jump to navigation

On This Day, Margaret Thatcher Was Back-Stabbed 28 November 2006

Posted by David in Conservatives.
2 comments

MTIt was sixteen years ago today, 28th November 1990, that Margaret Thatcher left Downing Street in tears. After 11 years of power, her back stabbing cabinet had finally brought down Britain’s greatest peacetime Prime Minister, the only reason they ever left opposition for government. The decline of the Conservatives then begun. For the picture I selected a different image to that of 28/11/1990. Happier times for Britain’s Iron Lady, a person of courage and integrity of belief that today’s leadership would do well to learn from.

Minority Courts A Danger 28 November 2006

Posted by David in Uncategorized.
add a comment

The BBC have an article on minority courts in the UK, using systems such as Shariah or Somali. As usual the politically correct brigade say it’s a celebration and triumph of multi-culturalism, more fool them. The article even notes a murder of a Somalian man by another Somalian in the UK, which was settled by one of these ad hoc minority courts in the UK. The punishment was to pay compensation.

Bizarely, there was little mention of the dangers that these courts may create. The possibility of some groups happily accepting the legal decisions of a sepperate court means that some communities will be outside of normal law and justice. If a family can accept compensation for a murder, the criminal remains free. If communities accept this, all are at danger, and justice is not done.

Britain should not allow any community to create its own sepperate legal system. Those born into that community may feel trapped into it by family pressure, and thus lack access to justice. The law should apply equally and unto all.

Don’t Break Up Britain 27 November 2006

Posted by David in Europe.
5 comments

Union Flag waving
A new poll for the Sunday Telegraph shows 52% of Scots support full Scottish independence. Strangely, 59% of the English support Scottish independence, but only 48% want English independence. Surely both are roughly the same? I have a few bones with this poll however. Its findings differ greatly from others, as the questions were different. The YouGov Telegraph poll last week put support for independence on 32%, having asked a more detailed question offering “independence within the EU” (current SNP policy).

However my polling annoyances are not the reason for this post. The reason for this post is my belief in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, particularly Great Britain. We are an island, and what better geographical form could there be for a single nation state?

If we were divided, suddenly we would have land borders. Would we guard them, causing travel chaos, or accept the EU’s Schengen Agreement and hand over our border controls to Brussels? Would we insist on having visas to work, or allow free movement of people? But Scotland would have an easier immigration policy to halt a decling population, these new arrivals could then go anywhere.

Would we break up our Army? Will we split up our territorial waters? Would we split the Pound or have a monetary union? What if one joined the Euro? Will we hand more power to the EU as it seems easier. In such a messy divorce, the EU will be the lawyer – the only winner in divorces. Regionalisation has been EU policy for years, don’t let them break up Britain.

You Don’t Indict A Country…Unless It’s Britain 27 November 2006

Posted by David in Labour, Political Correctness Gone Mad.
add a comment

Over at The Times they are reporting Blair’s apology sorrow for slavery and the slave trade. But – as expected – it’s not enough for “campaigners”. Or rather some rather hypocritical campaigners. What I want to know is where they get time to do this “campaigning”, have they nothing better to do?

Esther Stanford, from the campaign group Rendezvous of Victory, told the Today programme: “This statement does not go far enough. To repair harm we are talking about educational reparations, financial reparations, family and cultural reparations. If you don’t deal with this now it’s tentamount to saying that you can commit crimes against humanity.”

Ms Stanford “most definately” agreed with legal compensation, but not from families of African leaders who were involved in organising the slave trade. “You don’t indict a whole country of Africa for the excesses of a few people who were forced to partake,” she said.

No, instead you indict the whole 21st Century United Kingdom for the excesses of a few 18th Century colonialists. Basically you don’t indict a whole country, unless it’s Britain, which was one of the first to ban slavery and put much effort into stopping it.

At least she accepts some African leaders were involved, even though she believes they were forced to do so. Some such as Benjamin Zephaniah don’t even accept that, believing the whole World lived in lovely free harmony until evil Britain turned up. He should check Wikipedia on ancient slavery, noting Anglo-Saxons taken as slaves by Vikings.

The age of apology is going crazy. We are not responsible for the wrongs of past individuals!

Worth reading: African_Slave_Trade which states “trade in slaves has carried on for thousands of years in Africa. Despite its illegality, the African slave trade continues today in parts of the continent” and later “the power of the Royal Navy was subsequently used to suppress the slave trade, and while some illegal trade, mostly with Brazil, continued, the Atlantic slave trade would be eradicated by the middle of the 19th century. “

Cameron Snubs CBI 26 November 2006

Posted by David in Conservatives.
add a comment

David Cameron has cancelled plansto speak at the CBI. Instead he is off on a low key fact finding mission in Iraq. Not a good move when business is already concerned about the “new direction”.

Commission President A KGB Spy Says Poisoned Ex-KGB Spy 26 November 2006

Posted by David in Europe.
1 comment so far

I’m surprised it’s not got much publicity, just a few very dismissive lines in The Guardian and The Sun, but it’s quite an unusual story.

The former Spy Alexander Litvinenko, who sadly died after his shocking poisoning by a radioactive substance, is reported to have claimed Romano Prodi (former President of the European Commission and now the Italian Prime Minister) was a KGB agent.

The poisoned former spy told his UKIP Euro MP Gerard Batten Mr Prodi was the KGB’s “man in Italy”. Litvinenko sought help from General Anatoly Trofimov, ex-deputy Russian secret service chief, after he was forced to seek political asylum. Mr Batten told the European Parliament General Trofimov reportedly said: “Don’t go to Italy. There are KGB agents among the politicians. Prodi is our man there.”

This seems to have been dismissed by the media, but we shouldn’t be so. The Cambridge Spies went right to the top in Britain, and who knows how many others there may have been. Is it instantly so unbelievable that Prodi, who the Times described as a “Euro fanatic”, could be an Italian Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, Anthony Blunt or Donald Maclean?

I am not one for conspiracy theories, but I think the claims of a man formerly one of the KGB/FSB’s top agents who has been mysteriously assasignated by a rare radioactive substance deserve a little more investigation and time.

Over on the sometimes weird but often good Armed & Dangerous Blog from America they have a lot of stuff suggesting socialist activity in the EU.

If Cameron Adopts Working Time Limits… 26 November 2006

Posted by David in Conservatives.
add a comment

If Cameron adopts working time limits, I am resigning from the party. Working time restrictions are illiberal in the extreme. What right does a politician have to say how long we can work for? People are not exploited and we do not need to be saved by Marxist nonsense. I read about it at Sinclair’s, where he too is angry. Iain Dale is foaming as well.

People should be free to work as long as they like. It’s up to individuals to decide their own work/life balance, not politicians. Some people like work, others are happy to sacrifice some spare time for some extra overtime cash. They obviously prefer the money, or they wouldn’t do it. Perhaps they get greater satisfaction from their remaining spare time because they have more money. An example of quality over quantity.

A policy like this is terrible. What will DC say, “I’m sorry Mr Minimum Wage, you can’t work overtime to go on a better holiday with your kids or send them to dance/guitar practice, because we have decided your work/life balance for you. Now go home and vegitate and remember to explain to your kids they aren’t going to EuroDisney anymore for the better your general well being.”

This is not the USSR and we are not Communists, Mr Cameron!

It’s A Dangerous World, We Must Replace Trident 23 November 2006

Posted by David in World.
add a comment

Reagan

ConservativeHome has an excellent cartoon, reproduced above, from Michael Ramirez. If only Reagan had completed the star wars missile defence system!

It is absolutely vital that we replace Trident. The World is a dangerous place, many have nuclear missiles, even North Korea now. For the UK not to have any would make us a sitting duck, and look stupid. Mutually Assured Destruction may spell MAD, but it generally works. It is certainly better than “we’re pacifists and don’t believe in nuclear weapons so we’ll just sit here while you build some, aim them at us, then hold us to ransom or destroy us.” A prize for anyone who puts that in a nifty acronym.

The anti-nuclear CND live in cloud cuckoo land, just as the Greenham Common protesters of the 80s did. They once asked them how they would stop a Soviet invasion? “With love” they declared. Not being nasty, but that wouldn’t get us far, just look at them. At best that would save us a half acre of swamp, even with the best of negotiators acting on our behalf.

“We should lead the way with non-proliferation by setting an example” say some, clearly people without dictionaries. Proliferation means the spread of nuclear weapons to those not already possessing them, we already possess them- we’re just renewing.

War is not good. We have nuclear weapons so it doesn’t happen, and so others won’t use them on us. So please CND, grow up!

Green Or Green With Envy 22 November 2006

Posted by David in Uncategorized.
add a comment

Ken Jong-IlI hate Ken Livingstone. No really, I do. In fact, he is one of the worst people on the planet. Not because his main hobby is newts, I have nothing against newts, even though I’m no fan of them, I’m not newtist at all. No, I hate London’s Ken Jong-Il because he is a jealous, envy ridden creep.

Firstly the Congestion Charge wound me up to start with. We own the roads, well the Queen does (it’s the Queen’s Highway). We pay Road Tax to use them. Then this cheeky loonatic adds a top up, just for visiting our capital city to spend our money there! But now, he’s making it £25 for “gas guzzling chelsea tractor 4x4s” because “they create more CO2”. Oh please, if that was the reason cows would be the most highly taxed creatures on the planet.

It has more to do with pandering to a strange envy caused hatred of 4x4s. Yes, in City’s they are ridiculous, but it’s not the State’s job to choose which cars we can drive. As long as they pass the relevant safety tests, it’s no-bodies business but the drivers. You should be free to drive whatever you like providing it’s safe.

People who cheer at the anti-4×4 policies, what about when it’s your turn to get “taxed off the road”, or out of the sky (cheap flights will be gone next), or out of the supermarket (they pollute too much say the eco-fascists)? In Richmond-Upon-Thames you now have to pay huge amounts to park outside your own house! All this but no amount of tax revenue can repair the ozone layer or refreeze ice caps.

All of this environmentalism is just a smoke screen for tax, a Green Screen if you like. They aren’t doing anything serious to stop climate change, like building hundreds of off-shore windmills or confronting the US, China and India. Planning permission is a nightmare for home micro-generation solar panels, let alone windmills. If they are so green, why is the countryside being ruined by development, the EU Common Agriculture Policy and soon- traffic moving off expensive main roads to cheaper rural roads thanks to “road pricing” which will again target 4x4s.

The UK is 2% of global emmissions, put things in perspective. Let people be free I say, and tackle the real causes, sort the real issues. Stop being green with envy, and actually do something useful.

Relative Vs Absolute Poverty 22 November 2006

Posted by David in Conservatives.
16 comments

First of all, Chameleons On Bicycles is back, hooray!

Now to the serious business, the suggestion by Conservative policy guru Greg Clark MP that the party ditches its traditional and logical definition of poverty in absolute terms in turn for the leftist definition of ‘relative poverty’.

For non-wonks, I will explain. Absolute poverty uses absolute terms, i.e. you are poor if you cannot afford X, Y and Z each week. This has its origins in the reformers of Victorian times, when a shopping basket containing certain essential food was the measure (X, Y and Z). Relative poverty is measured against other people, i.e. you are poor if you earn less than a certain percentage of average earnings, in this case 60% of the median average I believe.

Mr Clark uses language from the Guardian’s High Priestess of Communism, Polly Toynbee, whom he praises regularly. To them the country is like a train of caravans across the wilderness; we are all moving forwards, but some faster than others, and thus we’re apparently pulling apart.

Switching to the relative poverty measure is madness for many reasons. Firstly, relative poverty is a measure that moves. The more people you help up, the higher the average and ‘poverty line’ goes. It is a constant battle. The measure was created by socialists to justify socialism and create victims for them to ‘help’.

Secondly, it’s based on envy. It assumes people would rather be average in Poland than at the bottom in the UK – the many migrants coming to the UK proving that claim wrong. So what if someone has more than you? Focus on what you have, not what others have!

Thirdly, it’s totally false. If The Queen, Bill Gates and the Sultan Of Brunei were in the same room, the relative measure of poverty would say that the Queen was below the poverty line! Same for Richard Branson, Alan Sugar, the Beckhams etc. There’s always people below average, that’s why it’s an average!

Fourthly, it has no relation to actual absolute poverty. It would say for instance that the Soviet Union and Mao’s China had little if any poverty, because there was little if any inequality between ordinary people. On the other hand, it says the UK, USA and West in general are rife with extreme poverty. It is therefore actually a measure of income dispersion and not of poverty, yet it claims to be poverty.

The big lie that came from the 1980s is that “the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer”. This is rubbish. As this BBC graph shows, the top 10%, average and bottom 10% ALL got wealthier through Thatcherism (even with incomes adjusted for inflation – “real terms”). The distance between these 3 percentiles enlarged, but is this a problem? No, only if you are a jealous, envy ridden moron.

incomes graph

It’s tragic the Tories are adopting the relative poverty tripe. All this talk of “the poor” is very patronising to low income earners anyway, it’s 2006 not a Charles Dickens novel! You get the feeling that they imagine evil top hat wearing capitalists to go round kicking people, unplugging Oliver’s SkyTV because he spent his cash at the bookies and on gin. Please Cameron’s Conservatives, wake up to the real world (or at least watch Wife Swap to get a better feel of it)!