The media made a bit of a song and dance over the news that the population of Britain has now breached the 61,000,000 mark. Laban over on UK Commentators notes that one such media hack is pleased that this has happened and is grateful to the wave of immigrants that have recently flooded into our nation.
"So the latest figures are a source of hope — showing that relatively fertile immigrants can, at least for a while, replenish the new generation of young people the country needs." *
What nobody seems to be mentioning, however, is that over the last 40 years we have, through abortion on demand, wiped out some 6,000,000 viable "young people" that the country is supposed to need - and that those young people would quite probably have gone on to have had children of their own by now.
In other words, we are now relying on imported kids due to the fact we can't be bothered to make our own.
* All this depends on swallowing the belief that the only way to achieve economic growth is by adding productive bodies. It's not a belief I share.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Send in the clones
I'm starting to warm to Tory MEP, Daniel Hannan.
Not only do his views on certain subjects - particularly the NHS and the EU - coincide with mine, but in his latest article for The Telegraph Hannan echoes my own views on a subject I wrote about last November - the lack of political dissent within political parties.
For most of our history, it was understood that MPs sat in their own right and were answerable chiefly to their local electorate. This meant that, in order to get their programme through, ministers had to humour and cajole the House of Commons, which in turn meant that the legislature was an effective check on the executive.
Hannan then goes on to make the same connection between the media and the crushing of dissent that I noted.
Then, around about 40 years ago, journalists began to develop the idea that if Person X disagreed, on the record, with Person Y, it was a "gaffe" (a word that exists only in newspapers, never in ordinary conversations). As parties solidified, and politics became professionalised, MPs were increasingly treated by the media as representatives of their parties rather than their constituencies.
That's a pretty good sum up of the situation - but it doesn't end there. Hannan notes, quite correctly, that dissent does exist - but only in private. This is, of course, inevitable when two or more people come together to form a strategy, but, as Hannan points out, the insistence by political parties that MPs show a united front in public often results in those politicians coming across as dishonest when questioned as they evade giving a straight answer to a simple question.
Hannan does go on to say something which I profoundly disagree with.
It is a measure of David Cameron's confidence that he is prepared to tolerate dissenting voices. No one could say the same about Gordon Brown.
I don't think that is true at all. Cameron has demonstrated frequently that he isn't prepared to tolerate dissent from the ranks - the selection procedure for prospective Conservative MPs is key to that and the recent expenses scandal has seen a number of old-school Conservatives forced to stand down at the next election while close allies of Cameron not only retain their seats, but also their Shadow Cabinet position.
If anything, Labour has far more MPs who are prepared to go against their leader than the Tories, but I suppose that is natural for the party in power. Nevertheless, I can not think of a Tory equivalent of Frank Field at the moment and after the next election this is even more unlikely.
If anything, the Tory back benches will be stuffed with David Cameron clones - social and moral liberal progressives - unthinkingly towing the party line at all times. Our democracy is already considerably weaker than it was forty years ago and this will weaken it still further as more and more people notice the blatant evasion and deceit practiced by MPs before their eyes.
To repair the damage we need to start having an open and honest public political debate between and within parties. Why shouldn't an MP, when asked what he or she thinks about - for example - grammar schools say that they don't agree with Cameron or Brown?
The answer, of course, is that politics is now a profession - and anyone who has an ounce of ambition will not do something that is likely to harm their career if they can help it. They all harbour ambitions to climb the greasy pole as quickly as they can so they do not say or do anything that will see them sliding back to the bottom.
The answer to that is to have politicians who do not rely on politics as their main career - and the best way to do that is to have an age cap. I'd recommend 35 as the minimum age for an MP and 45 as the minimum age for a member of the Cabinet. That way we can avoid having our back benches being filled up with professional envelope stuffers because nobody worth a damn is going to do that for ten years until they get their shot at being an MP.
It would work, but it won't happen. More's the pity.
Not only do his views on certain subjects - particularly the NHS and the EU - coincide with mine, but in his latest article for The Telegraph Hannan echoes my own views on a subject I wrote about last November - the lack of political dissent within political parties.
For most of our history, it was understood that MPs sat in their own right and were answerable chiefly to their local electorate. This meant that, in order to get their programme through, ministers had to humour and cajole the House of Commons, which in turn meant that the legislature was an effective check on the executive.
Hannan then goes on to make the same connection between the media and the crushing of dissent that I noted.
Then, around about 40 years ago, journalists began to develop the idea that if Person X disagreed, on the record, with Person Y, it was a "gaffe" (a word that exists only in newspapers, never in ordinary conversations). As parties solidified, and politics became professionalised, MPs were increasingly treated by the media as representatives of their parties rather than their constituencies.
That's a pretty good sum up of the situation - but it doesn't end there. Hannan notes, quite correctly, that dissent does exist - but only in private. This is, of course, inevitable when two or more people come together to form a strategy, but, as Hannan points out, the insistence by political parties that MPs show a united front in public often results in those politicians coming across as dishonest when questioned as they evade giving a straight answer to a simple question.
Hannan does go on to say something which I profoundly disagree with.
It is a measure of David Cameron's confidence that he is prepared to tolerate dissenting voices. No one could say the same about Gordon Brown.
I don't think that is true at all. Cameron has demonstrated frequently that he isn't prepared to tolerate dissent from the ranks - the selection procedure for prospective Conservative MPs is key to that and the recent expenses scandal has seen a number of old-school Conservatives forced to stand down at the next election while close allies of Cameron not only retain their seats, but also their Shadow Cabinet position.
If anything, Labour has far more MPs who are prepared to go against their leader than the Tories, but I suppose that is natural for the party in power. Nevertheless, I can not think of a Tory equivalent of Frank Field at the moment and after the next election this is even more unlikely.
If anything, the Tory back benches will be stuffed with David Cameron clones - social and moral liberal progressives - unthinkingly towing the party line at all times. Our democracy is already considerably weaker than it was forty years ago and this will weaken it still further as more and more people notice the blatant evasion and deceit practiced by MPs before their eyes.
To repair the damage we need to start having an open and honest public political debate between and within parties. Why shouldn't an MP, when asked what he or she thinks about - for example - grammar schools say that they don't agree with Cameron or Brown?
The answer, of course, is that politics is now a profession - and anyone who has an ounce of ambition will not do something that is likely to harm their career if they can help it. They all harbour ambitions to climb the greasy pole as quickly as they can so they do not say or do anything that will see them sliding back to the bottom.
The answer to that is to have politicians who do not rely on politics as their main career - and the best way to do that is to have an age cap. I'd recommend 35 as the minimum age for an MP and 45 as the minimum age for a member of the Cabinet. That way we can avoid having our back benches being filled up with professional envelope stuffers because nobody worth a damn is going to do that for ten years until they get their shot at being an MP.
It would work, but it won't happen. More's the pity.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Only a fool makes the same mistake twice .....
..... so our politicians must be complete imbeciles!
A Conservative Government would be prepared to increase Britain’s financial contributions to the European Union in exchange for reforms to European farm subsidies.
Which is exactly what the Labour government did - and the result? Huge increases in our EU contributions for bugger all reform.
Critics including the Conservatives have attacked Labour over a 2005 deal to cut the British rebate in exchange for changes to the Common Agricultural Policy system of farm subsidies.
There has since been little change in the CAP, but Britain’s EU membership fee is rising nonetheless.
Ever since we joined the "Common Market" various politicians of various governments or governments-in-waiting have promised to "reform" the EU - and got well and truly shafted by that organisation. Even Maggie Thatcher, hardly the most gullible or naive of our politicians, had her fingers very badly burned playing with that particular hot potato.
And yet, they still keep deluding themselves that they can reform the EU! How stupid are they? Does anyone really believe that the boy Dave is going to sweep in to power and change an organisation which has rolled relentlessly along the same path - and over far more able politicians than Cameron - for more than 50 years.
Idiots!
A Conservative Government would be prepared to increase Britain’s financial contributions to the European Union in exchange for reforms to European farm subsidies.
Which is exactly what the Labour government did - and the result? Huge increases in our EU contributions for bugger all reform.
Critics including the Conservatives have attacked Labour over a 2005 deal to cut the British rebate in exchange for changes to the Common Agricultural Policy system of farm subsidies.
There has since been little change in the CAP, but Britain’s EU membership fee is rising nonetheless.
Ever since we joined the "Common Market" various politicians of various governments or governments-in-waiting have promised to "reform" the EU - and got well and truly shafted by that organisation. Even Maggie Thatcher, hardly the most gullible or naive of our politicians, had her fingers very badly burned playing with that particular hot potato.
And yet, they still keep deluding themselves that they can reform the EU! How stupid are they? Does anyone really believe that the boy Dave is going to sweep in to power and change an organisation which has rolled relentlessly along the same path - and over far more able politicians than Cameron - for more than 50 years.
Idiots!
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
It's the way you tell 'em
The Telegraph reports that the Tories have "extended" their lead over Labour in the polls, but it is a dubious claim.
The way the Telegraph phrases the headline would tend to make one think that the Tories are gaining support when this is not actually the case. In fact, considering all that has gone on over the last year or so, support for the Tory Party remains unchanged and stubbornly lacklustre at 41%. The reality is that support for the Labour Party continues to drain away but not significantly to the Lib Dems and certainly not to the Tories.
The Telegraph goes on to say ....
Last month's poll by YouGov for The Daily Telegraph found that Mr Brown's government was as unpopular as John Major's the year before his party suffered a landslide general election defeat.
..... but neglects to point out that Labour enjoyed poll results predicting a 47% share of the vote at the time - a full 6 points higher than Cameron's Tory Party can manage. I can understand that the Telegraph would be keen to talk up the Tories chances of winning the next election, but if I were Cameron I would be wondering why it is that the Tory Party is failing to make any significant inroads. Sure, they have a significant lead in the polls, but that is purely down to falling support for the Labour Party and not due to any significant rise in support for the Conservatives.
And given that the electoral map of Britain is far from simple, I am still not convinced that 41% share in the opinion polls will translate into a comprehensive victory for Cameron. Far from it in fact. I believe - with the way constituencies are set up and the virtual absence of Tory support outside of England - the Tories would need to be regularly polling close to 50% to achieve even a significant majority let alone a landslide.
As long as the Tories continue to bumble along at the 40% mark we're heading for either a slim Tory majority or a hung parliament. Either way, it's still not good reading for Cameron no matter how much spin you ladle on to it.
The way the Telegraph phrases the headline would tend to make one think that the Tories are gaining support when this is not actually the case. In fact, considering all that has gone on over the last year or so, support for the Tory Party remains unchanged and stubbornly lacklustre at 41%. The reality is that support for the Labour Party continues to drain away but not significantly to the Lib Dems and certainly not to the Tories.
The Telegraph goes on to say ....
Last month's poll by YouGov for The Daily Telegraph found that Mr Brown's government was as unpopular as John Major's the year before his party suffered a landslide general election defeat.
..... but neglects to point out that Labour enjoyed poll results predicting a 47% share of the vote at the time - a full 6 points higher than Cameron's Tory Party can manage. I can understand that the Telegraph would be keen to talk up the Tories chances of winning the next election, but if I were Cameron I would be wondering why it is that the Tory Party is failing to make any significant inroads. Sure, they have a significant lead in the polls, but that is purely down to falling support for the Labour Party and not due to any significant rise in support for the Conservatives.
And given that the electoral map of Britain is far from simple, I am still not convinced that 41% share in the opinion polls will translate into a comprehensive victory for Cameron. Far from it in fact. I believe - with the way constituencies are set up and the virtual absence of Tory support outside of England - the Tories would need to be regularly polling close to 50% to achieve even a significant majority let alone a landslide.
As long as the Tories continue to bumble along at the 40% mark we're heading for either a slim Tory majority or a hung parliament. Either way, it's still not good reading for Cameron no matter how much spin you ladle on to it.
Monday, August 24, 2009
It's time the SNP delivered on their promise
Blimey - for a brief moment I thought David Cameron had undergone a revelation when I saw the headline in The Telegraph screaming that the Tories believed Britain was now divided into two nations.
I eagerly clicked on the link to read the great leader's words on Scotland's shame over the release of the murdering Lockerbie bomber while England basked in the pride of a stunning Ashes victory ..... but no.
Dave's not as tuned in to the mood of the nation as I would have hoped. Instead it's the forgettable Chris Grayling wittering on about the "two nations" of the have and have nots.
Britain has been divided by Labour into “two nations”, with deprived communities plagued by crime falling into "different worlds" from their wealthy neighbours, the Tories claim.
Good grief. How many times have we heard this crap trotted out by all sorts of lefties over the decades even though it is demonstrably untrue. There was far more poverty and greater discrepancy between the "different worlds" of the wealthy and the poor fifty years ago, but far less crime so it is quite obvious to anyone who wants to think about it that the link between poverty and crime is spurious.
If we're going to claim that the rich and poor of Britain constitute two distinct nations, then we might as well go the whole hog and recognise the multitude of "different nations" that exist in Britain - the Islamic nation, the Christian nation, the black nation, the Asian nation, the progressive nation, the social conservative nation etc. etc.
All this is a product of the ideology known as multiculturalism which encourages different groups to develop their own sub-cultures and then elevates those sub-cultures to make them equal to the prevailing national culture.
In that respect Britain is not two nations as the Tories claim, but a hundred different nations all competing for an ever greater share of the dwindling national resources and a greater position in the national culture. The only outcome this can achieve is the total break up of Britain into not just the four nations, but dozens of small statelets all warring with one another.
The Tories are supporters of this ideology and therefore as deluded as the Labour Party. Dave doesn't know how to fix it anymore than Blair did or Brown does - but like Blair he does know all the right buzzwords, catchphrases and soundbites to make it seem like he does.
The sooner we are two nations the better for England. England need to ditch the Scots and start governing ourselves once more. It's about time the spineless SNP delivered on their promise to deliver "independence" (what sort of independence is it when they are committed to being a subservient part of the EU?) and left the Union.
It would be better still if England could come up with a proper English nationalist movement of our own, but as long as we have the useless Tories and the regressive Labour Party that isn't likely to happen. Come on Salmond - put your money where your mouth is and take Scotland out of the Union.
He doesn't have the guts - the spineless poser.
I eagerly clicked on the link to read the great leader's words on Scotland's shame over the release of the murdering Lockerbie bomber while England basked in the pride of a stunning Ashes victory ..... but no.
Dave's not as tuned in to the mood of the nation as I would have hoped. Instead it's the forgettable Chris Grayling wittering on about the "two nations" of the have and have nots.
Britain has been divided by Labour into “two nations”, with deprived communities plagued by crime falling into "different worlds" from their wealthy neighbours, the Tories claim.
Good grief. How many times have we heard this crap trotted out by all sorts of lefties over the decades even though it is demonstrably untrue. There was far more poverty and greater discrepancy between the "different worlds" of the wealthy and the poor fifty years ago, but far less crime so it is quite obvious to anyone who wants to think about it that the link between poverty and crime is spurious.
If we're going to claim that the rich and poor of Britain constitute two distinct nations, then we might as well go the whole hog and recognise the multitude of "different nations" that exist in Britain - the Islamic nation, the Christian nation, the black nation, the Asian nation, the progressive nation, the social conservative nation etc. etc.
All this is a product of the ideology known as multiculturalism which encourages different groups to develop their own sub-cultures and then elevates those sub-cultures to make them equal to the prevailing national culture.
In that respect Britain is not two nations as the Tories claim, but a hundred different nations all competing for an ever greater share of the dwindling national resources and a greater position in the national culture. The only outcome this can achieve is the total break up of Britain into not just the four nations, but dozens of small statelets all warring with one another.
The Tories are supporters of this ideology and therefore as deluded as the Labour Party. Dave doesn't know how to fix it anymore than Blair did or Brown does - but like Blair he does know all the right buzzwords, catchphrases and soundbites to make it seem like he does.
The sooner we are two nations the better for England. England need to ditch the Scots and start governing ourselves once more. It's about time the spineless SNP delivered on their promise to deliver "independence" (what sort of independence is it when they are committed to being a subservient part of the EU?) and left the Union.
It would be better still if England could come up with a proper English nationalist movement of our own, but as long as we have the useless Tories and the regressive Labour Party that isn't likely to happen. Come on Salmond - put your money where your mouth is and take Scotland out of the Union.
He doesn't have the guts - the spineless poser.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Compassion? Sure - unless you're a victim of crime
The decision of the Scottish justice minister to release the Lockerbie murderer on "compassionate" grounds is a strange one. During his long winded, excuse riddled speech Kenny Macaskill* referred frequently to "humanity" and "compassion" being involved in his decision.
But not once did he show any humanity or compassion towards the victims of the murdering bastard. If he had an ounce of true compassion he would have realised that releasing this terrorist scum to live out his dying days among his family would cause huge upset to the families of the real victims.
The filthy Libyan terrorist is a victim of a horrible disease. That's bad luck, but not entirely undeserved, but it is not enough to justify releasing him from prison. Those who died at his hands were victims of a cold blooded calculating murderer and they deserve far more compassion and far more consideration than a terrorist.
Such a shame that Macaskill felt the need to demonstrate his fake "humanity" towards a convicted terrorist rather than the grieving families of the real victims.
* Am I the only one who finds an adult using a rather childish version of their name a little bit creepy? Kenneth or Ken would be fine - but Kenny ..... grow up sunshine.
But not once did he show any humanity or compassion towards the victims of the murdering bastard. If he had an ounce of true compassion he would have realised that releasing this terrorist scum to live out his dying days among his family would cause huge upset to the families of the real victims.
The filthy Libyan terrorist is a victim of a horrible disease. That's bad luck, but not entirely undeserved, but it is not enough to justify releasing him from prison. Those who died at his hands were victims of a cold blooded calculating murderer and they deserve far more compassion and far more consideration than a terrorist.
Such a shame that Macaskill felt the need to demonstrate his fake "humanity" towards a convicted terrorist rather than the grieving families of the real victims.
* Am I the only one who finds an adult using a rather childish version of their name a little bit creepy? Kenneth or Ken would be fine - but Kenny ..... grow up sunshine.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Is a week a long time in politics? Not any more.
After two weeks of avoiding the news, papers and basically anything to do with politics whatsoever it's kind of depressing to return to it and find nothing has changed.
The Tories are still unconservative, the Lib Dems are still a leaderless rabble and Labour continue to drag this country into ever deeper mess while the press work hard to demonise the PM while virtually ignoring the far more worrying comments coming from other members of the government.
The outrageously sexist Harriet Harman continues her campaign to feminise the world while our Foreign Secretary appears on radio to heap praise on a Marxist terrorist and tell us that he thinks terrorism is justifiable.
Of course, it's always been a quiet time for politics during the summer recess, but I can't believe that some of the things which have been uttered by our political class over the last two weeks have not been held up to greater scrutiny. It's not good enough to just excuse them as just being part of the "silly season" - some of these comments reveal the true nature of the people who run this country and yet our press virtually ignore them.
Fifty years ago the likes of Alan Duncan, Harriet Harman, David Miliband and Peter Mandelson would have been sacked or forced to resign at the very least.
They used to say that a week is a long time in politics - and so it was when we actually had politicians and political parties worthy of the name. Now it seems that this current crop can say what they like and get away with it as long as they are gay, female or subscribe to the same progressive doctrine that dominates the media these days.
The Tories are still unconservative, the Lib Dems are still a leaderless rabble and Labour continue to drag this country into ever deeper mess while the press work hard to demonise the PM while virtually ignoring the far more worrying comments coming from other members of the government.
The outrageously sexist Harriet Harman continues her campaign to feminise the world while our Foreign Secretary appears on radio to heap praise on a Marxist terrorist and tell us that he thinks terrorism is justifiable.
Of course, it's always been a quiet time for politics during the summer recess, but I can't believe that some of the things which have been uttered by our political class over the last two weeks have not been held up to greater scrutiny. It's not good enough to just excuse them as just being part of the "silly season" - some of these comments reveal the true nature of the people who run this country and yet our press virtually ignore them.
Fifty years ago the likes of Alan Duncan, Harriet Harman, David Miliband and Peter Mandelson would have been sacked or forced to resign at the very least.
They used to say that a week is a long time in politics - and so it was when we actually had politicians and political parties worthy of the name. Now it seems that this current crop can say what they like and get away with it as long as they are gay, female or subscribe to the same progressive doctrine that dominates the media these days.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Far from the maddening crowd
I'm back from my hols, but still in holiday mood - so not feeling much like blogging about anything much in particular.
The weather in East Anglia was ..... mixed. The first week wasn't too good but last week was cracking - and I have the sun tan to prove it! Regardless of the weather it was just great to get away from the rush and turmoil of the South East. Where I live in Slough is never quiet - the roar of the aeroplanes on the Heathrow approach, mainline trains rushing to and from Paddington station and the constant drone of M4 traffic interspersed with the sound of police sirens means that the sounds of nature are never heard unaccompanied.
By comparison the area I was in has no motorways - and yet the journey there and back was devoid of holdups and was a total joy - until we hit the M25 on the way home! The only aeroplanes I heard all fortnight were light aircraft and the occasional coast guard chopper and I can honestly say that I did not hear a single siren - police or otherwise - for two whole weeks.
On top of all that the people were incredibly friendly and utterly unpretentious - sometimes I forget just how pretentious we are in the South East so when you come across honest, decent folk like the East Anglians it comes as something as a surprise.
In all honesty, I didn't want to come back. That's not unusual after a holiday, I know - but usually it is the stunning beauty of the Cornish or Devon scenery that charms me rather than the people and the general "feel" of a place, but that wasn't the case with East Anglia. The scenery is pleasant rather than stunning - although the frequent site of an English church spire rising above the trees to denote the presence of a quintessential English village is enough to lift the soul of any true Englishman - but lacks the rugged beauty of the South West.
Nevertheless, I'm charmed by the place and hope to return soon - permanently.
The weather in East Anglia was ..... mixed. The first week wasn't too good but last week was cracking - and I have the sun tan to prove it! Regardless of the weather it was just great to get away from the rush and turmoil of the South East. Where I live in Slough is never quiet - the roar of the aeroplanes on the Heathrow approach, mainline trains rushing to and from Paddington station and the constant drone of M4 traffic interspersed with the sound of police sirens means that the sounds of nature are never heard unaccompanied.
By comparison the area I was in has no motorways - and yet the journey there and back was devoid of holdups and was a total joy - until we hit the M25 on the way home! The only aeroplanes I heard all fortnight were light aircraft and the occasional coast guard chopper and I can honestly say that I did not hear a single siren - police or otherwise - for two whole weeks.
On top of all that the people were incredibly friendly and utterly unpretentious - sometimes I forget just how pretentious we are in the South East so when you come across honest, decent folk like the East Anglians it comes as something as a surprise.
In all honesty, I didn't want to come back. That's not unusual after a holiday, I know - but usually it is the stunning beauty of the Cornish or Devon scenery that charms me rather than the people and the general "feel" of a place, but that wasn't the case with East Anglia. The scenery is pleasant rather than stunning - although the frequent site of an English church spire rising above the trees to denote the presence of a quintessential English village is enough to lift the soul of any true Englishman - but lacks the rugged beauty of the South West.
Nevertheless, I'm charmed by the place and hope to return soon - permanently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)