CoffeeHousers' Wall, 30 June - 6 July

adrian drummond

Following Tom Harris saying that Fraser Nelson was “predictably cruel” to Khalid Mahmood (re this MP's performance at PMQ's), I'd like to know what other coffee housers think of the quality of our MPs. When I think back to the great debaters of the last thirty years - Powell, Foot etc - I believe the current lot (with a few exceptions - Hague) aren't up to much.

Does anyone else have a view?

Elizabeth

Hello Peter

New week and a new lot of topics?.
I would like to raise one please and hope that some of the very clever people who are contributing to the wall can explain my problem. Puncheon are you reading?
Inflation.
Now we are told that with a rise of inflation it is necessary to raise interest rates to counter it.
Really! Why?
To control spending.
Right.
Higher interest rates transfer the wealth from the poor and middle to the rich. Haven't we already done that to the level that the bottom 50% are having their pips squeaked or very shortly will.
You raise the penalty on those without the capital to buy a house, car or whatever to pay a premium to those with excess cash over and above their expenditure and who can lend it.
The old name was usury.
So the higher the interest rate the more the borrower is screwed to the advantage of the lender.
Certainly you are going to stop spending, by the borrowers. And this helps inflation?.
The lenders are going to get ever richer or receive a higher income.
So?
The real cause of inflation is surely the government creating extra money. Penalising the poorer folk hardly helps this.
It is the inflating of the dollar by the Bush admin that is contributing not a little to the price of oil.
Rather than penalise the people at the bottom trying to keep their homes afloat we should be doing something about the weakening of the pound and therefore the inflation of the currency.
Can someone kindly explain where my reasoning is out?
Why is the burden of inflation pushed onto those who are largely without large amounts of capitol?.

Patrick, London

Inflating the money supply is indeed THE root cause of inflation. To stop it...

A) the government would need to contract public spending quite sharply; and

B) the BoE / banking system should limit credit.

Item B is now a fact and it will apply a serious squeeze. House prices are falling, people have less cash to spend and the supermarkets are apparently starting a price war. This will put downward pressure on prices. It's not enough though.

We need the government to implement item A. And pigs might fly.

Arthur

Elizabeth,

Maybe this will help:

The mistake we currently make is that we believe the government when it says the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is the same thing as inflation; it patently is not. It is just an index of goods and services; we also have the RPI.

An index is only ever a basket of 'representative' goods and services so it can never represent the whole market. And as we know, the CPI does not include house prices which have been a major contributor to overall inflation (too much money following too few assets).

A parallel is worth making with managed funds and tracker indices in the stock market. Trackers, in effect, use a basket of all shares in the market, whereas, managed funds try to beat the market by selecting only those shares the managers think will perform best. Fund managers eventually get found out by the whole market, as do governments when they try to peddle the myth that an index, including a small sample of goods and services, can represent whole inflation.

Which brings us onto the main point of your post: “the real cause of inflation is surely the government creating extra money”.

Yes, the role of the money supply in inflation seems to have been airbrushed from history as the government pushes the role of wage rises. Income and price policies will undoubtedly follow.

Inflation, in my opinion, needs to be viewed in two ways: first as an indication of prices as determined by supply and demand. We can see this at work with oil, mineral and food prices. When demand rises without a commensurate increase in supply, the price of these discrete goods goes up.

But in a sense, this does not reflect true inflation (value of money), only a rise in the price of these specific things. As I mentioned before, the CPI is only a basket of goods and services and so does not reflect the whole market. In a pure economic sense, if the price of specific goods (oil, food, minerals) goes up, we either buy less of them or fore go the purchase of other things. There has been no whole market inflation, only a re-balancing of what we spend our money on.

So, this brings me to the second way we need to look at inflation. True inflation, the erosion of the value of a currency, is and always was primarily determined by the supply of money. And as the government has presided over an increase in the money supply since it came to power, all that happens is that, in the absence of increased productivity to absorb it fully, prices go up to absorb the extra money washing around the economy.

The issue is not, therefore, who benefits or does not benefit from inflation but how do we recognise what true inflation is and how do we prevent it from eroding the value of our currency.

A point of interest: Professor Richard Holmes noted that the pay of a soldier stayed at a Shilling a day for most of the 18th Century. This suggests to me that inflation did not really exist so why have we accepted it as a fact of economic life today? I think it probably lies in the modern propensity to increase the supply of money all year, every year.

Puncheon

Yes, Elizabeth, I am listening, although I don't recognise the adjective "clever" as applying to me - I assume you had tongue firmly in cheek. Very good question, if I may say so. I decided to take a good lunch before attempting to comment. This delay fortunately allowed Arthur to anticipate me with his helpful analysis - sloth does sometimes have its rewards.

I was always taught that inflation at its simplest is too much money chasing too few goods. This can be either because there are too few goods to meet demand - as Arthur notes, this is what is happening with basic commodoties, food, oil, metals etc. for a variety of reasons. The other cause is, as Elizabeth notes, an increase in the money supply, which is down to the Government. Enoch Powell always used to say that almost all inflation was caused by Governments for this very reason. This is or used to be known as moneterism. Is this in or out of fashion now, I forget.

But to address Elizabeth's question - why raise interest rates. I guess it is a quick way to reduce the amount of discretionary spending and thus soft money, eg credit spending. It reduces the amount of money in circulation. And so in a way it is right that we are being made to pay for the Government's incomptence. It's a form of the old reaction of poor company managers to a fall in sales - start blaming the customer or in this case the consumer. Yes, you are right too that the poor get in in the neck while the wealthy benefit from increased investment income. But I'm afraid that that is one of life's harsh realities and one of the reasons why people strive to be wealthy - the poor always suffer the most in bad times.

Arthur mentions the stability of soldiers' pay in the 18th. century. I wonder whether this was not connected with the fact that our currency was at that time gold based. It has always puzzled me why modern economists sneer at the gold standard. It seems to me that it acted as a good discliple to prevent scoundrel politicians attemting to debauch the currency for party political reasons. Perhaps one of our economic experts can explain.

In my simple view, Governments only have three main duties: to physically protect the realm; to protect the value of the currency and provide a fast, fair and accessible legal system. In my lifetime Governments have failed to fulfill any of these, prefering instead to chase rainbows and chimaeras.

Nicholas

Interesting to read that the president of the National Association of Muslim Police (NAMP), Zaheer Ahmad has written to Home Secretary Smith urging that:

"If the police are serious about ensuring that Muslim officers are able to rise through the ranks at the same speed as their fellow white officers, and ensuring that Muslims are deployed to counter-terrorism duties at a time of heightened national security, we must have reliable data to track progress and measure success."

Apart from the obvious irony of this, since the heightened national security is almost exclusively the result of Muslim extremism (with a hefty dollop of New Labour incompetence thrown in), Mr Ahmad seems to confuse religion with race in a way that reveals his own bigotry towards "fellow white officers" by presuming that they could not be Muslim.

Is there an Association of Roman Catholic Police, Jewish Police, Buddhist Police, etc.?

Max Kaye

Hi There. Could someone please recommend a good biography of Thomas Jefferson.

Thanks.

Max Kaye

Perhaps someone at the Speccie can explain to me why Mark Steyn was dropped. And - is there any change of getting him beck?

James Forsyth

Max, The Joseph Ellis one is pretty good. If you're interested in the Founders, his Founding Brothers is perfect beach reading. Best, James Forsyth

Frank Pulley

James F

How about answering Max Kaye's second question? I've asked it myself in a variety of ways since this blog commenced, always without reply. I think we should be told.

Craig Strachan

So the Tories are to publish their "English votes for English laws" scheme, thus abandoning their traditional role as defenders of the Union.

Alex Salmond must be delighted by the rise of an English nationalism that is every bit as petty and unattractive as the Scottish nationalism to which it is a reaction.

The true Conservative and Unionist position would be a manifesto pledge to abolish the Scottish Parliament and return to the Union as it was, before Blair's reckless meddling.

Craig Strachan

On the Mark Steyn question my guess would be:

1) He's expensive

and

2) He's too closely associated with the former proprietor now cooling his heels as a guest of Uncle Sam.

Sean

The problem with some of the arguments regarding inflation (the posts that I have read) is that people are attempting to fit the current problem in their exising theoretical view of the cause of inflation.

The current inflationary spike has multiple causes.

Firstly, higher commodity prices are feeding imported inflation. The US dollar might be weak but if global demand continues to increase then higher prices will become a feature of our basic goods and material inputs.

Secondly, Chinese deflationary pressure is waning. We could rely on Chinese imports keeping prices for basic goods lower but this is no longer the case.

Then we can come to the more traditional view of inflationary pressure. As Arthur Burns put it the cause of inflation is "excessive Government spending". The problem with this Government is that their expenditure has been focussed not on improving productivity through capital projects and investment but rather through current spending. This has lead to a cumbling infrastructure system that is hurting productivity and causing higher transportation costs feeding into higher consumer prices.

Now there are some advocating a tightening of monetary policy. I agree that we cannot allow inflation to take full effect because of the resulting erosion of purchasing power. It does not, in the long run, benefit anyone. However, instead of arbitrarily increasing interest rates or hacking at government spending, we need a genuine strategy that aims to tackle the inflationary pressures today, and to work out how to ensure sustainable long-term growth for the British economy.

Tim Carpenter

Yes, inflation has two versions - one is inflation in money supply and the other is price inflation.

Much of the inflation in money supply has been masked by the deflation in prices caused by cheaper imports and technological advances/efficiencies. Had it not been for the dramatic increase in money supply we would have seen that occur even more dramatically.

Unless Govt/BoE can control the money supply - it does NOT - then it cannot protect the currency. Alas, the Government and BoE are currently so arranged that they can only influence money supply, not control it in the true sense, i.e. not control the amount of fiat issuance by banks. The banks control the money supply and operate in their best interests.

If the BoE had a charter to manage the value of the currency and not inflation then I suspect things would not be in such a mess. The BoE would be able to grow money supply to match economic growth but it might have taken a dim view on all the increased consumer debt and especially in the PFI madness.

Max Kaye

Thanks James, I'll give Ellis a try. Max

Elizabeth

'Alex Salmond must be delighted by the rise of an English nationalism that is every bit as petty and unattractive as the Scottish nationalism to which it is a reaction.'

Yes Craig he is. Good for him.

'The true Conservative and Unionist position would be a manifesto pledge to abolish the Scottish Parliament and return to the Union as it was, before Blair's reckless meddling.'

Why?
What is wrong with nationalism?
I'm a nationalist.
I find the idea of internationalism completely undemocratic.
Do you prefer the EU and NWO?
As for the Union.
What is so sancrosanct?
It only dates for the last few centuries. Before that Scotland and England were independent and separate states.
I don't remember the people of either nation being actually asked about the situation - shades of the EU - until the Scots got their vote.
We in England are presently dominated by a Labour vote on a conservative England and I for one abhor what has happened to my country and the planned and wholesale destruction of all I hold dear.
The Scots hated Thatcher and all her works. I thought her obnoxious too. David has listed some of the wicked things she did on another thread and I could add more.
But the Scots hated Tory government imposed on them by the English.
This will continue - better for both peoples to elect a governance they want, surely.
Why a forced Union?
I have no objection to the concept of a federal state of Britain. Federalism is the mode of most democracies - almost all that I can think of.
That is selfgoverning parts under a federal government that takes to itself some overall responsibilities.
Think Australia, Canada, the USA.
We have three self governing parts. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Only England is denied the right.
In fact the Labour position is the destruction of England into regions.
Fortunately some brilliant activists saved England from this fate when they got a no vote in the first regional referendum and blooded Prescott's nose.
If we had an English parliament life would be different and very interesting.
If the same as the other three it would be under PR and smaller parties would have a look in breaking the tyranny of the BIG3.
Now this is the rub. The big 3 all know this and being at the end of the day nothing but self serving power seekers they oppose the people getting the chance of real democracy.
We English are strange. We might elect a BNP, UKIP, Green, Monster Raving Looney even a monkey.
So we English are denied the same rights as the other three constituent parts of the UK.
I strongly object.
Anyone wanting out of Europe, the end of the obnoxious Human rights act, the end of mass unrestricted immigration and a dozen other contentious destructive policies should look to an English parliament and the powers it mey actually have or could assert.
The Union is dead. The Scots have an absolute right to their own governemnt as a free people.
This is 2008. the Union is dead.
Lets go forward.
I understand DD supports an English parliament but is stifled by the awful Cameroon. Can anyone clarify?
I am pleased the Tories are sort of looking at the idea of English rights.
I am an Englist nationalist. I love my country and I want to control my own rights and freedoms in English ways. I want to see us control who is allowed to come here and stay here.
I have a feeling PC would hit the dust for a start.
I want freedom to celebrate my national day.
England and St George, my friends, either federalist or alone, best of all with Wales.

Aidan

Elizabeth, inflation causes a transfer of purchasing power from lenders to borrowers. This is because the amount the lender can purchase with the capital is eroded by inflation, but conversely the real cost of the amount the borrower has to pay is also declining. Lenders therefore demand an increase in nominal interest rates to ensure that they get a real return.

Steven

The irony of Scottish and Welsh nationalists is that they are all unremittingly Pro-EU federalists. Perhaps this is not surprising, an independent Scotland could never survive on its own and would need billions of Eu subsidies to prop it up to replace the English economic wealth it lives off right now. The EU would be delighted for an 'independent' Scotland to arise, as this would be all the easier to gobble up into a single pan-European state, and take the rest of the U.K. with it. Hence the EU is so keen to exploit devolution and breakaway factions in Spain, Italy and the former Yugoslavia.
On another subject am I right in thinking that Dennis Macshane is the only Labour MP willing to defend Gordon Brown? The treachery of former Brownites may smack of political cowardice but Macshane's sycophancy is drearily tedious. Much better to be a Lamont or as Brown may soon encounter a Heseltine!

Elizabeth

Firstly congratulations to Patrick, London.
I thoroughly enjoyed your debate.
Well done!
Secondly sorry to be 'hogging' the 'wall' but I must thank you all for the replies re inflation and interest rates.
Aidan you have explained very well and enlightened me about the reason that interest rates go up. Logical really. Thank you, but it hasn't answered the question.
Clearly interest rates go up - looking at what you write - as a result!!!!! of inflation.
Even though the amount borrowed as X amount is finite and is almost certainly figures on a balance sheet, paper money created and possibly, looking at other comments even inflationary, when it comes to paying back the bank/lender they can charge more in repayment because the value of the initial loan has declined. The value of the initial loan has declined to the borrower as well - they have no redress. They get the double whammy. Pay back extra on a sum worth less than when they borrowed it.
Just proves to me how the richer side of the ledger never lose just the plebs at the bottom.
However I still do not see how raising the rates fights inflation.
It is suggested that making it harder to borrow restricts credit. So it restricts the purchasing power of those without capitol. How does that control inflation?
It just grinds the economy to a halt.
We get back to the reason for inflation. Governments irresponsibly create money based on no real substance.
(With Gordon Brown flogging off our gold at bargain basement prices - we presumably have less substance than ever).
So as Patrick suggests - stopping the never ending hiring of public servants and the stopping of government spending would stop inflation but clearly raising interest rates doesn't.
The interest rates just make sure that if anyone loses out its the borrower not the lender/banks.
Don't you think it is absolutely and totally dishonest to be peddling the concept through the media that interest rates are the B all of economic policy regards inflation etc etc.
Why don't we have the truth each month as the BoE makes its judgement.
Sky news....
'Right everyone we are waiting for a decision as to how much extra you, the borrowing members of the public, will pay the wealthier section of the community to compenste them for any loss they might incur for lending a sum to you for that house you bought which is now worth less than you paid for it.
Double whammy folks. These lenders won't lose out but you will. Pay back more and lose a percentage of what you borrowed as well.
No compensation for you losing, my friends - just the banks.'
end
So using interest rates to beat inflation is actually a sort of fraud, a sort of lie, the twisting of facts to con the people who don't understand such things.
Sky news....
'Sorry folks your mortgage repayments have to soar up this month because the government has overspent another billion or two saving its face over the 10% tax fiasco not to mention the billions it is spending on an unwinnable and totally futile war which is killing the best and most courageous of our young.....'
end
Mind bogging when you stop to think about it.
On this one they are fooling most of the people all of the time.
And lastly Steven, we are in a position at present that a future referendum on Europe could be won by the nationalists in Scotland and Wales - combined with a smaller vote in England. The theory is that if a referendum is held it could be 'in or out of Europe'.
The English could possibly be in the majority for withdrawal but would be pushed in, irrevocably, by a welsh and scottish 'yes'.
All the more reason for England to start looking after its own before it's destruction by its anciant foes from within the Union.

Rex Burr

I read of the various causes for the parlous state of our economy.
Perhaps globalisation has had a hand in it and perhaps our government has had two hands in it.
The world fundamentals have not improved since the late nineties. When the current hiatus has died down we will have to pick up the pieces and try again.
Is there any clear indication that DC and his party have policies that will produce an outcome in ten years time that is better than where we are now?

Aidan

Elizabeth wrote: "The value of the initial loan has declined to the borrower as well - they have no redress. They get the double whammy. Pay back extra on a sum worth less than when they borrowed it."

That's one way to look at it. Another way is to say that the decline in real value of the loan is actually a benefit to the borrower, because the amount they eventually have to repay is nominally the same but in real terms is less.

However, I agree that I haven't answered your original question. I'm not convinced that Government interference in the markets does any good. The best thing Governments can do is to reopen the Doha talks and remove barriers to global trade.

Frank Pulley

Craig Strachan

Too expensive - and batted for Conrad? I suggested that myself, and still the silence is maintained. Neither is a good excuse, he's entitled to be loyal, particularly when the fat rats were deserting the sinking ship in droves. As for the 'too expensive' suggestion, there are a couple of well paid hacks on the books here who could be sacrified to raise the moolah.

Maybe he wasn't keen on the Shepherd's-Bush-street-urchins-made-good: the Barclay boyos, or they on him. Or maybe he has bigger fish to fry. We can speculate until we're (true) blue in the face, but neither he nor our hosts will come clean, so perhaps there was a financial severance which had a 'schtum' clause in it. So unless somebody knows different .... ?

Anyway his blog has gone dormant and even his NR column is missing this issue; a deserved holiday, no doubt, after all the Canadian human rights crap and he hinted that a 'major project' is underway. Hope it's as good as "America Alone". He has a customer for life here (my life that is - I hope he soldiers on long after my account has closed).

Craig Strachan

Elizabeth,

I don't think the Union is sacrosanct. In fact I think it is unlikely to endure if current trends continue. But that would be a shame in my view - the dissolution of a successful partnership for no pressing reason.

I don't dislike nationalism per se. I dislike the chippy separatist form of nationalism which prevails in Scotland, and the resentful English nationalism that has arisen in reaction to it.

I would prefer a quiet British patriotism focused around the crown and a single sovereign parliament at Westminster, in which all MPs have equal voting rights on all matters coming before it.

Bascially what we had until ten years ago, and what worked well for nigh on three centuries, before Blair.

Verity

COMETH THE HOUR, COMETH THE ANGLOSPHERE

Melanie, on her interesting post, "The Jihad of The Word", notes: "A few days ago the UN decided to outlaw any criticism of Islamism – as defined by the Islamists themselves. Since they classify any criticism whatsoever of Islamist aggression as ‘Islamophobic’, this means that the UN will outlaw all such comment."

Leaving aside the comical notion of the gangsters at the UN making everyday talking rules for the sane, established countries that developed, and run, the world, this is still a sinister message.

Millions of Muslims have been encouraged to move to the West and the left, who slyly let them in, is only too willing to salaam to their religious sensibilities, elevate them, especially in Canada and the UK, above our long-established freedoms and our centuries-old rule of law.

This has been deliberate.

It is time for a mighty slamming on of brakes regarding the UN, which serves no purpose except as a showcase for dictators and, as ever, the Gramscian left. They do no work of any value.

The time has come to take the reins back into our own hands. Let the UN continue to be a club for thugs, dictators and kleptomaniacs, which is what it is already. But without us - and elsewhere. Let them develop a way of supporting themselves, possibly HQ'd in Kinshasha or Tripoli or Harare.

At the same time - in for a penny in for a pound - we must disengage from the undemocratic menagerie of chancers that is the EU.

There's a new world on the horizon and we are part of it.

It is time for the Anglosphere to emerge into a formal and binding entity, comprising all the countries that have Anglo-Saxon Common Law as the basis of their legal systems, an English Parliamentary system and, of course, common use of the English language.

This would mean a formal, binding relationship - by which I mean, more legally binding than just treaties - with the United States, Britain, Oz, New Zealand, India, Singapore, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and, unfortunately, Canada. The African Anglophone countries would have to undergo rigorous examination before being admitted. It might be some years, or decades (given the 60 years of independence they have already thrown away), before they qualified.

In 30 years, the world will look very different, with the United States, China and India in the lead. We should have India in our fold.

Universal citizenship would be a bridge too far, but we might consider a universal currency, with all the Anglosphere countries adopting the US dollar.

Our own laws are the best. Our language is the international language of trade. We are the most inventive people (I include, don't forget, India, which now applies for more technological patents than any other nation except the US and Germany).

We must find the energy and the will to free ourselves from the lunacy of an unelected, destructive and malign UN dictating morals to mature countries, the equally malign Gramscians and the dated, creaking, mouldy, stale Sovietesque EU and its nomenklatura and apparachiks.

All yesterday.

So shed, we can create the conditions under which we will continue to prosper as the world changes dramatically. It is not too late. Indeed, now is the ideal time for the emergence of the Anglosphere.

In 30 years, we could be looking at a world with two major powers: the Anglosphere and China.

Craig Strachan

Frank Pulley,

Well, maybe Mark Steyn is just really busy then! Oh well, we'll just have to wait for our next fix of pun-laden neo-con propaganda, dispensed from New Hampshire.

Meantime, let's enjoy Rod Liddle - every bit as funny as Steyn, and with a lot more to say that is relevant to the state of modern Britian.

Roger Thornhill

Verity,

IMHO adopting the USD would be tragic. It is over printed already. I'd rather a new currency that holds its value.

I reckon India will be the next torch-bearer of Western Civilisation, in fact I believe it will be its saviour in the decades to come.

Verity

Roger Thornhill -Fine. It is the concept of the Anglosphere that I would like to see bruited about. We can worry about the fine-tuning later.

I am second to none in my love for, and admiration for, India, but I do not see it as the next torchbearer, except as part of a larger entity, like the Anglosphere. For one thing, it has no ambitions in that direction.

And they already have enough to occupy them. They are engaged in bringing 1.2bn people forward into prosperity - or at least minimal living conditions. Although they do have that segment necessary to prosper internationally, a very large, educated middle class.

In addition, Roger Thornhill, they are not part of Western Civilisation per se - although they are certainly one of the founders of civilisation.

But its brilliant, inventive people, its excellent military and its freewheeling entrepreneurial ethos would meld well with the rest of the Anglosphere.

And something else I just thought of: they have familial ties all over the Anglosphere, just as we do. There are millions of NRIs (Non-Resident Indian nationals) in all the Anglosphere countries and most are prosperous.

Roger Thornhill

Verity, I do see India as part of the Anglosphere, and a (or even the) vigourous and self-confident component of it in future.

If you read your own response you will see part of why I think the way I do!

But, I do get your point. The Common Law and the mindset that it engenders is, IMHO key to why great prosperity is possible, and greater than in other systems. The very concept that all is open unless specifically prevented is superior to the Napoleonic version where you may only do what is permitted. By its very nature it puts religious dogma into the box that it so surely deserves.

However, as a "binding entity" I think it would fail due to the very mindset that flows through it. The binding will have to be implied, implicit, informal. The very flexibility, however, will be its strength.

p.s. why so down on Canada - my personal experience of Canadians is almost universally positive.

Puncheon

Interesting thoughts from Verity. Its very similar to the old idea of HM the Queen, who many years ago wanted to base our future on an English speaking Commonwealth plus the USA. She was, of course, hooted down by know-all politicians like Sir E Heath, and the FCO who preferred a different approach. I think I know who was right all along.

Verity

THE ANGLOSPHERE - Roger Thornhill,"However, as a "binding entity" I think it would fail due to the very mindset that flows through it."

The United States is, in effect, 50 separate countrie with their own laws, their own chief executive (the Governor) and their own Senates.

Last time I looked, none of them had seceeded. In fact, the last time secession was attempted was the War Between The States (the Civil War - ended 1865), and still the Union held together. And the Americans are as independent and strong-willed as anyone on earth.

So I cannot take your point.

It has to be binding and formal, which will make it strong enough to weather anything.

India is not a repository of Western civilisation. They've got a 5,000 year history of their own. (But Hindi is the basis of all European languages.) But their law, their common language and their Parliament are consonant with us and I would like to know that we have the Indian military, which enjoys a very fine reputation, on our team.

Canada - Have you not been following the BC kangaroo court fiasco aka a "Human Rights Tribunal" - not part of the Canadian legal structure, but elevated into something semi-formal) in which three ambitious Islamic apprentice lawyers brought an absurd case against Mark Steyn, MacLean's Magazine and Ezra Levant (who was bankrupted defending himself against their frivolous charges)? I hope this is a mad spasm that they'll correct.

Roger Thornhill

Verity, I cannot take yours. I would say that apart from Texas, most other States see themselves and have almost always been pretty much of the whole. Try and bind the UK and the US or even Canada and the US as tightly as the US States and I would not see that going well. I am not saying a lack of connection, but your term seems too heavy/rigid to me, that is all.

Neither am I saying that India is a "repository", just that I suspect in the future it will come to the aid of civilisation just as America did.

I have seen the BC Kangaroo Court, but I would not write Canada off just for that!

Verity

COMETH THE HOUR, COMETH THE ANGLOSPHERE. Roger Thornhill, Sadly, this bending over backwards to placate aggressive Islamists is endemic in Canada just now, and I obviously judge shutting down freedom to voice an opinion as a graver offence than you do.

You wrote: "I reckon India will be the next torch-bearer of Western Civilisation ...", which is clearly not the case as they have a civilisation of their own which is different and older than Western civilisation (including the Greeks and the Romans). The first thing that strikes one on landing in India is that it is completely different.

I'm afraid your milk and water approach to the Anglosphere is exactly what we don't need. Frilly little treaties "binding" us together. No nation has ever been bound by a treaty it judged had reached the limits of its advantage.

We need something much more formal to face what the coming years will bring. The Anglosphere needs to act as one entity, and together, we are around 2bn people.

If you've never lived in the United States, you will know know that the state senates are very powerful. The US is a confederation of 50 countries and I don't want to get side-tracked.

The point is, countries whose national language is English, whose laws are based on English Common Law and whose government is Parliamentary, must find a means of binding together formally to combat what is coming up.

I am perfectly comfortable with two super-powers: the Anglosphere and the Sinosphere, if you will.

Frank Pulley

Verity

>"In 30 years, we could be looking at a world with two major powers: the Anglosphere and China."<

You may be right, but are you quite sure that UK will still exist, let alone be part of the 'Anglosphere' in 30 years?

Roger Thornhill

Verity >I'm afraid your milk and water approach to the Anglosphere is exactly what we don't need. Frilly little treaties "binding" us together. No nation has ever been bound by a treaty it judged had reached the limits of its advantage.<

You mean what YOU don't think we need. So basically you are asking that the UK Parliament give up sovereignty to...the US? Canada too? If so then I for one would resist.

As a Libertarian I am for self-interest. It is not perfect by a long way, but it is the least worst way forward. Countries united in self interest is far better than an entity set for future Balkanisation.

As for India, you appear to misunderstand what I mean by "torch bearer" - they carry it, preserve it, keep it alight - it does not mean they BECOME or ARE the torch. None of us are, in truth.

Austin Barry

Max, you might want to consider Christopher Hitchens "Thomas Jefferson - Author of America".

Aidan

A new subject. So far, nearly all the discussion I have seen about housing policy has been around managing supply - how and where can new homes be built in the South East, do we need eco-towns, what is the proper role of planning etc?

However we should also look at the demand side. There are hundreds of thousands of people living in London and the South East for no better reason than that the Government chooses to employ them here. Most of them could do exactly the same job elsewhere in the country (or indeed could be made redundant without anybody noticing, but let's leave that on one side for the moment).

Just to take one example, why does the Land Registry occupy half of one side of Lincoln's Inn Fields? What does it do there that it couldn't do just as well in, say, Truro? Why does the Welsh Office need a whole building on Whitehall (indeed why do we need a Welsh Office?)

Moving all these civil servants out of London and the South East would have multiple benefits: releasing office accommodation into the market, particularly in Westminster and Victoria; reducing demand for housing in the South East; reducing transport congestion in London; reducing demand on other services.

Verity

THE ANGLOSPHERE- Roger Thornhill, no. I am not asking anyone to give up sovereignty. That's what the EU warriors have done. I am suggesting a way that will strengthen freedom and justice and our abilityi to protect ourselves - both militarily and in trade- given that we will, within a few years, be competing on a serious level with China.

China is a giant and will naturally act in its own self-interest. We must be large enough to provide a counter-balance without sacrificing any of our freedoms - as we have been required to do under the utterly pointless EU.

India will not supercede the United States as the flag ship of individual righs and liberties. It has no ambitions in this direction.

I am trying to introduce the life-saving notion of The Anglosphere here, and you immediately focussed on tiny nits rather than the concept.

Austin Barry

Aidan, the Irish Government tried this a couple of years ago by asking civil servants to move from Dublin to various places around the country. The uptake was negligible, for example only 36 out of 1,200 Dept. of Agriculture employees agreed to move out to the hinterland. Almost by definition, the civil service attracts inert, unadventurous types who prefer routine to the relative excitement of relocation.

Steven

Thank you Elizabeth. Europe and Scotland will prove two of the biggest headaches Cameron will face if and God willing when he becomes PM. I reject calls to break up the Union. Despite our differences where would England be without the contribution of Scotland and Wales during the First and Second World Wars? I think Cameron needs a much firmer answer to the West Lothian questian than the one Ken Clarke proposes however. On Europe there is a wide range of possibilities. The U.K. could join NAFTA. This would strengthen the special relationship and allow us to join a real free trade area where no foreign government would impose legislation upon us. It is completely against the United States identity to do so. However this would not be an 'Anglosphere' superstate. We share a common heritage with Australia, New Zealand, Canada but apart from those countries divisions over having a foreign (British) Head of state there is no appetite or argument for closer political union. Also joining NAFTA would be a great ploy to slowly squeeze out of strangling EU legislation. Cameron could go to Brussels and say 'Sorry, the U.K. has to leave the Social Chapter because of NAFTA commitments.' Another option is for a British constitution. Okay this may seem unpalatable for many Tories as the benefits of an evolving unwritten constitution have been many, but close to the Irish design with guaranteed referendums or red lines our civil servants could argue that any EU diktats or treaties break U.K. constitutional law. A third option is to jump the gun on the EU with a Treaty of London. Cameron could propose a two-tier EU, one of political union - a United States of Europe and one which is strictly a free trade area. Countries could opt which they wish to be a part of, preferably through referendums. I doubt Cameron will do any of these however, despite his Eurospecticism his basic philosophy is to ignore Europe and hope it goes away. It will not.

Verity

THE ANGLOSPHERE Someone who has given far more informed thought to the formation of the Anglosphere is James Bennett, who wrote 'The Challenge of The Anglosphere'. A link to his book can be found here, where substantial amounts of the book are reproduced free. http://www.anglospherechallenge.com/

Elizabeth

Steven
'our differences where would England be without the
contribution of Scotland and Wales during the First and Second World Wars?'

Where would England have been without the loyalty of New Zealand and Australia through each war including the appalling war crimes against the Boers.
Remember Galipoli, remember the war against Germany twice, remember the war against the Japanese.
Yet when it suited this country it turned its back on them and went into Europe.
The effect on New Zealand was dire.
She had fed Britain and suddenly got shut out.
Steven if you are talking gratitude forget it.
As for an Anglosphere where is Islam in all this and incidently I think you will find Malaysia is a muslim country.
It is a brave person who would predict 10 years hence.
I have never known such instability, deceit and fear.
The options facing the Americans, unless they dare to vote Nader, are horrific.
Both candidates are threatening war and more war. Both threatening Russia and China.
I am not sure either where Russia figures in the theory. And Aidan - the answer is to downsize our population.
If you look at the Optimum population trust it says the level for this country is 17 million.
Impossible but what we are doing at present with unrestricted breeding - we pay for it - and unrestricted immigration means we are on the point of utter insanity.
Spain is looking at repatriation.
Lets stop building houses - our companies are going down anyway. Lets stop encouraging people we can't house and won't be able to feed if things get grim and suggest they pack up and return from whence they came.
It would be cheaper in the long term to give them golden handshakes and stop the roads, school, hospitals all on PFI tick, cities, and god knows what spreading acrross our countryside in a sea of concrete.

Verity

THE ANGLOSPHERE: Elizabeth writes: "... incidently I think you will find Malaysia is a muslim country."

Well, I said nothing on The Wall about Islam, but yes, Malaysia is an an Islamic Republic. However, it's a mixed and tolerant society, with around 30% Chinese and 30% Indian citizens. Muslims don't keep dogs,but everyone else does. Muslims don't drink, but everyone else does.

Malaysia also has a well-trained, well-maintained military. Critical to membership of the Anglosphere.

It's a tolerant, achieving, modern society with a British parliamentary system, English Common Law and English is universally spoken fluently.

There are millions of Muslims in India, too, Elizabeth.

Puncheon

Completely off topic, but Peter do you think we could have a link to the wall on page 1 of Coffeehouse - or am I missing an obvious bit of techno-whizz, silver-surfer that I am.

Pete Hoskin

Puncheon: we've actually just sorted out a fancy CoffeeHousers' Wall link, which we'll be putting on the first Coffee House page before the week is out.

And just to say: a few people have been suggesting improvements for the wall (e.g. indexation, user-moderation etc. etc.). We've certainly been taking the suggestions on board - but the technology's not in place for use to implement them immediately. We are working on it though. So keep the ideas coming!

In the meantime, I quite like Verity's idea of puttng the subject of her comment in bold, at the beginning of it. Could be a way to keep things tidy and easy-to-follow? Anyway, I'll leave it up to you.

Pete Hoskin

Oh, and one more thing. Do any of you CoffeeHousers live in upcoming by-election territory? Would be great to see some thoughts/photos/whatever from Glasgow East, H&H etc.

Steven

Elizabeth - Yes we have shut out Australia, New Zealand and Canada since going into Europe and our relationship with them has suffered as a result. But I don't think an Anglosphere bound together by endless treaties based on the EU model is the answer. After all, one of the problems this country faces is we essentialy have two governments, one in London and one in Brussels, and they are both addicted to endless legislation, often in opposition with one another. A chilling thought, no matter what path Cameron might take out of the EU straitjacket (if indeed he has the courage to take any) there are plenty of countries who are not even EU members, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland etc. who are locked in the Schengen agreement are a good deal more besides. Is a way out possible? If the Nation State is dead has democracy died with it? The EU, the African Union, the proposed Mediterranean Union could all just evolve into rigid political bloc's where authoritarianism is a consequence of internationalism. Lastly, do both American Presidential candidate's promise more wars? McCain seems to be merely a continuation of Bush offering to keep the military in Iraq and Afghanistan for as long as needed - practically forever. Obama seems the most left-wing candidate the U.S. has ever had with his diplomatic overtures to 'axis of evil' states. Obama would scale down U.S. foreign policy and the 'World's Policeman' label not bolster it.

Pete Hoskin

Puncheon and others: We've now added a button linking to Coffeehousers' wall on every page of CoffeeHouse. You'll find it on the right of each page, about halfway down. Just click on it and you'll be taken to the latest wall post.

Perry, from the depths of landscape where there are real hedges ‘n ditches, - and where REAL people live far away from arty-farty Nooo-Lying-Bores

SMOKING –

ML in ‘t Telegraph reminds us it’s a year since Nanny told us we couldn’t smoke an’ stuff, like.

Having missed no-smokin’ day in March, I shall do my British cussed damdest to celebrate this one.

So, - sorry if it gets up your nose folks.

Verity

THE ANGLOSPHERE Steven - Most assuredly the Anglosphere must not be based on endless treaties in the EU model!

The idea is to dump the EU as it is creaking,mouldy and reeks of totalitarianism and the failed Soviet Union.

The idea of The Anglosphere is liberty. I have said above, it has to based on some legal structure more binding than treaties.

The next 30 years will see the world change in a manner not imaginable 20 years ago. The Anglosphere must be prepared to take a leading role. If we do it right, we would be one of the two major powers on the planet - the other being China. The rules would have to be rigid: The English Parliamentary model or two houses; the rock solid basis of the legal system being English Common Law, and the binding thread of our language.

We could, as an entity, make treaties with outsiders - China certainly will - but the strength of our system of law, Parliament and our language will be unassailable if we formally bind ourselves together in some manner. People trained in the law may have some suggestions. I don't. But I know that treaties are jettisoned the minute cleaving to them becomes inconvenient for one of the parties.

On the other topic you mentioned, Steven, the ARA is going to spend $25m fighting Obama. This is the most powerful lobbying association in the United States,and the most astute.

Puncheon

Peter: many thanks, although I am sure that you and your techno-wizards were working on it already. On Verity's Anglosphere idea, I stick by my earlier view that HM The Queen had it right all those years ago when she suggested that our future lay with the Commonwealth, ie a loose association of English speaking nations bound together by language, culture, religion (mainly) and trade. All administered by a single meeting once a year, ie minimising the opportunities for political parasites to earn a living.

Elizabeth

Steven
Both McCain and Obama are for war.
McCain is Bush Xtra and suspected of being on the verge of senility - if not already showing symptons. Obama promised to hit Iran for Israel and I think McCain has too. Both are violently anti Russia.
McCain is a neocon - run by the neocons - nuff said.
Obama is run by Rockefeller and the trilaterals.
Can ANYTHING be worse than the thought that they have it stitched up between them all.
Who ever would you pick?. Nader or Bob Barr if it were me.
Scary.
As for the anglosphere - with all the best will in the world I think it potty.
Who would sign up to anything with the Americans these days. Most of the planet, including me, considers them the world's worst terrorist state.
Why would we sell out our sovereignty to that group when most of us are itching to get out the EU.
Talk about jumping out of the fire.....
Puncheon.
If you remember the Commonwealth the queen was on about - it was full of unelected and brutal barbarous black dictators. Has much changed.
New Zealanders and Aussies are less than pleased with England. You may not have been told but the Brits have massively tightened the entrance of Kiwis and co. Three monthly visa and no work I have been told by relatives.
WE are restricting them in favour of eastern europeans and the sub continent.
So much for blood ties and massive casualities in two world wars. We would rather let in ex Nazis and sympathizers these days.
I think Russia, China and Japan will cosy up or are. Interestingly none of these nations have allowed the huge numbers of different ethnicity enter their countries so are not facing the prospect of serious civil strife as is Europe.
South America is moving together and very anti the US. Are they anglosphere? - their language is Spanish surely.
They have oil and much else and Brazil at least is going nuclear.
And I still can't understand where the islamics are meant to go. At the moment a massive transfer of wealth is going their way. They are buying up western companies and property as no tomorrow.
In thirty years this country will have a muslim majority and mosques on every corner so much for the 'Anglo' bit.
Bird flu could have decimated the world populations.
Pigs might be flying.
I would be happy to know what is going to happen NEXT year!

Verity

THE ANGLOSPHERE Puncheon, it will need to be much tighter than having a meeting once a year. It's a question to which I don't have the answer, but it needs a new formal entity without diluting the national identities of the constituent parties. I think a common currency would help.

Perhaps an unalloyed right of citizens to go and work and buy property in one another's countries, although not automatic citizen. I don't know. But if we are to be one of the two major players as we move forward in this century, there must be a formal banding together to balance China. And the Anglosphere should speak in one voice in the international arena.

We should also abandon all other international entities, like the UN and handle things ourselves.

I agree that our future lies with the Commonwealth and the United States. It was wicked to have abandoned the Commonwealth, but the lefties just couldn't stand the idea of so much Britishness being seen as a good thing.

THX1138

Boris gets his own Lee Jasper

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7488006.stm

This slow motion train wreck is going to be so much fun to watch

Elizabeth

Verity
'agree that our future lies with the Commonwealth and the United 'States. It was wicked to have abandoned the Commonwealth, but the lefties just couldn't stand the idea of so much Britishness being seen as a good thing.'

Are you sure you don't mean the 'white' commonwealth. Most of the 'commonwealth' are not exactly assets to anyone.

TGF UKIP

Now Thursday evening and I note that to the many questions on Mark Steyn, answer has there been none.

However, as a Cameron fanzine few hacks would have been more destructive of the general editorial line than the redoubtable Mr Steyn.

While, to give them credit, even some of the present Speccie hacks were concerned with Dave's Foreign and Security Poilicy speech in Berlin, just imagine the comprehensive shredding it would have got from MS. It might have made d'Ancona's best mate look the Charlie Kennedy type europhile lightweight he truly is.

VERITY, while I am, as usual, entirely sympathetic to the views and aims you express especially in relation to the US and a Union of the English Speaking Peoples, I'm afraid that boat sailed some decades ago.

Having been exposed for decades now to the anti American, and most hysterically to the anti Republican American, propaganda of the British broadcasting media and most British education establishments, the general UK population is quite beyond any rational discourse on debate involving the US.

I only need to quote from the previous post on this site "Who would sign up to anything with the Americans these days. Most of the planet, including me, thinks them the world's worst terrorist state." Perhaps, though "Elizabeth" is a pseudonym for the Archbisshop of Caanterbury in which case all would be explained.

Puncheon

I see that I am caught between two intelligent and strong-minded females - Elizabeth and Verity. Not a comfortable place to be for a nervous male. Elizabeth - I guess I'm saying that if HM the Q's ideas had been put into practice we wouldn't have odious black dictatorships we now have, eg Zimbabwe. The shameful treatement of Aussies and Kiwis is a consequence of our joining the ghastly EU. Nor would we be in such thrall to the USA. But I agree that we would have to have excluded Packistan because of their intolerant religious views. Verity, I think if we had gone down the Commonwealth route we would have arrived at somewhere near where you are aiming at, but without the USA. Never forget that many US citizens don't actually orginate in the Anglosphere - Eisenhower was German - and don't feel as you do, quite the opposite in fact. I have long felt that the only glue holding the USA together is the mighty dollar and once that weakens we will see a spectacular disintegration. I hope I'm wrong.

Perry, in the guise of an alarmist

It’s on the way boys and girls – poco a poco and oh so subito! . . . see Daily Mail headline re sharia . . . pollytwaddle will be so pleased – ‘specially when the rules regarding dress and the silence of women follow on in due course.

Of course, I exaggerate, - and am by nature an alarmist.

Ho hum.

Jennie

Yes, I was just wondering why there has been no post in Coffee House about this major political story!

After all the cackling about Gordon Brown's woes, this might help to redress the balance. Especially as Cameron has sung the praises of Boris's Deputy Mayor for Children.

TGF UKIP

Is there the slightest point in posting anything on "the wall" when it takes, literally, hours to appear. The usual excuse of IT problems is becoming too predictable and too often to be acceptable any more.

Perhaps, you should invite Guido to take over the Coffee House.

Verity

THE ANGLOSPHERE Elizabeth asks me "Are you sure you don't mean the 'white' commonwealth.?[question mark,mine as Elizabeth in her mean-spirited excitement, forgot to add one]."

I know what I posted and why. You mentioned that Malaysia is an Muslim nation (yes, as I said, that very fine countryb is an Islamic republic; I do not see how this could possibly disqualify it from being a memeber - which it is anyway - of the Anglosphere.

I believe I also told you - as you don't appear to be very informed - in no uncertain terms that India has tens of millions of Muslims, yet I still believe that India will be a major force in taking us forward as a major power in this century.

Do I really have to dredge through what the Anglosphere means again, for the benefit of Elizabeth, an obsessive on a Great White Racism quest?

I said in an earlier post that black Africa, having pissed 60 years of "freedom" down the drain wouldn't be immediately eligible. But could be later as they have our law and our parliamentary form of government and our language. On the other hand, black Africa may never be able to adjust to the Anglosphere. It is up to them.

I said all this, Elizabeth, before you came panting in. I absolutely refuse to let this thread get derailed, if threads can get derailed ... by lefty, point-scoring side issues.

There is only one way forward for us as an ancient nation, and that is to cleave to our own family. The Anglosphere.

Puncheon - yes, you're wrong. You've clearly not spent much time in the United States.

Verity

Re shariah - I note that, once again, this notion was not instigated by a non-indigenous person. But, as always, a British Britain-hating leftie.

The Islamics have not not "demanded" (fat chance!) or even humbly asked for, shariah in Britain. This is another lefty, destructive Britain-hating move. Just as malign as in Ontario when some broad-souled (and I betcha, broad-assed lardies) Canadians thought how lovely it would be to have shariah in Ontario.

Cue intelligent, articulate Muslime women who thought they had escaped all that by coming to Canada, to come storming in. Which they did.

And they, the Muslim women, got this suggestion tanked.

It is always the destructive left who want to destroy our civilisation .... yet not, oddly, the "civilisation" that is recently arrived.

To The Wall complainants, leave Pete alone. He's managing this entire site, he's writing his own posts ... Give him a break!

Elizabeth

TGF
The final USA nail for me was the bombing 'back to the stone age' of a defenceless civilian population for 78 days and nights.
The destruction of a nation's infrastructure and now the illegal annexation of 15% of its territory to an islamic state.
What had the Serbs done. Defended themselves against an islamic terrorist group the KLA which was funded and trained, armed and supported by Britain and America leaving Europe now with two jihadist states threatening their southern flank.
When to add to that they lied blatantly as they did with Yugoslavia and have attacked another sovereign nation Iraq, devastated it and left the best part of a million dead
Both these illegal and brutal attacks come from the neo con stable.
I can assure you that far from taking leave of my senses the attack on Serbia woke me up to the danger that is imperialist America. It is not a pretty sight as she deliberately breaks treaty after treaty and faith with the Russians, as she acts with provocation forcing NATO on to Russia's borders.
YEP!!! America is the biggest Terror state and I am far from alone
Take a peek at two very well known and conservative writers
http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=13061
and
http://antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=13078.
(By the way Antiwar is a famous paleo/conservative!! site)
At the moment there is deliberate deception of the American people as The US elite are trying to push through the equivalent EU superstate of North America - the North American Union - Canada, Mexico and the US conjoined.
Their lies are coming back to haunt them Vietnam was all based on a lie - exposed. They have bases in hundreds of countries worldwide and have just acquired a massive budget to send in units to destabilize Iran.
By what right!!!

Roger Thornhill

Verity: I am trying to introduce the life-saving notion of The Anglosphere here, and you immediately focussed on tiny nits rather than the concept.

That is because I accept the concept as a given! The problem is moving from the concept to implementation. What kind of "binding" do you foresee?

Pete Hoskin

Tiberius, if you're reading: Fraser told me the story behind your pen-name last night. Quite funny. And, yes, we do talk about you CoffeeHousers. And wonder who you are...

TGF UKIP: Last night was the Spectator's summer party, so I'm sorry about the slowness with comments. Other times, though, it has generally been technical problems. Bear with us, though. We have plans for this wall...

Donna Edmunds

HOUSING SUPPLY:
Aidan - fianally someone voicing what i have been saying for years! The Government has, in my opinion, has been putting the cart before the horse on this issue for too long - jumping to supply housing and infrastructure for the ever increasing droves of people heading south east, without ever asking themselves whether a better policy would be to spread provisions for business in terms of transport links, affordable housing and telecommunications more widely across our country. There is, indeed, no good reason why MANY commercial organisations, both public and private, cannot be based away from the capital. Many northern cities are investing heavily in business, and doing very well at it, but still there continues to be an unstoppable flow of people to the capital.
Indeed, my own experience, as someone who was born and raised in Sussex (Lewes), was that I was completely unable to find a suitable graduate position, with a wage that matches expectations, outside of the capital. Instead I find myself faced with a two hour commute every day or a move to London, which i have chosen not to do as i actually - surprise surprise - enjoy living in a nice, quiet, pleasant country market town!

Donna Edmunds

By the way, regarding the 'plans for the wall', I was very surprised to find no continuous forum, which would, i would have though, fix all your problems in one fail swoop. It would certainly be more user friendly, allow readers and contributers to self-moderate (normally done via a system of nomiated 'mods'), and promote far more in depth debate, as the threads would be separated.
Just a thought!

Steven

Verity - 'It was wicked to have abandoned the Commonwealth, but the lefties just couldn't stand the idea of so much Britishness being seen as a good thing.' Well put, it's interesting to note that how very few constructive arguments you hear from British Pro-EU politicians and commentators. A Europhile or Pro-European is merely a label not an ideology or belief. There are reasons for this silence from the Europhiles, if they were to argue for what they truly wanted for Europe then they would as a consequence admit that they want a Superstate. Therefore it's much better to keep quiet and pretend it all is not happening when it is actually happening with complete contempt for the rule of law and democracy. I think you're right, most Lefties and Liberals in the sense of the word today hate this country. There are a few exceptions but they would prefer to see this country disappear into Europe for reasons of historical justice for colonising most of the world many years ago. That is why they give the complete absurd argument that by accepting more EU treaties and legislation we can gain more influence. We didn't gain one little bit of influence when Blair signed up to the Social Chapter, we just lost our economic dynamism. The new rising powers of China and India are doing so well exactly because they don't have the red tape that the EU throws at us month after month, year after year. I'm intrigued by the Anglosphere but I think we could learn more from the independence and patriotic confidence of contemporary Australia (which would never let sell or merely give away its sovereignty to a pan-national state). Until then, we've just got to put up with politicains like Ken Clarke and Brian Cowen who don't even read the treaties that are supposedly in the benefit of their country.

Tiberius

Pete: I'd happily give you a potted history of me, but, I fear, it would be both self-indulgent and uninteresting. But do feel free to e-mail me if you wish. You do have my name and employer (with a super website if you take a look) from my e-mail address.

As for pen name, I post under my own name on the DT/ST message boards so decided to be less formal when I discovered Coffee House. The Original Series is still my no.1 TV series of all time, closely followed by the X-Files and The Prisoner.

You might think I'd be as idealistic about politics as TGF UKIP ;) ,perhaps, but I reckon these indulgencies are mere escapisms from day-to-day pragmatisms.

And I do think the Wall will be easier to use if you do break it down into individual threads (even better if threads can be started by we posters).

TGF UKIP

Pete, all is explained, forgiven and forgotten. I had read somewhere that it was the Speccie's Summer party, so I should have put two and two together. I look forward to reading about it in the next edition of "The Eye." (Bet Sir William wasn't there.)

Meanwhile, Elizabeth, I think you're a real treasure, I need never go near the Guardian nor the Staggers again. I guess we'll both have to fervently hope together that we never end up agreeing on anything. That really would be worrying for us both.

Verity

THE ANGLOSPHERE OK, Roger Thornhill. Pax!

What kind of binding do I envision? I honestly think it is such an important question that it will need better minds than mine to suggest the means. (I will write to James Bennett, who wrote "The Challenge of The Anglosphere" and as him what he envisages.)

I think a universal currency would bind us together. I suggested the dollar partly because, having lived in the United States, I know the Americans will never give up the greenback. The US dollar has been established as the world currency for over 60 years now, so it has heft and stability. I definitely wouldn't invent a Micky Mouse currency,like the euro, which will most assuredly tank.

You raised the idea of Oz. The Ozzies are great pragmatists and I am sure realise that they cannot chug into the middle of this very active century on their own. Binding with us would be like binding with relatives anyway. We're family.

I also mentioned, way further up, that by a happy coincidence, India is also "family" to the rest of the Anglosphere because there are tens of millions of NRIs living and owning property and businesses and pactising in the professions in all our countries. So those familial ties that bind are strong with India, too.

History is littered with jettisoned treaties. That is why the EU has bound its members in chains nailed to the statist wall. Realistically, a treaty isn't enougoh.

At the risk of being pelted with rotten fruit, I think we are going to need some form of legislature that nevertheless doesn't remove sovereignty from the individual members.

How? I don't know.

I used the example of the United States because it is 50 separate countries that govern themselves, but make a formal obeissance to the federal government on some issues only. Many Americans complain about the creeping nature of the federal government - and quite rightly and this would have to be ring-fenced.

But gun ownership is an excellent example of states' rights to legislate as they please. In Texas, you are free to own as many guns as you feel like owning (after a criminal check, obviously), and it is your inalienable right to shoot dead anyone who crosses your threshhold without your invitation. You will absolutely not be charged with murder, manslaughter or even assault.

In addition, Texans complained that criminals "carry concealed" but citizens had to make it clear that they were armed. (You had to have your gun on the seat next to you in your car, where it could be seen; not in the glove compartment.)

Well, the Texas legislature saw the sense in this and passed a law that wiped out the criminal's advantage by allowing the law-abiding to carry concealed. (It was signed into law by one Governor George Bush.)

In New Hampshire, in historic New England, the state motto is "Live free or die" and owning guns is normal. Also in New England is prissy, Guardianista Massachusetts where citizens aren't trusted to own a gun. Many states have the death penalty. Some don't.

Until a few years ago, bigamy was legal in Utah. Twenty-four hour gambling is legal in Nevada. I would suggest emulating this system. But I'd love to read alternate suggestions.

Sorry about the length of this post, but it's hard to tackle such a subject with a series of one-liners.

Elizabeth

TGF
We seem to have crossed wires.
You are the first person ever to suggest I read the Guardian - although I probably would agree with some of it. Not global warming!! Its bunkum.
But how funny.
I am a confirmed Nationalist and as such, against the EU or any other half baked idea requiring surrendering sovereigncy or currency. The Aussies just threw out a PM for being Pro American You ain't going to get them on board, bless them.
I am a strong supporter of Ron Paul and some of his agenda (but not all) and DD among others. I don't like Shameron and his ilk and believe they hijacked the Tories in collusion with some of the media and other groups.
I believe in democracy and peace.
I suppose I am a paleo conservative with a touch of libertarianism - just a tadge.
I oppose the NWO, i think fundamentalist Islam is the greatest threat we face.
Why, because you apparently disagree with me on issues, am I suddenly written off as sort of Trendy and Staggers - what is that? If I am a conservative - a real one - what does that make you?.
And I loved the X files too, and Chris Carter and I share a very guilty secret.
No doubt having confessed to that even the Guardian is too good for me.
Open minds - open skies as some certain person once wrote.
And I still think the USA is a terrorist state. I trust you took the time to read Charlie Reese and Paul Craig Roberts - about as far from the Guardian as it might be possible to get - but honest conservatives.
I wish you and Verity would answer my points instead of discussing my character.
Explain why the USA is not a 'terrorist' state if that is how you feel rather than trying to typecast me in such a silly way.
Justify the illegal attack on Serbia.
I am still waiting to find out how islam and Russia fit into the scheme and as at the moment India and China seem to have certain things in common and in common with Russia - it looks like a problem there.
The traditional view of the future is Islam against everybody else.......I have to think I find that more likely but who knows.
Another 9/11 by whoever did the first one and world history changes overnight.
The latest from Ron Paul
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=115

Verity

Elizabeth says, "I wish you and Verity would answer my points instead of discussing my character. I have never "discussed your character" at all. Anyone who seriously proposes that the Unites States is a terrorist country is not exactly an interest magnet for me.

Tiberius

What would be the guilty secret you share with Chris Carter, Elizabeth? Did you both come across Cancer Man authorizing the bombing of the Serbs?

Elizabeth

No nothing so conspiratorial, Tiberius.

TGF UKIP

Elizabeth, I come to the Coffee House not just to trade views with other Coffe Housers but also to have some fun with some of the hacks and with other posters. Sometimes I go too far and more than once in the past I have apologized. Equally, I also get a bit of abuse from time to time and would be disappointed if I didn't.

In your case I had, indeed, sussed you out as a nationalist, an ultra one at that, and our views are probably not too dissimilar on "climate change," Europe and Cameron/Shameron. However, given your fulminations last week on oil, mining and energy companies I guessed, seemingly wrongly, that you were coming to these matters from an anti capitalist Guardianista perspective. Hence my wind up.

This was of course compounded by your "US terrorist state" crack which was comprehensively the wind up most likely to get me going. So touche.

With regard to Serbia, while having a sneaking feeling that they have had a raw deal it always seemed to me a European mess that Clinton was reluctantly dragged into by Blair. The Europeans wouldn't risk european soldier's lives other than as often ineffective "peacekeepers" and Clinton was quite rightly not prepared to use US troops to do European dirty work - he had more than enough troubles with Monica etc. Once involved, though, US airpower was the method the "allies" used to curtail the Serbs and enforce via Holbooke the Dayton Agreement. I sense, though, that you have a much greater knowledge of and interest in this issue than I and , no doubt, an entirely different take. To go to your "terrorist state" caricature does though seem the sort of hyperbole more likely to emanate from Ken Livingstone or The Guardian website. The wind up worked, though.

TGF UKIP

Tiberius, given that one definition of an idealist might be "one who clings to the triumph of hope over expectation" and your own espousal of the Cameron Ugly Duckling theory, I did find your comment to Pete "You might think I'd be as idealistic about politics as TGF UKIP" even more amusing than most of your other, always entertaining, posts. Weird things, mirrors, aren't they?

Verity

THE ANGLOSPHERE I wrote to James Bennett, author of The Challenge of The Anglosphere (linked to above)with Roger Thornhill's question, and here is his response, which he gave me permission to post: "My point has been that we already have a web of treaties, agreements,
and special-purpose bilateral and multilateral organizations that
serve to facilitate co-operation. We are halfway there, we merely
need to make the process more conscious."

Personally, I think a ragbag of treaties would only work if formalised into one coherent entity, and all of it limited to the same players: The Anglosphere.

Puncheon

Verity - You are right that I don't know the USA very well, indeed I don't really know it at all, since I have never been there. I am not anti-American, indeed I am thankful that I live in an era where the dominant world power is so benign. But I do have some doubts about this anglosphere thingy. My main point re the USA is that just because their national language is (for the present) English it is no reason to suppose that they are culturally and psychologically like us. I imagine that anglo-saxons are not a majority any more in the US - what about all the hispanics, latinos, blacks, Germans, Italians, Poles, skandinavians etc. Second, yes you are right to say that it is a federal entity and that the states have a great deal of latitude to goevrn themselves, but that is seen as a weakness by many Americans because it leaves the federal authorities and the Presdident with too few things to occupy themselves. Hence the habit of modern Presidents in indulging in foreign adventures. Although I don't have the knowledge of the USA that others clearly have, I don't actually think we have that much in common. The special relationship was after all invented by W Churchill and Roosevelt to trick the American people into participating in WWII. The USA is a spook-ridden society - the only society in living history that has occupied an entire continent by genocide, slavery and land theft on a huge scale. It's no wonder they are guilt ridden. But like all liberals they insist on others paying the price for their guilt. They spent years undermining the British Empire, fair enough but they hadn't the faintest notion of what to put in its place, excpet some vague, wishy-washy democratic liberalism. Hence all the odious black dictators you mentioned earlier. For these reasons, I am happy to go along with an anglosphere based on the Commonwealth, minus Pakistan, but not including the USA. They would simply want to boss the whole show and run everything for their own benefit.

Verity

Puncheon - Your entire post is so delusional, and so off-the-planet that there is no way to begin to respond to you. It would take a couple of thousand words just to correct your mistakes of fact, never mind the ethos. Sorry. No offence, but I cannot waste time on this.

I have to let the rest of your post wash under the bridge, but in regard to your final sentence, the Americans are the most collegiate of people. They are raised from when they are tiny to be co-operative with others. Ask yourself, why did this rich, unimaginably powerful nation stick it out in the useless, corrupt, anti-American, anti-liberty United Nations for so long if not from an abiding belief in cooperating with others?

TGF UKIP

All at the Ray Lewis farewell party tonight Peter?

Verity

TGF UKIP - Did you get the little saucer of milk I put down for you?

Seriously, this Ray Lewis business is astounding. So many aspects ...

Steven

Almost all of the Americans I know are kind and generous and patience people, if only we Europeans could emulate some of their good-natured charm. Im married to an American and living in the U.K. for the past few years she has endured offensive racial patronising from people who call themselves liberals. Recently it has been so much fun to watch the Clinton campaign implode! I never wanted her to get the nomination or the Presidency. The Clintons have longstanding ties to the Labour party and just love to come here and give left wing speeches to the Labour party conference they wouldn't be able to get away with in America. I didn't want a Clinton Presidency to give a much needed shot in the arm to Gordon Brown. I had no idea their fall would be so sweet. These liberal messiahs were taken down by a far more left wing African American candidate and resorted to lies and racial slurs in desperation. Hilary Clinton duck hunting with her grandfather! Bringing peace to Northern Ireland! Landing in Sarajevo under a hail of bullets! Now Liberals in Europe will find it much more difficult to vocally hate America with a black man in the White House. As to the candidates I'm still not convinced that Obama is a warmonger. He made one awful speech about bombing Pakistan which he has since distanced himself from and has made assurances to Israel about their protection from Iran - not unreasonable. If Iran did attack Israel I hope we would be there to defend them alongside the United States. McCain is obviously the more hawkish choice, I think he would have been a better War President than Bush after 9/11 but now the U.S. is too desperate for change.

I don't think Europe or the Anglosphere can be inextricably linked like the U.S. America has already fought a civil war on this issue and tensions still arise. The Supreme Court has just ruled people can carry firearms in Washington D.C. a ruling which challenges the independence of many left leaning states. But individual states still have more independence than EU members. It's laughable when EUROcrats say we need to federate or become a United States of Europe - we are already there, we're past that stage. The EU will collapse becaus the Union is too rigidly binding, unlike the States which will stay alive despite its flaws. The Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty both collapsed because it is next to impossible for over two dozen countries to agree on every single area of policy, and whilst it may be in Blair and Brown's character to agree to deals that are not in our national interest heavy hitters such as France and Germany will never be satisfied unless they are in the driving seat. Sadly it's hard to find any Europhiles who will argue this point with you. They seem to be united in the belief that Europe needs harmonisation but seldom care what form that harmonisation takes, which is why left leaning Europhiles are eager to accept more right of centre policies such as the Single European Act and right wing Europhiles are willing to accept more left of centre policies such as the Social Chapter.

Tiberius

BBC News was in raptures over Ray Lewis last night. Fiona Bruce could hardly contain herself (watch a replay if you think I'm exaggerating).

Fair play. We know the BBC is biased. If he is guilty as alleged, fair play. But no mention of his achievements with those kids?

It's as if he has been judged a non-person by the BBC, despite all his good work, just because he's dared work with the filthy Tories (and particularly the man who ousted the traitorous Newt from office).

How long before the BBC reports that Boris is failing to get a grip of crime in London, I wonder? I ask that because I don't recollect the question being asked of Livingstone in eight years.

Perry, still smarting at crackpot Tory ideas of yesteryear

Who was the Tory Twerp who shut Military Hospitals?

Nice to see that Nooo-Lying-Bores is taking steps to remedy the situation, - but shame it has to be them.

Verity

Steven writes, regarding Barack Hussein Obama, "Obama is a warmonger. He made one awful speech about bombing Pakistan which he has since distanced himself from."

Obama distances himself from every speech he gives. That's his routine. Speech. Distance. Speech. Distance. Stand by your friends of 20 years. Throw them under the bus. Obama's middle name isn't Hussein; it's Opportunist.

Incidentally, I believe we are still waiting to see his birth certificate recording that he was born in the United States, whose existence gives him the right to run for president. Why is he so coy? The so-called "copy" that he has allowed people to see isn't actually a copy. It is an attestation by someone that they have seen the original birth certificate.

We do not, to date, know for sure that Obama was born an American citizen.

Another interesting thing about Obama is, he is 46 years of age and has done nothing during his entire life but run for office.

Craig Strachan

There would be no interest from the U.S. in a supranational concept such as the "Anglosphere", if it required any pooling of sovereignty.

If Britain wants to become the 51st state, that might be doable.

Just get the application in before the North Sea oil is all gone, okay?

Steven

Verity - I actually wrote "I'm still not convinced Obama is a warmonger" Unfortunately all politicians distance themselves from speeches they make whilst in opposition or out of office. Blair did it on PR when he realised the present electoral system was massively biased in his favour. I think Boris is doing it right now on the return of the Routemaster. Will Cameron do it over the question of sovereignty rather than take on the bloated, corrupt EU. I hope not.

Verity

Craig Strachan - What I am trying to think of is a way that is do-able without no one giving up any sovereignty. I don't think the Ozzies or the Indians would be interested in ceding any sovereignty, either. (Britain, we know, is a slapper and would probably go along with sacrificing sovereignty, havingn proved so disastrously willing to be governed as a colony from Brussels.

I have been saying for years that we should apply to be a state. Hawaii is just as far from the mainland as we are, and they're a full state with full state's rights. We would have more independence as an American state than we do as a colony of Brussels.

I feel the urgent need for the Anglsophere to coalesce to meet the challenges that are coming up in around 30 years, mainly from China. I don't think China has ambitions to take over any Western countries - although I do think they have their eye on Africa - but politically and economically, there will have to be a global counter-balance to China and I feel the Anglophone world is it.

Craig Strachan

Verity,

Maybe England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic could becomes states 51, 52, 53, 54 and 55 all at one go?

That's kill a lot of birds with one stone!

Verity

THE ANGLOSPHERE Craig Strachan - I assume it's a joke, but I don't see the point. American states don't vote on things in the federal government. The federal government and the individual states are discrete entities. States only vote on national issues through their Congressmen and Representatives not qua states.

I would not be opposed to Britain applying to join the United States as a state though.

Elizabeth

Craig you might have to amend your numbers.
Hawaii now has a strong independence movement and some claim was never a formal state anyway.
A number of others in New England including Vermont also want secession and have serious movements and three states have just passed senate votes telling the Federal Government to butt out or near enough.
Then of course you have El Raza which is claiming that Texas, New Mexico and California - I can't remember the others are part of Mexico.
Now they have the precedent of Kosovo and a majority population for claiming another coutries territory they sre breeding and moving as fast as possible. They are also Deadly Serious!!!
Then of course the USA is negotiating at the moment under wraps to form the North American Union - merging Mexico and Canada with the USA.
With that sort of flux in the United States I think we should steer clear.
Oh Alaska has started an independence movement too.
The Lakota Indians have seceded they say.
Google in
American states seek secession 2008
and there are tons more headings to try.
We in England might find we are state no 24 because all the good ones have gone. Would I be surprised. Or that we suddenly find ourselves in the North American Union with open borders to Mexico.
Better to keep ourselves to ourselves, thanks.

Verity

Elizabeth - There are no open borders between the US and Mexico, excepting for goods. NAFTA is a commercial treaty only. Duty-free both ways. The Americans have no interest in sharing their country with A) the Mexicans or B) the Canadians. They have no sense of community with either country and don't bother to read news about them.

I have never read such a stream of delusional rubbish. Texas joined the Union in 1845. A hundred and fifty years ago, for God's sake! Before that it had 10 years as an independent republic. Before that it was French. Maybe the French should claim it. This Raza business is one of those nutjob/opportunist enterprises. There will be no open borders with Mexico.

Vermont is not going to secede from Union, for God's sake. I don't know where you're getting your daft ideas from, but the United States is a very stable entity. There are 301m people there. That many people always includes a percentage of obsessives and opportunists. There's big money in stirring up racial conflict in the United States. Just ask Al Sharpton, the role model for these Raza people.

Hawaii, stuck out there in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, all by itself, is not going to withdraw from the United States. Alaskans aren't stupid. When you're in Anchorage, you're in the United States.

There is no appetite for any kind of secession anywhere.

I have no hesitation in saying the United States is the most stable country in the world, whatever A FEW Mexican money-seekers propose.

Your post was a stream of rubbish that you researched on Google without any background.

You say, "Better to keep ourselves to ourselves, thanks."

Then why didn't you?

Why are you ruled by as venal a bunch of nomenklatura in Brussels who ever rode First Class on the gravy train?

The days of keeping to yourselves are long gone.

In any case, I am not arguing for our becoming the 51st state. Someone suggested it, and I accepted it as a reasonable proposal and joined in the discussion. Believe me, there would be great resistance in the United States to Britain joining. It would go on for years.

Elizabeth

Verity I have to take it that your comments are based on lack of research - not on deliberate misinformation.
I suggest you get busy and check out those 'certainities' you seem to have, which are just incorrect.
Key in 'North American Union' and you will find loads about the proposed Union of the USA, Canada and Mexico and the massive opposition to it. Mega million entries. I don't know how you have missed it.
Just because you know nothing about it please don't come on and lay down nonexistent facts.
Check out 'Aztlan', 'La Raza', 'Vermont Independence' movement, 'new confederacy', 'American Independence movements'.
We are talking millions of entries. Take a look at 'Hawaii Independence'. They have recently become very active.
There are dozens more. We haven't even mentioned the Indians claims - look at 'Lakota'.
Anyone who follows events in contemporary USA has to be aware of what is happening in the bigger picture.
The disenchantment to the federal government is leading to a resurgence of states rights and more.
La Raza, Aztlan and all that is a deadly serious movement to take back into Mexico some American southern and south western states.
Alaskan independence is taking off. Check it out before you come on the board telling me I am stupid.
Verity I don't like to be rude to you but your comments about Texas are absolutely nonsense and about typical of your whole post.
http://www.lsjunction.com/events/events.htm
Check out the above link and read what really happened. Ever heard of the 'Alamo' Davy Crockett, Santa Ana, Jim Bowie.
France had very little to do with it.
The Mexicans want it back and a whole lot more besides and they are either the majority population or close to it. This is why so many Americans thought recognition of Kosovo was an act of actual madness.
Verity, I wish you could also recognise a little tongue in cheek.
If you want to come on the board completely blinkered as to the reality of the United States and its stability as a nation,thats fine by me, but don't start calling me names and accusing me of 'streams of rubbish' when I try to correct your assumptions.
LOOK at google and read please.
Educate yourself as to the reality of the present geopolitical situation in the USA without your rose coloured spectacles blinkering your reading ability.
The UK is under pressure to split, so are other nation states including the USA.

Verity

Elizabeth, I have never read such a stream of ill-informed rubbish in my life. Deeply felt rubbish, to be sure, but based on nothing but frantic Googling that you are unequipped by education or background to judge.

You write: "If you want to come on the board completely blinkered as to the reality of the United States and its stability as a nation,thats fine by me, but don't start calling me names and accusing me of 'streams of rubbish' when I try to correct your assumptions."

Thank you. My judgements, based on experience, not Google, are superior to yours because you have clearly never even visited the United States,never mind lived there. If you had, it would not have escaped your notice what a coherent and confident country this is.

You write to, somewhat bossily, given the depth of your ignorance about North America, "Educate yourself as to the reality of the present geopolitical situation in the USA without your rose coloured spectacles blinkering your reading ability."

I don't have to read it, Elizabeth. Everything you have posted is other people's fantasies.

Your ignorance of the United States and its structure is equalled only by your ignorance about Mexico. The economy is booming. The country is on its third consecutive conservative administration. It is stable and at peace. And it's huge. It stretches from the Gulf of Mexico all the way across the continent to the Pacific Ocean. And it has oil. If you think they have the faintest twinge of interest in challenging the United States to get some territory back from 200 years ago, you have been completely taken in by the ravings of the deluded which get thrown up on Google along with everything sane anyone has ever written. It's all a ragbag and you do not have the background to discriminate.

The notion that the US is in danger of breaking up is lunacy.

Yes, Briotain is in grave danger of being chopped up and subsumed into a dictatorship, and, in this day of instant communications, we are too small to fight alone. We need the bulk and ballast of our Anglophone cousins for mutual protection. And, indeed, we should offer them ours, in return. Especially as we move forward towards the middle of the century and the challenge of China.

I know the United States and you don't. My educated guess, they don't want any more states. It would be years and years and years before Britain was admitted, if indeed it were ever to happen.

I know that you feel the same way, but you are talking out of a paper bag with your crazy reports.

And Elizabeth, do me a favour. Do not try to tell me anything about Texas.

Elizabeth

'And Elizabeth, do me a favour. Do not try to tell me anything about Texas'

Well Verity remain ignorant of the history of the state then.
I think you are confused with the Louisiana purchase from France.
General Sam Houston after whom Houston is named was not fighting the French but the Mexicans.
Sorry but you cannot change history.
Mexico wants it back and frankly protest all you will, you cannot suddenly change the army of Santa Anna for some mythical force shipped in from France.
Come on Verity give us a link so we can all read your version of Texan history!!
You seem in some strange denial process about what is happening in the USA.
I have given all the references. I am particularly appalled that you can come on a board like this and even deny the proposed North American Union which is undergoing a huge opposition within the country. There is 46,600,000 links on google. Amazing for something you claim is my imagination.
Presumably you deny the super highway as well.
You know Verity I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt but now I have to question what your agenda is. You are obviously peddling false information. Well other people may not know or pick up your errors but I can and I will and that is all I have to say.
Abuse me all you like - you have not displayed one scrap of evidence to show that what I have written is in error - just a load of bombast.
Hot and unpleasant air.
PS from a Texan!!! site - about Sam Houston.
'He served two terms in Congress (1823-27) and in 1827 was elected governor of Tennessee.

While governor, Houston married Eliza Allen on Jan. 1, 1829. For unexplained reasons (see below), however, the marriage was dissolved almost immediately, and Houston, under pressure from the influential Allen family, resigned his office. For the next 6 years he lived with Cherokee Indians in the Indian Territory (now Oklahoma), taking a Cherokee wife, Tiana Rogers (see below), and adopting Cherokee citizenship. He was a trader, advisor, and special envoy for the tribe on several occasions. It was in this last capacity that he first went to Texas, then under Mexican rule, in 1832 in a futile attempt to secure a land grant for the tribe. By 1835, Houston had moved to Texas. With the outbreak of the Texas Revolution in that year he was named commanding general of the revolutionary army. In March 1836, Houston was a delegate to the convention that declared Texas an independent republic. His command was reconfirmed, and he led the Texas army to a brilliant victory over Santa Anna in the Battle of San Jacinto (Apr. 21, 1836).'

Verity

Elizabeth, who ploughs on regardless of being shown to being absolutely clueless about the United States and its ethos accuses me of being confused between Texas and Louisiana!

Elizabeth, the Lousiana Purchase was indeed a transaction with France. It had nothing, zero, nada to do with the state, formerly a republic, of Texas.

Mexico got its independence from Spain, and was self-ruling, almost 200 years ago (can't remember the date and I'll leave you to speed dial Wikipiedia); then it got invaded by France, which held it for three years (that's where the French reference comes in, see?).

Why on earth you chose to re-recite the well known story of the Alamo, God only knows. Thanks, but every skoolchild no that Houston was named after Sam Houston. One cannot live in Texas and not know all these facts.

Why are you regurgitating all this? Who is interested? How does it advance your weak argument? I already knew it all and no one else cares.

There are no states in the United States that are an unwilling part of the Union.

You are churning out reams of ill-understood quasi facts that you have picked up wrongly because you have no background, or were written by nutjobs with an agenda.

Anyway, you've derailed the subject. And Elizabeth, you have erred in every fact you posted (except the correct tiny segment of Texas history that you copied wholesale). The Lakota are not seceeding! Good grief, woman! There is no state in the Union where there is any talk of secession.

Have you ever been outside Britain?

Please go and visit the United States sometimes if only to marvel at the sense of stability and self confidence and patriotism.

I'm off this thread.

WINSTON PLACE

When I look at the comments, there are very few just names and time.PUZZLED.