In the Sunday Times two weeks ago and following the strong showing of the opposition Labour party in the local council elections, Dominic Lawson (dominic.lawson@sunday-times.co.uk) wrote that Ed Balls the Shadow Chancellor was again urging the government to follow the policies being pursued in a rapidly recovering America. Dominic Lawson recalled, however, that in his column in February he had already pointed out that?.one slight embarrassment for those making this argument is that the public expenditure plans of the US government involve a cut, in real terms, at no less a rate than that proposed by the UK government.
An analysis of the alleged gulf between the US growth agenda and the British austerity approach had also been supplied the previous week by John Redwood, the chairman of the economic affairs committee of the governing Conservative party. This analysis indicates that total US public spending rose by 2.2% in 2011 and is forecast to rise by 3.8% in 2012 and by 2% in 2013. In comparison, public spending in Britain increased by 4.8% (2.2% for US from above) in 2010-11, by 2.9% (3.8% for US) in 2011-12 and is forecast to rise by 2.6% (2% for US) in 2012-13.
The conclusion of John Redwood from the above analysis is that?.if the contrasting performances of the two economies prove anything, it appears to be that an economy with a higher proportion of spending in total GDP with a higher level of public borrowing (i.e. the UK), performs worse than an economy with comparatively lower figures (i.e. the US). Underlying these figures, as Dominic Lawson points out, is the inherently greater vibrancy and flexibility of the US employment market, which allows employers to shed employees more easily in a downturn and, in turn, more rapidly recruit in anticipation of potential growth in the economy. This is a major difference between the US and especially the southern European states suffering most in the Euro-zone from the rigidity of their employment laws.
On the different approach to the British economy presented by the Labour party in the local council elections, Dominic Lawson summarized their economic alternative to that of the Conservative-led Coalition government as aiming to also cut the deficit ? but a tiny bit more slowly! Judging by the extremely low turn-out for the local council elections, it would appear that the average British voter is not convinced that there is any significant difference in the Labour plan for growth either.
Archive for the ‘Chairman »s blog’ Category
US vs UK Economic Growth Policies.
jeudi, mai 10th, 2012Fiscal and Growth Pact
lundi, avril 30th, 2012Perhaps German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande, if the latter becomes the French President following the upcoming second round of French presidential elections, will each save face by settling for a combined Fiscal and Growth Pact. Mario Draghi the President of the European Central Bank, has already said last week that the Euro-zone region needed a Growth Pact. Fiscal austerity alone is seen by some as only deepening the jobs crisis in Europe and could even lead to another recession, since the deficit reduction efforts in many countries would not necessarily create conditions for private sector employment growth, if these countries were just simply crushing economic activity and making great cuts in productive public investment.
The Conservative-led Coalition government in Britain is facing a similar challenge with initial figures from the Office for National Statistics pointing to a small contraction in GDP for the last two quarters in succession, the economy of the country thereby being defined as technically again in recession. The downturn in the European markets which normally represent some 50-60% of British exports is one contributing factor to this slow growth in the economy. However, more importantly, growth in the domestic economy is being held back by weak lending to business which is not helped by evidence that Britain is going further than its international competitors in tightening regulations to ensure a stable and safe banking system. As a result, the UK has a banking system that is continuing to raise prices and shrink lending to conserve capital and meet stricter regulatory requirements. Add in the need for the 11% of GDP budget deficit to be tackled by raising taxes e.g. VAT from 17.5 to 20% in the face of an already heavily-indebted consumer, and cutting government spending, it is not so surprising that growth in the economy is so weak.
This again leads the opposition Labour party to claim that the government Plan A to cut the deficit and restore growth in the economy has failed, pointing out the example of the US economy which appears to be growing at some three times the rate of the UK, through a policy of borrow-and-spend while Europe has chosen austerity as the path out of recession. However, here the Americans have the advantage of the US Dollar as the major reserve currency**(see below) and can keep government borrowing costs low, with currently an in-built confidence in the financial markets and assurance to creditors that they will be paid, even if only in depreciated Dollars, that also most conveniently stimulate exports. Any such reduction in exports to Europe is again offset by the fact that the volume of US exports to e.g. Canada, Mexico and Asia is traditionally much greater than that to Europe, and the growth in these three markets is much faster. Any comparable move by the British government to push up borrowing-and-spending e.g. in line with the so-called Balanced Plan for Deficit Reduction of the Labour party, would be highly likely to be penalised by the rating agencies and financial markets. The value of the £ Sterling would fall, inflation would in turn increase, further squeezing household real incomes and weakening demand, as well as the reduced confidence in the future of the British economy being reflected in increased borrowing costs for a British government currently running a budget deficit greater than that of Spain.
There are, therefore, no easy solutions but an effective growth pact for the Euro-zone would be good news for Britain in terms of growth from exports, as would an increased credit flow to small businesses in Britain, together with larger businesses demonstrating their confidence in government policy and the future of the British economy, by starting to spend more of the capital they are currently conserving.
** World Foreign Exchange Reserve Holdings: US$ 62%; Euro 27%; £ Sterling 4%; Japanese Yen 3%; Other 4%
The Biggest Companies in the UK did not need a 2% Tax Rate Cut?
dimanche, avril 22nd, 2012Richard Murphy of Tax Research UK in his article on why the biggest companies in the UK did not need a 2% (Corporate) tax rate cut, writes that…….Amongst the few items in last month?s budget not, so far, subject to retrospective Tory regret about the incompetence in the thinking behind it, was the 2% cut in the large company corporation tax rate introduced for this current financial year. 1% of this had already been scheduled in earlier budgets, and another 1% was added in March.
www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2012/04/15/why-the-uks-biggest-companies-did-not-need-a-2-tax-rate-cut
He continues that …..There are two points to make about this. The first is the very obvious vote of no confidence that this represents in George Osborne?s economic strategy. Businesses are not investing here because they have no faith in the prospect of economic growth which he said he can deliver, but which they do not believe.
Secondly, and a lot more importantly, when large businesses are sitting on this amount of cash then there is no way on earth that they are short of money to fund any investment that they want to undertake. Far from it, they are awash with the funds needed to invest, but are refusing to undertake it. As a consequence a cut in the corporation tax rate to encourage investment will achieve no such goal. It is not the current tax rate that is stopping big business investing in the UK, it is the lack of confidence big business has in George Osborne that is stopping that.
However, is there not a counter argument here? With the economy not able to rely on the financially, hard-pressed consumer to go on a spending spree and kick-start growth and limited prospects for increased exports to the Euro-zone, large businesses refusing to invest are also contributing to the lack of growth in the economy. A lack of confidence in the growth strategy of the Chancellor is not a sufficient reason for this in a trading nation in a global economy, when traditional export markets are depressed.
Conservative Models
jeudi, avril 12th, 2012Addressing the future of Conservatism in the English-speaking world John O?Sullivan, who started as a speech writer for Mrs Thatcher and is now an American citizen at the Hudson Institute, discusses in the National Review Online the four distinctive Conservative Models adopted in the US, Canada, Australia and Britain.
www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/293378
For the US, Tim Stanley writing in the Daily Telegraph blog sees the struggle between the Republican contenders for the soul of Conservatism as essentially a less fundamental one between the Country Club and the Church Picnic, a struggle which both sides can afford to lose. American Conservatism remains vigorous and fundamentally healthy but what it needs to acquire from the Primaries is a leader with both the firmness to adopt a strong programme of reform and the rhetorical skill to persuade the American people of its necessity.
Conservatism is also thriving in both Australia and Canada although in different ways:
– In Australia by boldness
– In Canada by caution.
The key moment in Australian internal politics occurred in December 2009 when Tony Abbot became leader of the Liberal Party. Today his Liberal?Coalition has a 10% lead over a fraction-ridden Labour government uneasily reliant for its small majority on three independent MPs. Paul Kelly of The Australian summed him up in writing that …….[Abbot] has a Conservative set of values that he champions yet his policy outlook is highly flexible and pragmatic. …..Because Abbot is seen to stand for enduring values he gets away with multiple policy switches with impunity. Sometime in the next 18 months Abbot is expected to win a national election on a programme boldly Conservative but not dogmatically pure.
In contrast the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper under-promises and over-delivers. Until recently Conservatism was considered a doomed philosophy in a Canada governed by a large and ideologically sprawling Liberal Party, interrupted by brief intervals of power granted to a so-called Progressive Conservative Party. Stephen Harper undermined the Progressive Tories by founding a rival Conservative Party called Reform and then amalgamating Reform with the rump Tories to form the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC). This he led first into minority government on a programme of moderate reform. He then made the CPC the natural party of government with a clear majority in an election in which the Liberals fell into third place. Although after 6 years social Conservatives might feel a little let down by a leader who has avoided issues such as abortion and has adopted conventional views on immigration, the Prime Minister has cut the size of government to one of the smallest in the advanced world, as well as having a similarly low tax burden of around 31% of GDP.
Yet it is David Cameron in Britain who has attracted the most attention in the US as a possible model for the Republican Party and American Conservatives. The standard Cameron narrative is that the GOP should learn to detoxify its image in order to win new votes as David Cameron succeeded in doing by e.g. going Green and avoiding traditional Tory issues. However, the article goes on to criticise the Cameron Tories over what is judged a certain passivity on economic policy, as a sub-set of a larger decision not to challenge the cultural assumptions of modern metropolitan liberalism across the board in Britain. It also questions their policies e.g. towards minorities, whether ethnic or otherwise, and reshaping British human-rights law.
Given that this then leads the author to conclude that alongside Tony Abbot and Stephen Harper, there seems little that American Conservatives should want to copy from Cameron Conservatism, the recent decision announced in the March 2012 budget to reduce the top rate of income tax from 50% to 45% as well as corporation tax by a further 1%, is a strong signal that the Conservative Party in Britain has not abandoned the intellectual tools of anti-socialist economics, i.e. that tax cuts are a more efficient form of economic stimulus than increases in public spending and that Britain is again now open for Business.
A Toulouse Tribute
lundi, mars 26th, 2012
We are facing a really terrible loss.
I am not only talking as a French person who lives right by Toulouse, nor as a member of the British Conservative Party.
Although I am all of these.
I believe the horror of the tragedy is beyond any nationality or any religion.
I believe words will never be enough to express the emptiness they raised when they left us.
Therefore, I think you have the right to know how they died.
Rabbi Jonathan Sandler, Aryeh Sandler, Gabriel Sandler and Miryam Monsego were cowardly murdered.
Their only crime was to be Jewish.
The pain that we all feel shall remind us that though we may come from different countries and speak different languages, our hearts beat as one.
Remember that, and those persons will not have died in vain.
Remember that, and love would have triumphed.
Agathe Cayuela
One of our youngest members.
BCiP Debate: For or Against a Federal Europe?
jeudi, mars 15th, 2012Debate motion: That the European Union should become a fully-fledged federal state.
The debate on 13th March, 2012 within a sub-group of the British Conservatives in Paris (BCiP), seemed to raise more questions than answers on what would actually constitute a federal Europe as far as British participation was concerned. The current model for the European Union (EU) projects itself weakly on the international stage, with limited perception or appreciation of its role and how it operates on the part of the British public in particular. However, is there really a choice for Britain between a federal EU and the US, with the latter indicated as perhaps preferring Britain in the EU rather than out? Is there a common enough culture between different EU member states to compare with other federations such as the US and Germany after 1871? Can the British island mentality, together with a legacy of empire building outside Europe and an increasingly multi-cultural society, allow the UK to remain the European exception? Would a federal Europe still allow opt-outs and e.g. non-membership of a common currency, the Euro-zone already forced further into fiscal consolidation to protect its weaker members?
Proposing the motion for a federal Europe, PT considered this as something big to be addressed for a country such as Britain which, having acted in the past as a beacon to the world, has the benefit of choices in its future path. One such choice is not to rule out Europe and Britain should support the rest of Europe in plans for federation. Despite some 2000 years of historical links with the European continent, there is a general lack of understanding of the role and inner workings of the EU within Britain and a reciprocal distrust of British intentions on the Continent e.g. working against European integration. That said, the Germans welcome the British as balancing French statism, while the smaller states view Britain as off-setting German predominance. Certainly, although fundamentally financially strong, the EU is perceived as politically weak and carries little weight on the international stage e.g. in Middle East negotiations. There is limited understanding of the role and functioning of the European Commission. Again, there is too much centralisation and the various European institutions in general are weak. A federal Europe including the UK would help to make the EU a stronger force in the World. Is this Utopia? Think about German reunification, the fall of the Soviet Union and the Arab spring and then do not discount a federal Europe.
Leading against the motion for a federal Europe, JS was in favor of the EU, but not a federal vision thereof. Although the definition of a federal Europe was not clear, he suggested that it ought to include the following:
1. A common budget/taxation system (Currently not working out)
2. Common currency (Essentially the Euro is the Deutschmark at root).
3. Majority decision making with no opt-outs (i.e. no French veto on the Common Agricultural Policy which consumes one third of the total EU budget; no protection for British financial services)
4. Expanded federal bureaucracy
5. Borderless Schengen zone for all federal states (no special UK controls on immigration)
6. Common defence/foreign policy (despite unlikely European defence force, special UK/US and Germany/China/Russia links)
Given these ingredients, if you are for the EU you should vote against this motion; if you are against the EU, you should also vote against this motion.
Seconding the motion for a federal Europe, SD said the UK was becoming increasingly irrelevant and out of touch in the world of today. To again exert British influence the only way forward is through Europe. The world is already divided between the US and rising major powers such as China, followed by Brazil, India etc. The credit crunch has put Europe in crisis. The Conservatives traditionally favour pragmatism over principle. There is a lack of influence on the international stage of individual European countries. The only one forward for them is via a federal Europe. A federal Europe does not mean an homogeneous Europe. We are talking about pragmatism and progression, not dependence or independence. Rather than waiting, a federal Europe offers the opportunity to catch up on the international stage.
MD, seconding against the motion, thought further integration at this point more problematic than beneficial:
1. The financial crisis had exposed the weaker peripheral member states compared with the stronger core, with subsidies to the periphery continuing while overall debt still increased.
2. On the concept of environmental determinism and in light of the financial crisis, it is useful to consider that the industrial development and spread of wealth in the EU is as it is for a reason, and perhaps should be accepted as such. By contrast, an even more integrated EU may continue to produce a geographical core subsidising the periphery.
3. It would take a cultural revolution for Britain to participate fully in a more integrated federal Europe, and Britain?s further participation would be needed.
Fundamentally, therefore, a federal Europe including the UK is unrealistic at this moment in time.
Comments which were then invited from the floor included those of:
RB ? We share the fact that we are all parliamentary democracies in the EU. However, the dominant political leaning (Left or Right) of the European Parliament has seemingly tracked the political persuasion of the then European Commission President. So yes, a federal Europe is necessary to address this democratic deficit. The environment also needs more central control as does immigration via the Schengen Agreement , or a business person will face the prospect of one Schengen zone visa and still another visa for the UK. We Europeans have more in common than our differences and need a cultural revolution in favour of federation.
PDH ? Britain and Continental Europe have for long enriched each other culturally and economically. To cite just one example, Britain was strongly influenced by the Florentine Renaissance and banking system. The EU has resulted in major benefits in trade in goods and services as well as standardisation across a huge range of activities. Peace in Europe is often claimed as an EU achievement but I would rather attribute it to Nato.
For fear of destroying past achievements, we should not now try to go too far and too fast and political federation would be premature, to say the least. The European ship is anyway grounded on the rocks of fiscal, monetary and political problems. We should certainly not listen to EU officials telling us to wait in our cabins while they decide what’s good for us. Further rapid integration could provoke disastrous reactions. Consider what happened to Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia and what is happening to Belgium. Britain, too, has learned from its unfortunate attempt at unity with Ireland. « Marry at haste and repent at leisure. » De Gaulle’s « Europe des Patries » is the ideal model. The pragmatic Conservative policies on Europe strike the right balance. The UK should have no complexes about its European credentials and is almost second to none in actually implementing what is agreed in Brussels.
The « Europe des Patries » was certainly invented by de Gaulle. I have found no evidence that the Telegraph played any role in developing the concept (in response to related GD comment below).
GD ? JS spoke in defence of the financial sector but this sector was responsible for the financial crisis. Application of a Tobin tax in the EU would be ok if the US takes this on as well, and it needs to do so due to its enormous debt. If the financial sector does not pay to resolve the debt, taxing the general public more heavily will only depress the economies further. On a matter of information, it was the Daily Telegraph (and not de Gaulle) which came up with the slogan Europe des patries! I would ask MD if Britain is core or peripheral to the European economy ?
PL ? We need to be in the EU in order to change it.
MlD ? The US has grown in a federal way but European countries have grown in a different way. Britain is not naturally involved in Europe and has a choice of being involved or not. If the other EU member states want a federal Europe they can go it alone without Britain.
JM ? It is difficult to see how a federal Europe can work without a common fiscal policy given the Greek situation.
JK ? We will continue to lick the boots of the US unless we go with the EU:
1. We paid a high price for US financial assistance after the War compared with Germany.
2. Germany was able to afford to rebuild its industry.
MlD ? We need to get away from this special relationship idea that while the US is always there to save us, it also treats us shabbily.
GD ? The special relationship (and le grand large) was invented by Winston Churchill to ally with the Americans, while at heart he remained a true European.
MD ? I have noted hostility to the British in France over the years, and have lost hope in a European ideal to some degree. It is unrealistic for Britain to try and integrate further in the EU at this stage.
PL ? The splendid isolation idea is not good.
PDH ? It is a pity the debate pitched the UK against (continental) Europe. There are also strong opinions against a federal Europe in Germany and Italy.
Summing up for the opposition to the motion for a federal Europe, JS had heard passion and experience expressed in favour of Europe but there would be a need to be able to opt-out to survive in a federal Europe. He was not arguing for a US-type relationship but for closer economic ties with Europe. A multi-speed Europe is the only answer with no sharing all at once. A common culture must be allowed to grow organically; it is no way to create harmony by tying together the tails of snarling dogs!
PT concluding for a federal Europe, recalled that the Lisbon Treaty already allowed for a multi-speed Europe, EMU and the Schengen Agreement. Explaining how a federal Europe could operate, he suggested that:
1. There would be an elected central executive, headed up by the chief of the European Commission, responsible to the European Parliament.
2. A second chamber would represent the national member states, similar to the current European Council.
3. Common policies would include the armed forces and health.
4. Member states would not be as neutered as those within the American model (the US is nothing like the EU).
There is an interesting parallel with the 1871 uniting of the various Germanic states, which already shared a common culture. Similarly other European states together with the UK could find a common culture to share within a federal Europe.
At the end of the debate a show of hands was called for and the motion for a federal Europe was defeated by 6 votes for and 9 votes against.
In defence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
dimanche, mars 4th, 2012The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has been widely attacked by British politicians of all parties as well as in the British media and is currently under pressure from the British government to reform, not helped by its most recent ruling in favour of the suspected terrorist Abu Qatada for which it was openly criticised in a recent debate in the House of Commons.
However, the Justice Secretary Kenneth Clark has said that Abu Qatada will be released because he is not accused of a crime in Britain and the decision has nothing to do with the ECHR. This is because a British judge has now ordered the release of Abu Qatada on the basis of how long he has been held without charge, making it difficult to argue a case for his deportation. His comments followed the ECHR ruling that Abu Qatada could not be deported to his native Jordan to face trial on terrorism charges because evidence to be used against him was obtained by torture. The Justice Secretary added that the British newspapers that attack the ECHR, attack the ECHR all the time when actually the judgment to which they are objecting (i.e. to release Abu Qatada) was by a British judge.
Writing in the expat weekly telegraph of February 15 ? 21, 2012 (The Rule of Law is Diminished by Furore over Abu Qatada), Peter Osborne also thought it time that the case was heard for the defence of the ECHR, its decision in the Abu Qatada case having even been attacked as an outrageous assault on British sovereignty. He took issue with the Strasbourg Court having been accused of being an alien institution, hostile to British history, law, freedom and our national identity. The Commons debate of the previous week he described as a day of shame for Parliament, once famed as the cockpit of freedom and justice. MPs were reduced to combining to demand that Britain flout the ECHR.
Mr Osborne reminded us that there is no institution more British than the ECHR, inspired by Sir Winston Churchill, eager in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Holocaust to export the British system of fairness and decency. He, therefore, ensured that its founding document was drafted by a British politician, David Maxwell Fyfe, later to become a Conservative Lord Chancellor. Every single one of the great ideas that were embodied in the European Convention ? freedom from torture, restraint on the power of the state, freedom under law ? was an ancient British principle transferred on to the European stage.
It is also more than 60 years since Churchill made his famous Iron Curtain speech in Fulton, Missouri, in which he defended the Western tradition of the rule of law. He said that we must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which??through Magna Carta, the Bill of rights, habeas corpus, trial by jury and the English Common Law, find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.
Peter Osborne concluded that we should instead be proud that the ECHR, an institution so profoundly British in its inspiration, has refused to send an Arab, Islamic fundamentalist (however terrible his alleged crimes) to Jordan, where he might be tortured or sent to jail on the basis of evidence obtained from a torture victim.
The Critical Financial Sector Debt of the UK.
samedi, février 18th, 2012Britain has a net public sector debt which has just hit £1 trillion for the first time and a budget deficit which compares unfavourably with most of the economies recently downgraded by the rating agency Standard & Poor?s. However, Britain is also one of the few countries to retain a triple-A sovereign debt rating and, as a result, pays very low interest on that type of debt, together with others in the triple-A group which includes Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden and Switzerland. This would then appear to be an endorsement of the current deficit-cutting plan of the British government but of course offers no guarantee against a future downgrade if the financial markets, which matter more than the rating agencies, lose confidence.
Concerning the UK debt position as a percentage of GDP, David Smith in his Economic Outlook in the Sunday Times of 22nd January, 2012 presented some interesting figures with which to compare the UK with other economies:
? UK total debt at 507% of GDP is at the level of Japan (512%).
? The total debt of other countries is lower: USA (279%), Germany (278%), Italy (314%), Spain (363%), and Portugal (356%).
? For government debt, the UK is at 81% while Japan is much higher at 226%.
? The UK (109%) and Japan (99%) are similar for corporate debt but France is higher (111%).
? Household debt in the UK stands at 98% of GDP and well above Italy (45%), France (48%) and Germany (60%). The difference is in mortgages with a relatively higher level of owner-occupation in the UK. Similar countries are the US (87%), Canada (91%) and Australia (105%).
? The main problem for the UK debt-wise is in the financial sector at 219% of GDP, almost double the level for Japan, over five times the US figure and three times the level of most other countries. This reflects the position of London as a major financial with a high proportion of major, foreign banks.
Excluding the financial sector then, total debt in the UK is more in the region of 400% of GDP rather than 500% , more manageable but still too high. The financial sector is a critical area which ballooned almost out of control during the boom years and, with the need for the banks to now reduce their debt, also explains the more limited flow of credit to help grow the UK economy.
Speech by Prime Minister on ECHR at Council Of Europe
vendredi, février 10th, 2012The full text of the 25th January, 2012 speech by Prime Minister David Cameron to the Council of Europe on reforming the European Court of Human Rights(ECHR), can be found here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/25/cameron-speech-european-court-human-rights-full?CMP=twt_gu
On the difficulties faced by the British government in dealing with terrorism e.g. following the decision of the ECHR the previous week to block the deportation to Jordan of the suspected terrorist Abu Qatada, the Court had rather inconveniently for his speech already found in favour of the government on the most important point at issue. It had concluded that diplomatic assurances from Jordan would be sufficient to ensue that the cleric would not be at risk of ill-treatment.
According to Joshua Rozenberg writing in the Law Society Gazette of 26th January, 2012 (UK Courts have misunderstood a fundamental provis Rights Act), if the government had lost on this point it would not have been able to rely on memorandums of understanding with Jordan or other countries.
The point of contention with the British government was the risk that evidence against Abu Qatada had been obtained by torturing witnesses, ensuring any trial he might face unfair the judges concluded.
Criticism of ECHR not Based on Fact
vendredi, janvier 27th, 2012The criticism of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) by the British Prime Minister is wrong and panders to popular opinion without an understanding of the facts, says Sir Nicolas Bratza QC, the new president of the Strasbourg-based court.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/
9034397/David-Camerons-criticism-of-ECHR-not-based-on-facts-says-top-judge.html
Writing under the headline Britain should be defending European justice, not attacking it, he added: The UK can be proud of its real contribution to this unique system and its influence in bringing about effective human rights protection throughout the European continent.
However, in his speech on the 25th January, 2011 (see Telegraph article below) to the Council of Europe which the UK currently chairs, Prime Minister David Cameron was addressing what appears in certain sections of the press to be a popular cause with the British people, in calling for reform of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9037045/David-Camerons-stand-on-EU-human-rights-reform.html
Last week the ECHR was again criticised after it ruled that the radical Islamist Abu Qatada, cannot be extradited from the UK to Jordan as he would not receive a fair trial on terrorism charges. Mr Cameron claims the 47 members of the Council have a once-in-a-generation chance to improve the way we enhance the cause of human rights, freedom and dignity. He addresses his critics by saying that belief in human rights is part of the British character. We are not and never will be a country that walks on by while human rights are trampled into the dust.
However, he could face a difficult task convincing members to return more power on human rights decisions to national courts:
?The 160,000 backlog of human rights cases that had built up within the ECHR can be also traced to the increase in members of the Council of Europe following the breakup of the Soviet Union.
?The UK has lost 3 out of 4 cases brought before the Court since its establishment after WWII and only 8 cases brought against Britain last year (less than 1% of the total) were defended successfully; however, most recently and concerning the extradition of two alleged murderers to the US, the judges decided in the favour of the UK.
?In the case of Abu Qatada one underlying issue seems to be torture and the related inadmissability of evidence obtained through torture, the latter that might well have undermined the UK?s case for extradition. Kenneth Clark the Justice Minister has also suggested that the ECHR should concentrate on more major issues impacting human rights such as torture.