from their companies is the principal perk of professional Directors, particularly Managing Directors? That all their striving is to achieve the blessed secrecy of the Boardroom, where theft on a grand scale is the norm, indeed socially and legally acceptable? How can the FT be so naive? The corporate sector, nationally and internationally, is a genteel kleptocracy (i.e. rule by thieves) which offers untold opportunities for unjust enrichment which is perfectly legal. The law accords to Directors virtual freedom to write their own pay packages, policed only by fellow cronies, who are in on the same act.
What do you think? Drop me a line
|
|
|
| Created by GMID Design & Communication COPYRIGHT
NOTICE
|