Shane Greer

Blogging has been a touch light today as I’ve been helping a friend out with some work.  However during the course of the day we had the TV on in the background* and were surprised at just how many ads there were for companies promising to help you with debt problems (well over half the ads were of this type).  It was difficult not to feel that the ads were in some way a tragic comment on the state of British society, and more widely a reflection of the culture of personal and public debt the country has been lead into by Brown. 

*On an unrelated note has anyone else noticed that Airwolf isn’t as good a program as it once seemed to be?  Shame. 

In an effort to tackle the country’s massive drinking problem the Scottish government is proposing raising the legal drinking age to 21.  So that’s it then, with one stroke of the legislative pen the drinking problem in Scotland will be solved, underage drinkers will suddenly will suddenly wait until their 21 before buying cider.  Hmm, maybe not. 

Raising the legal drinking age to 21 simply makes a nonsense of the idea of becoming an adult when you turn 18, and completely ignores that the issue of binge drinking is a problem with much deeper roots than the age at which the state says you are allowed to buy alcohol. 

Yet more bad news for the faltering mayor. Perhaps Brown could follow up by praising Livingstone for handling London’s economy almost as well as he has handled the country’s.

A reader, Jaybs, draws attention to the current desperation of the Hillary campaign:

"It was interesting that Hilary chose to find time on Wednesday to visit Michigan to press for the Re-Vote, to change the rules that she agreed, why because it does not fit her self interest.

Now we find out that the ten wealthy Democrats have offered to pay for a new presidential primary in Michigan — all have ties to Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Five of the donors are listed on Clinton’s campaign website as among her major fundraisers. All 10 have contributed to Clinton’s presidential or Senate campaigns or the races run by former president Bill Clinton, according to federal data compiled by the non-profit Center for Responsive Politics.

The Michigan re-vote donors — include New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos and financier Roger Altman — have offered to put up $12 million to pay for a new election in June. It is so good how the Rich love to stick together, I’m sure the Lobbyists will throw something in as well, how helpful!"

Things aren’t looking good for Hillary, but if this election has taught us anything it’s that anything can happen in politics. 

Given my new role it has been suggested to me that I join the National Union of Journalists.  There’s one problem about that though, it’s a union (and I’m not the biggest fan of unions).  Nevertheless I decided to take a look at the NUJ website rather than dismiss it out of hand and was most amused by their application form, or rather the section of the form where applicants are to list their proposer and seconder:

Unions, you have to love them…

Imagine we were facing a potential banking crisis, an economy about to collapse, and as a result a very uncertain financial future… wait, there’s no need to imagine.  Anyway, in that terrifying scenario what’s the one meeting you almost certainly wouldn’t want to hear was taking place? 

Well, there’s a fair chance you wouldn’t want to hear that the heads of the leading UK banks were meeting with the governor of the Bank of England to request reassurance that financial assistance will be provided if needed. 

It’s a good job that’s not happening then…

The Gurkhas are some of the bravest fighting men on the face of the planet.  Despite their not being British citizens they willingly fight for us, the shed blood, and they die for us.  Despite all this however our treatment of the Gurkhas has at times been shameful, and in fundamentally important ways continues to be shameful. 

Today outside parliament, a couple of hundred yards from where I enjoy the freedom to write this blog, around thousands of retired Gurkhas are gathering to demand something owed to them that should never have been in question; their right to remain in the UK. 

At present Gurkhas who retire after July 1997 are permitted to remain in the UK, those retiring before that date however are not.  Additionally and importantly it should be noted that those retiring before the cut-off date also receive a pension that amounts to one-sixth of that received by a British soldier. 

100 of the Gurkhas present today will be handing their medals over to Nick Clegg who will raise the issue in PMQs.  If Clegg is half the man any one of Britain’s brave fighting Gurkhas are he will ignore parliamentary rules, walk across the floor, and dump the medals on the despatch box in front of Gordon Brown. 

Gurkhas have fought and died for our country for almost 200 years, it’s high-time they were given the treatment they deserved.  Those who retired before July 1997 should be allowed to stay in the UK, have their pensions increased to the same received by any other British soldier and receive back-payment for the five-sixths they have been denied for so long. 

Thereafter legislation should be passed granting citizenship to all Gurkhas upon retirement.  Anything less is a stain on this country’s honour. 

If you haven’t watched Obama’s race and politics speech you really should, not only is it yet another fantastic piece of oratory but also one of the most direct critiques on the issue of race in America in a very long time.  Obama has raised the bar:

Perhaps the most worry feature of human nature is our willingness to accept things at face value, and not to question orthodoxy.  Fair Trade is a classic example.  Last weekend I visited a friend in Liverpool and whilst waiting for him to finish work on the Friday decided to pop up to my university and see what had changed.  My first port of call was the Guild of Students (Liverpool’s equivalent to a Student Union) where I decided to get a cup of coffee.  Before reaching the cafe however it was more than apparent what produce was being sold - Fair Trade.  It was obvious because of the marketing material on many of the walls.  Posters with smiling farmers telling all who looked upon them that Fair Trade is good, and that if you buy it you’re good. 

The exposure to Fair Trade didn’t end there however, the marketing was there to be seen at various other places across the campus and in coffee houses doing their best to market themselves as ‘ethical’.  The message was clear, Fair Trade good, free trade bad. 

But how many people who buy Fair Trade goods actually know how their purchase, and the Fair Trade movement in general, contributes towards a fairer deal for farmers in less economically developed countries?  I’d wager very few. 

When purchasing Fair Trade the consumer is doing so because they believe their purchase will make a farmer in the less economically developed world a little better off.  In essence it’s a quasi-charitable donation.  But one of the questions often asked about charitable donations is ‘how much actually goes to those in need?’  How much of a cut goes to Oxfam guy who just approached you on the street with a clipboard, how much goes on admin, how much goes on the salaries of the charity’s directors? 

With Fair Trade products the amount that reaches the beneficiary of Fair Trade is only 10% of the price paid.  The thing is though that I used the word beneficiary for a reason.  Even if you think a 10% return is a good deal it might be worth taking into account that the beneficiary of Fair Trade is the land owner, not those who actually work on the land who aren’t guaranteed any particular cut of the Fair Trade pie.  Moreover, in order to qualify as a Fair Trade producer the land owner has to agree not to hire full-time workers; consigning those below land owners to a life with less certainty and security.  

It’s also worth noting that the biggest beneficiary of Fair Trade is Mexico; which it’s fair to say is significantly more developed than many, arguably ore deserving, countries in the world. 

But then what does all this matter when you can purchase a cup of coffee with a smiling farmer on the side?

So is Fair Trade a terrible thing?  Well that depends on your perspective, but whatever way you look at it one thing is clear - we need to look a little deeper than the shiney poster, and the smiling farmer; we need to actually ask some questions about our collective perception of Fair Trade and the practical reality of Fair Trade. 

Personally I’ll be purchasing free trade coffee and arguing for the removal of tariffs in both the developed and less developed world, along with massive de-regulation in the markets of LEDs. 

[For those who would like to take a look behind Fair Trade's marketing you could do worse than picking up a copy of a recent Adam Smith Institute publication 'Unfair Trade' by Marc Sidwell which points readers in the direction of questions they might want to ask about the Fair Trade system whilst providing some basic facts about the Fair Trade system that aren't available in the masterful marketing deployed by Fair Trade.]

Or not as the case may be.  In fact since the trials began 163 people have been tazed in the UK.  No doubt civil liberties groups and the rope sandal brigade of the LibDems will be shocked and appalled that violent offenders will have been on the receiving end of anything more harsh than a stiff talking to.  But before getting upset they should pause and consider that at least our police haven’t been using their tazers University of Florida style: