The baseball cap has done remarkably well for itself, considering that it originates from a sport that has failed to catch on in any significant way beyond North America. We may not have gone mad over the USA's glorified version of a school game, but we can't get enough of the revolting headgear that it spawned. I have no idea why.
If we had fallen in love with baseball as a sport, I could at least understand why the baseball cap has become so popular - but we haven't. And yet, everywhere you go you see people - young and old - sporting these titfers with various logos that often have nothing to do with baseball.
Why? They have no aesthetic appeal whatsoever, offer very little real protection from the elements and once you've put one on you are unable to take it off as doing so leaves your hair in a mess and a stripe across your forehead. Worse still, having bought the damn thing, you then give free advertising to the company that sold it to you! They should be paying us to wear them!
Perhaps the most perplexing decision to start wearing baseball caps comes from cricket teams who, on the whole, have abandoned the traditional cricket cap in favour of baseball versions - the exception being Australia who retain the "baggy green" which they wear with pride. Good for them!
I have no objection to people wearing hats - indeed, I wish more of us would wear fedoras, panamas, homburgs, trilbys, cloth caps or whatever takes your fancy, but not revolting baseball caps.
I hate them.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
Obsessed with details and all things shiny
Like most people, I was horrified by the tragic accident that saw a one year old child killed by a falling lamp post. It's not just the sheer freakery of the accident itself that horrified me, but the fact that it could happen in a country obsessed with health and safety.
I mean, how can a country where hanging baskets are routinely banned from lamp posts and ancient trees are felled just on the off chance that one or other may fall and hurt someone find itself in a situation where a lamp post itself just topples over and kills a child?
When I thought about it, though, it occurred to me that this was the inevitable result of our barmy health and safety culture - a culture so wrapped up in detail it is incapable of getting the basics right. This obsession with details is not just symptomatic of health and safety, though - it runs right through every level of authority up to central government itself (and beyond into the EU and UN).
I've mentioned before that our political parties are almost identical in their political philosophies and that the only real differences that exist between them are in how those philosophies are implemented. It is because of this that authority in this country has become so focused on detail to such an extent that the basic requirements of government and authority have been forgotten.
At the same time this week we have been hearing the details of how a seven year old child was starved to death by her mother and her mother's "partner"- a fate narrowly escaped by her brothers and sisters - in a Victorian Birmingham terraced house. "How can this happen" asked someone on the news last night "in a modern cosmopolitan city like Birmingham?".
Well, there's your answer. It happens because we are so superficial these days. We look at our cities full of bright shiny new concrete and glass buildings, glittering lights and expensive new cars and allow ourselves to think that this must mean everything is good - while underneath this shiny facade British society is slowly rotting away - culturally and morally bankrupt after decades of social liberalism, political correctness and non-judgementalism.
What these two incidents tell us about our society is actually quite revealing. A nation where authority is so obsessed with detail that it not only doesn't get the bare basics right, it doesn't even think about them and a belief that how things look on the surface is all that matters.
I mean, how can a country where hanging baskets are routinely banned from lamp posts and ancient trees are felled just on the off chance that one or other may fall and hurt someone find itself in a situation where a lamp post itself just topples over and kills a child?
When I thought about it, though, it occurred to me that this was the inevitable result of our barmy health and safety culture - a culture so wrapped up in detail it is incapable of getting the basics right. This obsession with details is not just symptomatic of health and safety, though - it runs right through every level of authority up to central government itself (and beyond into the EU and UN).
I've mentioned before that our political parties are almost identical in their political philosophies and that the only real differences that exist between them are in how those philosophies are implemented. It is because of this that authority in this country has become so focused on detail to such an extent that the basic requirements of government and authority have been forgotten.
At the same time this week we have been hearing the details of how a seven year old child was starved to death by her mother and her mother's "partner"- a fate narrowly escaped by her brothers and sisters - in a Victorian Birmingham terraced house. "How can this happen" asked someone on the news last night "in a modern cosmopolitan city like Birmingham?".
Well, there's your answer. It happens because we are so superficial these days. We look at our cities full of bright shiny new concrete and glass buildings, glittering lights and expensive new cars and allow ourselves to think that this must mean everything is good - while underneath this shiny facade British society is slowly rotting away - culturally and morally bankrupt after decades of social liberalism, political correctness and non-judgementalism.
What these two incidents tell us about our society is actually quite revealing. A nation where authority is so obsessed with detail that it not only doesn't get the bare basics right, it doesn't even think about them and a belief that how things look on the surface is all that matters.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
We ain't got no class
Do you remember the class war?
You're a better man than I if you do - because, outside of the media and a small group of politically motivated individuals in the Labour Party and various unions, it didn't exist. All the "class war" really was was a Marxist slogan designed to drum up support for a political doctrine that otherwise had very little to commend itself to people.
The reality was that the vast majority of people it was supposedly trying to help - the working class - had absolutely no interest in being anything other than working class. The only reason they signed up to the class struggle cause was because of promises of better pay and conditions - they had no interest in changing the class structure of Britain. They just wanted an "honest days pays for an honest days work" and the dignity of employment.
Dignity being the operative word - because the working class used to be a very dignified class. Just take a look at old footage of 1950's and 1960's football matches and you'll see the crowd consisting of young and old men alike dressed in suits, jackets and ties. There were more suits and ties on display at a 1958 football match between Blackburn Rovers and Preston North End than you'll find at Microsoft's corporate headquarters - but they were nearly all "working class" men. Men who dressed with dignity.
Working class men didn't swear much either and if they did it was done quietly, privately and out of earshot of others - particularly women and children. They invariably had strong, often impenetrable accents - but they didn't swear in public. Swearing was undignified.
And, contrary to the modern myth that domestic violence was rife amongst the working class before the feminist movement (it's actually far more prevalent since that movement than it was before), the working man didn't routinely indulge in fighting and brawling. Again, I point you to the evidence of pre-progressive era football matches where rival supporters mixed freely, travelled to matches on the same trains and buses and drank pints in the same pubs. Fighting and violence was undignified. Working class men had class in abundance.
The working man was a man of dignity. The dignity of work, dress, speech and behaviour were of paramount importance to the working man before the progressives got their hands on him. Fifty years later and millions of working class men do not have the dignity of labour - hundreds of thousands of "working class" people have never ever worked and have no interest in doing so. They dress for "comfort" which invariably means wandering around in adult versions of baby clothes - a baggy t shirt and shorts - and they swear profusely, loudly and publicly .... and seem proud to do it. They laugh at comedians whose "punchlines" consist of expletives.
And yet, after fifty years of progressive victory Labour is still using the class war as its election theme. All that fifty years of "class struggle" has brought is the removal of dignity from the working class. What started off as an attempt to build a classless society has actually produced a no class society.
You're a better man than I if you do - because, outside of the media and a small group of politically motivated individuals in the Labour Party and various unions, it didn't exist. All the "class war" really was was a Marxist slogan designed to drum up support for a political doctrine that otherwise had very little to commend itself to people.
The reality was that the vast majority of people it was supposedly trying to help - the working class - had absolutely no interest in being anything other than working class. The only reason they signed up to the class struggle cause was because of promises of better pay and conditions - they had no interest in changing the class structure of Britain. They just wanted an "honest days pays for an honest days work" and the dignity of employment.
Dignity being the operative word - because the working class used to be a very dignified class. Just take a look at old footage of 1950's and 1960's football matches and you'll see the crowd consisting of young and old men alike dressed in suits, jackets and ties. There were more suits and ties on display at a 1958 football match between Blackburn Rovers and Preston North End than you'll find at Microsoft's corporate headquarters - but they were nearly all "working class" men. Men who dressed with dignity.
Working class men didn't swear much either and if they did it was done quietly, privately and out of earshot of others - particularly women and children. They invariably had strong, often impenetrable accents - but they didn't swear in public. Swearing was undignified.
And, contrary to the modern myth that domestic violence was rife amongst the working class before the feminist movement (it's actually far more prevalent since that movement than it was before), the working man didn't routinely indulge in fighting and brawling. Again, I point you to the evidence of pre-progressive era football matches where rival supporters mixed freely, travelled to matches on the same trains and buses and drank pints in the same pubs. Fighting and violence was undignified. Working class men had class in abundance.
The working man was a man of dignity. The dignity of work, dress, speech and behaviour were of paramount importance to the working man before the progressives got their hands on him. Fifty years later and millions of working class men do not have the dignity of labour - hundreds of thousands of "working class" people have never ever worked and have no interest in doing so. They dress for "comfort" which invariably means wandering around in adult versions of baby clothes - a baggy t shirt and shorts - and they swear profusely, loudly and publicly .... and seem proud to do it. They laugh at comedians whose "punchlines" consist of expletives.
And yet, after fifty years of progressive victory Labour is still using the class war as its election theme. All that fifty years of "class struggle" has brought is the removal of dignity from the working class. What started off as an attempt to build a classless society has actually produced a no class society.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Wasted years
There are a couple of hot topics in the media this week - apart from the bullying row - which, for me, underscore the failure of progressive liberalism as a political doctrine. The first is the row over compulsory sex education and an "opt out" for faith schools while the second is the perennial argument over immigration.
The argument that educating children about sex will lead to fewer teenage girls becoming pregnant is laid bare as false by the government's own admission that a pledge to reduce teenage pregnancies by half has failed miserably. The argument is based on the misguided belief that sex education has worked in foreign countries such as Sweden and Holland. Although, it's true to say that sex education is commonplace in those countries there is no evidence to suggest that that was the reason why they had lower incidences of teenage pregnancies.
The reality is that the social norms of those countries differ significantly from our own as there is still a massive social stigma attached to being a teenage mum in those countries. Furthermore, teenage, unmarried mothers do not receive the kind of state support and benefits that they do in this country. In fact, in the case of Holland, the burden of financial support falls entirely on the parents of the teenager.
The even more damning evidence comes from our own country. Before we had sex education and before we had such a socially liberal attitude towards sex, abortion and unmarried motherhood - in other words, when our social norms were similar to those of Sweden and Holland today - we didn't have a major problem with teenage pregnancy.
There is only one possible conclusion from that and, just like they did when they abolished the working part of our education system and expanded the failing part, the progressives got it completely wrong. However, instead of admitting their failure they are going to throw even more of our money into a failing policy - this is the way they work.
On immigration, the big revelations recently have been that Labour deliberately set out to import millions of foreigners into this country for "social objectives". The suggestion is that the intention was to "rub the noses of the right" in diversity and multiculturalism - but the only ones who ended face down in a pile of muck were the progressives because the society they envisaged did not materialise, but the society they were warned about did.
Not only did they import huge numbers of foreigners, they also imported a massive wave of organised crime - as they were warned about. Not only did they impose massive cultural changes on towns that didn't want them, but those cultural changes have made those towns into divided and confrontational societies - as they were warned about.
And they did this while smearing anyone who opposed the policy as "racist" - although what can be more racist than a policy deliberately aimed at undermining the culture of white British people?
This time they appear, on the face of it, to have realised their mistake and are making claims that they are working to cut immigration - what with new border forces and points based schemes. It's nothing but a fig leaf. They have no intention of changing the policy - but they are, once more, throwing a huge amount of public money into pretending that they are.
Wherever you look you will see evidence of the failure of progressive liberalism. Do not be fooled into thinking that a Conservative Party will be any different - because they follow exactly the same doctrine. If anything, Cameron is even more of a social liberal than Brown is. A victory for the Labour Party at the next election will be a disaster for Britain - but a victory for the Tories will be an even bigger disaster.
Why? Because it will enable the doctrine of progressive liberalism to limp along for another aimless decade. The Tories will survive as a party - just - because they will have demonstrated that they can, just about, still win elections - even though they will collapse as a government inside one term. And it will give the Labour Party enough breathing space to recover some semblance of capability and credibility as an opposition which it does not have as the party of government.
There is no easy way forward for Britain. The next ten years are going to be tough - much tougher than most of us imagine - but if we don't rid ourselves of the yoke of progressive liberalism they will be ten more wasted years before we can really begin our recovery as a nation.
The argument that educating children about sex will lead to fewer teenage girls becoming pregnant is laid bare as false by the government's own admission that a pledge to reduce teenage pregnancies by half has failed miserably. The argument is based on the misguided belief that sex education has worked in foreign countries such as Sweden and Holland. Although, it's true to say that sex education is commonplace in those countries there is no evidence to suggest that that was the reason why they had lower incidences of teenage pregnancies.
The reality is that the social norms of those countries differ significantly from our own as there is still a massive social stigma attached to being a teenage mum in those countries. Furthermore, teenage, unmarried mothers do not receive the kind of state support and benefits that they do in this country. In fact, in the case of Holland, the burden of financial support falls entirely on the parents of the teenager.
The even more damning evidence comes from our own country. Before we had sex education and before we had such a socially liberal attitude towards sex, abortion and unmarried motherhood - in other words, when our social norms were similar to those of Sweden and Holland today - we didn't have a major problem with teenage pregnancy.
There is only one possible conclusion from that and, just like they did when they abolished the working part of our education system and expanded the failing part, the progressives got it completely wrong. However, instead of admitting their failure they are going to throw even more of our money into a failing policy - this is the way they work.
On immigration, the big revelations recently have been that Labour deliberately set out to import millions of foreigners into this country for "social objectives". The suggestion is that the intention was to "rub the noses of the right" in diversity and multiculturalism - but the only ones who ended face down in a pile of muck were the progressives because the society they envisaged did not materialise, but the society they were warned about did.
Not only did they import huge numbers of foreigners, they also imported a massive wave of organised crime - as they were warned about. Not only did they impose massive cultural changes on towns that didn't want them, but those cultural changes have made those towns into divided and confrontational societies - as they were warned about.
And they did this while smearing anyone who opposed the policy as "racist" - although what can be more racist than a policy deliberately aimed at undermining the culture of white British people?
This time they appear, on the face of it, to have realised their mistake and are making claims that they are working to cut immigration - what with new border forces and points based schemes. It's nothing but a fig leaf. They have no intention of changing the policy - but they are, once more, throwing a huge amount of public money into pretending that they are.
Wherever you look you will see evidence of the failure of progressive liberalism. Do not be fooled into thinking that a Conservative Party will be any different - because they follow exactly the same doctrine. If anything, Cameron is even more of a social liberal than Brown is. A victory for the Labour Party at the next election will be a disaster for Britain - but a victory for the Tories will be an even bigger disaster.
Why? Because it will enable the doctrine of progressive liberalism to limp along for another aimless decade. The Tories will survive as a party - just - because they will have demonstrated that they can, just about, still win elections - even though they will collapse as a government inside one term. And it will give the Labour Party enough breathing space to recover some semblance of capability and credibility as an opposition which it does not have as the party of government.
There is no easy way forward for Britain. The next ten years are going to be tough - much tougher than most of us imagine - but if we don't rid ourselves of the yoke of progressive liberalism they will be ten more wasted years before we can really begin our recovery as a nation.
Monday, February 22, 2010
The "GDR" Syndrome
I'm not convinced by the suggestions of Brown "the bully". Or rather, I have suspicions about the timing of the claims.
It's not that I don't think he is capable of being a bully - I'm sure he is - it's just that I very much doubt whether Number 10 has seen anything other than bullying and intimidation over the last 20 years - so why the big deal about it now?
Even though I'm one of the few who didn't like it, I did watch "The Thick Of It" on a couple of occasions and the thing I didn't like about it was that the programme glorified bullying in a rather unpleasant way. What is more, "insiders" suggested that the programme was a fairly accurate representation of the culture at Number 10 during the Blair years.
But bullying isn't just about abusive language or aggressive mannerisms. Maggie Thatcher also had a reputation as being a bit of a bully - but generally her bullying was reserved for other world leaders - however, the equivalent of "The Thick Of It" at that time was the much funnier and considerably more subtle "Yes, Minister/Prime Minister".
What that programme demonstrated was that bullying was rife back then too - far more subtle and understated, but no less intimidating. Bullying in the workplace has been common since I first went out into the big bad world to make an independent living for myself - but it is far far worse today than I have ever known it to be.
My first job was as an apprentice in an electrical workshop and I was "bullied" unremittingly, but it was a different sort of bullying - really nothing more than extended mickey taking. I'm sure I wasn't the only sixteen year old who stood outside the storeroom for an hour with a chitty for a "long weight" while the stores man smoked fags and drank tea (long wait - getit? It took me half an hour to realise they were taking the mickey and another half hour to get up the nerve to call them on it).
The "bullying" back then was light hearted and designed to help you become part of the team. You soon learned to join in the banter and hold your own - either that or you left the job and went elsewhere - but you always knew your place. When one of the senior workers told you to make the tea, you made the tea - there was no back chat or disrespect, you did what you were told and bided your time until the the next victim came into the job and you moved up the pecking order.
These days the bullying isn't about banter, team building or putting a cheeky young whipper snapper in their place. It is often quite vicious and aggressive or underhand and downright nasty and it exists in every strata of society. Wherever you go you will encounter bullying - some of it authorised. The modern council is more likely to bully the residents with threats and intimidation than it is likely to help them and the police are regularly seen behaving in a bullying and intimidating fashion.
And yet, every company, school, council and organisation has "anti-bullying" procedures - none of which make the slightest bit of difference. But then, they are not meant to - they are there purely to enable the organisation to declare that they "take bullying seriously" - which they don't. All they really want to do is go through the procedure and then sweep it under the carpet - no evidence of bullying found.
I call it the "GDR" syndrome - named after the German Democratic Republic. A nation which proclaimed its democratic credentials in the very name of the country, but actually had nothing to do with democracy. The same goes for the Democratic Republic of Congo or the Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea - the louder they shout their credentials about something, the less likely they are to actually apply those principles.
The same goes for bullying, sexism, racism, discrimination and illiberalism - the more an organisation or individual declares that they are opposed to those things, the more likely they are to be sexist, racist, discriminating, illiberal bullies.
So. is Brown a bully? No more than any other progressive liberal politician or organisation is. In other words - very much so.
It's not that I don't think he is capable of being a bully - I'm sure he is - it's just that I very much doubt whether Number 10 has seen anything other than bullying and intimidation over the last 20 years - so why the big deal about it now?
Even though I'm one of the few who didn't like it, I did watch "The Thick Of It" on a couple of occasions and the thing I didn't like about it was that the programme glorified bullying in a rather unpleasant way. What is more, "insiders" suggested that the programme was a fairly accurate representation of the culture at Number 10 during the Blair years.
But bullying isn't just about abusive language or aggressive mannerisms. Maggie Thatcher also had a reputation as being a bit of a bully - but generally her bullying was reserved for other world leaders - however, the equivalent of "The Thick Of It" at that time was the much funnier and considerably more subtle "Yes, Minister/Prime Minister".
What that programme demonstrated was that bullying was rife back then too - far more subtle and understated, but no less intimidating. Bullying in the workplace has been common since I first went out into the big bad world to make an independent living for myself - but it is far far worse today than I have ever known it to be.
My first job was as an apprentice in an electrical workshop and I was "bullied" unremittingly, but it was a different sort of bullying - really nothing more than extended mickey taking. I'm sure I wasn't the only sixteen year old who stood outside the storeroom for an hour with a chitty for a "long weight" while the stores man smoked fags and drank tea (long wait - getit? It took me half an hour to realise they were taking the mickey and another half hour to get up the nerve to call them on it).
The "bullying" back then was light hearted and designed to help you become part of the team. You soon learned to join in the banter and hold your own - either that or you left the job and went elsewhere - but you always knew your place. When one of the senior workers told you to make the tea, you made the tea - there was no back chat or disrespect, you did what you were told and bided your time until the the next victim came into the job and you moved up the pecking order.
These days the bullying isn't about banter, team building or putting a cheeky young whipper snapper in their place. It is often quite vicious and aggressive or underhand and downright nasty and it exists in every strata of society. Wherever you go you will encounter bullying - some of it authorised. The modern council is more likely to bully the residents with threats and intimidation than it is likely to help them and the police are regularly seen behaving in a bullying and intimidating fashion.
And yet, every company, school, council and organisation has "anti-bullying" procedures - none of which make the slightest bit of difference. But then, they are not meant to - they are there purely to enable the organisation to declare that they "take bullying seriously" - which they don't. All they really want to do is go through the procedure and then sweep it under the carpet - no evidence of bullying found.
I call it the "GDR" syndrome - named after the German Democratic Republic. A nation which proclaimed its democratic credentials in the very name of the country, but actually had nothing to do with democracy. The same goes for the Democratic Republic of Congo or the Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea - the louder they shout their credentials about something, the less likely they are to actually apply those principles.
The same goes for bullying, sexism, racism, discrimination and illiberalism - the more an organisation or individual declares that they are opposed to those things, the more likely they are to be sexist, racist, discriminating, illiberal bullies.
So. is Brown a bully? No more than any other progressive liberal politician or organisation is. In other words - very much so.
Ranting Stan's Irrational Hatred Of The Week: Magpies
I like birds and do as much as I can to encourage them into our garden - but if there is one bird that I could really do with seeing a lot less of it is the Magpie*.
Once upon a time these large, attractive birds were a rare sight in my corner of the world, but now they are every where - and most particularly they seem to be in my apple tree first thing in the morning, cackling away like guffawing crones.
If only I still had my trusty BSA Meteor ......
* The bird - not the early seventies kids TV programme that featured the gorgeous Jenny Hanley.
Once upon a time these large, attractive birds were a rare sight in my corner of the world, but now they are every where - and most particularly they seem to be in my apple tree first thing in the morning, cackling away like guffawing crones.
If only I still had my trusty BSA Meteor ......
* The bird - not the early seventies kids TV programme that featured the gorgeous Jenny Hanley.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
The future delusion
You've got to admire the Labour party's sense of timing. Just as Corus shuts down the plant in Redcar thus ending 150 years of steel production there, the Labour party unveil their election slogans which includes a promise of "future industries".
I'm sure that's going to be a great relief to the newly unemployed steelworkers of Redcar - knowing that some unspecified industry will come along at some unspecified date to provide them with jobs and security. Although, it's funny that there has been nothing to come along before to provide jobs for the considerable number of unemployed already in that area.
Whenever I discuss the decline of British manufacturing, I get people telling me that we will develop "new industries" to take their place. They keep saying it even though there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support these claims - and the same applies to Labour.
What new "future" industries?
And even if these industries exist, what on earth makes anyone think that Britain can be competitive in them - especially given the weakness of our education system compared to the strength of certain developing nations who are churning hundreds of thousands of high calibre graduates equipped with the skills that these future, technology based industries require.
Even if Britain has the brains to develop these industries (debatable), where is the investment going to come from to take the idea into a production facility? And why would they locate this production facility in Britain where costs are high, regulation is tight and bureaucracy is stifling?
This blind faith in non-existent "future" industries is delusional. It's about time the people of Britain understood the real implications of a globalised economy - that either wages in the developing world rise to match those that we earn ...... or ours fall to the level that they earn. I know which is more likely - what do you think?
There isn't an alternative - a global free market doesn't just mean cheap goods. It also means cheap labour - and that includes what you do. Even if you think you're protected, you are not - thanks to immigration nobody is safe from the effects of this phenomenon.
Labour doesn't know what these "future industries" are. Those who support the global free market don't know what these "future" industries are.
I do.
It's called "subsistence farming".
I'm sure that's going to be a great relief to the newly unemployed steelworkers of Redcar - knowing that some unspecified industry will come along at some unspecified date to provide them with jobs and security. Although, it's funny that there has been nothing to come along before to provide jobs for the considerable number of unemployed already in that area.
Whenever I discuss the decline of British manufacturing, I get people telling me that we will develop "new industries" to take their place. They keep saying it even though there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support these claims - and the same applies to Labour.
What new "future" industries?
And even if these industries exist, what on earth makes anyone think that Britain can be competitive in them - especially given the weakness of our education system compared to the strength of certain developing nations who are churning hundreds of thousands of high calibre graduates equipped with the skills that these future, technology based industries require.
Even if Britain has the brains to develop these industries (debatable), where is the investment going to come from to take the idea into a production facility? And why would they locate this production facility in Britain where costs are high, regulation is tight and bureaucracy is stifling?
This blind faith in non-existent "future" industries is delusional. It's about time the people of Britain understood the real implications of a globalised economy - that either wages in the developing world rise to match those that we earn ...... or ours fall to the level that they earn. I know which is more likely - what do you think?
There isn't an alternative - a global free market doesn't just mean cheap goods. It also means cheap labour - and that includes what you do. Even if you think you're protected, you are not - thanks to immigration nobody is safe from the effects of this phenomenon.
Labour doesn't know what these "future industries" are. Those who support the global free market don't know what these "future" industries are.
I do.
It's called "subsistence farming".
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Compare and contrast
The Foreign Office, BBC and liberal establishment are up in arms about the use of forged British passports by alleged Israeli secret agents to carry out the assassination of a senior Hamas official.
Funny how they are so upset about that, but considerably less concerned by the number of Moslems with legitimate British passports caught attempting to carry out indiscriminate mass murder.
It's a funny old world.
Funny how they are so upset about that, but considerably less concerned by the number of Moslems with legitimate British passports caught attempting to carry out indiscriminate mass murder.
It's a funny old world.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Why politicians cry
Did you watch Piers Morgan's interview with Gordon Brown? No, me neither.
The truth is that I have no interest in Gordon Brown's personal life, feelings and emotions any more than I have an interest in my butcher's. I want my butcher to do his best to provide me with good quality cuts of meat at reasonable prices - I don't want to hear about how the death of his grandma in a freak meat grinding accident led to him questioning his chosen vocation.
Similarly, I don't want to know how the death of Gordon Brown's daughter helped to shape his politics or how the disability of David Cameron's son was such an influence on his thinking. I want to know what their policies are and I want them to be clear and concise.
My wife is very different, though. She'll happily chat to the butcher about his teenage daughter's latest "unsuitable" boyfriend and show an interest in his wife's IBS symptoms. Women are like that - they like to empathise with people.
It's not that men can't - it's just that, on the whole, we don't want to. Oh, we'll happily empathise with a mate who was served a dodgy pint of bitter or with City's striker struggling to find the back of the net - but with people who are there to give us a service? Nah - don't give me sob stories, mate - just give me what I'm buying.
This is why we now have to put up with politicians pouring out their hearts on the TV screen or in national newspapers - the female vote. It's why politics is now more about personality than policy. Or, where policy does become a factor, it's why the more emotive that policy is framed the better received it is by the female voter.
Of course, this is a huge generalisation - not all women are affected by these things and there are plenty of men who are (soft gits) - but politics is all about generalising. Or, it should be. Politics should be dispassionate and based on rational generalisations - not specific emotional responses. It should be about policy, not feelings.
The fact it isn't these days is all down to the political search for the female vote.
I blame the suffragettes.
The truth is that I have no interest in Gordon Brown's personal life, feelings and emotions any more than I have an interest in my butcher's. I want my butcher to do his best to provide me with good quality cuts of meat at reasonable prices - I don't want to hear about how the death of his grandma in a freak meat grinding accident led to him questioning his chosen vocation.
Similarly, I don't want to know how the death of Gordon Brown's daughter helped to shape his politics or how the disability of David Cameron's son was such an influence on his thinking. I want to know what their policies are and I want them to be clear and concise.
My wife is very different, though. She'll happily chat to the butcher about his teenage daughter's latest "unsuitable" boyfriend and show an interest in his wife's IBS symptoms. Women are like that - they like to empathise with people.
It's not that men can't - it's just that, on the whole, we don't want to. Oh, we'll happily empathise with a mate who was served a dodgy pint of bitter or with City's striker struggling to find the back of the net - but with people who are there to give us a service? Nah - don't give me sob stories, mate - just give me what I'm buying.
This is why we now have to put up with politicians pouring out their hearts on the TV screen or in national newspapers - the female vote. It's why politics is now more about personality than policy. Or, where policy does become a factor, it's why the more emotive that policy is framed the better received it is by the female voter.
Of course, this is a huge generalisation - not all women are affected by these things and there are plenty of men who are (soft gits) - but politics is all about generalising. Or, it should be. Politics should be dispassionate and based on rational generalisations - not specific emotional responses. It should be about policy, not feelings.
The fact it isn't these days is all down to the political search for the female vote.
I blame the suffragettes.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Roll up, roll up
So the BNP have abandoned their whites only policy and voted to change their constitution to permit black or Asian members. I wonder if this will be enough to satisfy the racial equality bigots - somehow I don't think so.
Nor do I expect there to be a massive rush of Asian and black people applying to join - although I know personally of at least one Asian gentleman who will be sending off his membership application very shortly!
What I do think, though, is that forcing the BNP to admit non-whites to their ranks is the biggest mistake the established parties could ever make. With one stroke they have removed the main barrier that has prevented many white people from supporting the BNP - supporting, not joining. At the same time they've removed the main criticism that the mainstream parties habitually relied on to attack the BNP - that they are a "racist party".
With the demise of that barrier I suspect a lot more people will vote BNP at the next election than otherwise may have done. I don't expect the BNP to win any seats in parliament, but I do believe that this will provide the base from which they will push on to eventually achieve that goal in one or two elections time.
As such, this is a spectacular own goal from the mainstream political parties.
Nor do I expect there to be a massive rush of Asian and black people applying to join - although I know personally of at least one Asian gentleman who will be sending off his membership application very shortly!
What I do think, though, is that forcing the BNP to admit non-whites to their ranks is the biggest mistake the established parties could ever make. With one stroke they have removed the main barrier that has prevented many white people from supporting the BNP - supporting, not joining. At the same time they've removed the main criticism that the mainstream parties habitually relied on to attack the BNP - that they are a "racist party".
With the demise of that barrier I suspect a lot more people will vote BNP at the next election than otherwise may have done. I don't expect the BNP to win any seats in parliament, but I do believe that this will provide the base from which they will push on to eventually achieve that goal in one or two elections time.
As such, this is a spectacular own goal from the mainstream political parties.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Ranting Stan's Irrational Hatred Of The Week: D-I-Y
When I say "D-I-Y", I don't mean decorating or basic home maintenance - it's the duty of every husband to know how to fix a dripping tap or hang wallpaper - I mean the full on home "improvement" stuff that often involves knocking down walls, serious rewiring and re-routing mains plumbing.
There are two reasons why I hate D-I-Y. The first is that virtually everybody who does it is actually not very good at it. When Mrs. Stan and I bought our first home the previous owner was a keen D-I-Y enthusiast. On the surface everything looked pretty good. A stunning new bathroom and a nicely finished kitchen were a couple of the "highlights". However, beneath the surface it was a complete botch job. It was only when I called in my electrician mate to look at a problem with blowing light bulbs that I discovered that the wiring was not only badly done - it was bloody dangerous. It cost more than £4000 to put right. The plumbing was just as bad, but cheaper to fix.
The next home we bought was almost as bad. It's hard to say how much it would have cost to put things right had we not had the builders in doing other work anyway, but it only added another £2000 to the overall cost of the work. So when we bought this house we made sure it was alright before we signed the contract - although even then we had a bit of an issue with some previous owners handiwork.
So that's the first reason why I hate D-I-Y - that and the fact that virtually every enthusiast of the hobby not only botches it in some way, they also usually think they are pretty good! The other reason is that the rise of D-I-Y has meant an increased disruption to the peace and quiet of weekends with the noise of power tools. Hardly a weekend goes by without one of my neighbours (both keen D-I-Yers) firing up a power drill, jigsaw or electric sander. Back in the days when most of us used professionals to do this sort of work for us those noises were confined to the working week - because the professionals liked to have their weekends off as well.
D-I-Y - I hate it.
There are two reasons why I hate D-I-Y. The first is that virtually everybody who does it is actually not very good at it. When Mrs. Stan and I bought our first home the previous owner was a keen D-I-Y enthusiast. On the surface everything looked pretty good. A stunning new bathroom and a nicely finished kitchen were a couple of the "highlights". However, beneath the surface it was a complete botch job. It was only when I called in my electrician mate to look at a problem with blowing light bulbs that I discovered that the wiring was not only badly done - it was bloody dangerous. It cost more than £4000 to put right. The plumbing was just as bad, but cheaper to fix.
The next home we bought was almost as bad. It's hard to say how much it would have cost to put things right had we not had the builders in doing other work anyway, but it only added another £2000 to the overall cost of the work. So when we bought this house we made sure it was alright before we signed the contract - although even then we had a bit of an issue with some previous owners handiwork.
So that's the first reason why I hate D-I-Y - that and the fact that virtually every enthusiast of the hobby not only botches it in some way, they also usually think they are pretty good! The other reason is that the rise of D-I-Y has meant an increased disruption to the peace and quiet of weekends with the noise of power tools. Hardly a weekend goes by without one of my neighbours (both keen D-I-Yers) firing up a power drill, jigsaw or electric sander. Back in the days when most of us used professionals to do this sort of work for us those noises were confined to the working week - because the professionals liked to have their weekends off as well.
D-I-Y - I hate it.
Friday, February 12, 2010
I don't want consensus politics
I think it is incredible that Labour and the Lib Dems are attacking the Tories for "wrecking" their plans for elderly care, claiming that they ruined the "consensus".
It's not that I'm a Tory supporter or fan of David Cameron - I'm sure you know by now that I'm not - it's the fact that I dislike this idea of "consensus politics" for good reasons.
First of all, who said we wanted consensus politics? Have we ever been asked if we want our government and opposition to agree on policy? And why would we want this anyway - if we did, then what would be the point of having elections? What would be the point in having an opposition if all they did was join a consensus in support of the government?
The job of Her Majesty's loyal opposition is to oppose the government. It's not a secret - the clue is in the name - it's just a shame that we have an opposition leader who seems to have forgotten this principle since he came to prominence as leader of the Tory party.
Worse still, the idea that the parties may even be able to agree on policy is a huge indicator of just how similar their politics are. It just confirms my view - and that of many others - that there is little point in voting because whoever gets in will be just the same as the mob they replace. Vote in Labour, Lib Dem or Tory and you'll get the same ideas, the same rhetoric and the same dreary drivel.
The fact that they are now starting to try to build "consensus" tells us that our political parties are not only broadly similar - they've even stopped pretending to be different! As far as they're concerned the job's done and the liberal progressive stitch up of Britain is complete.
Consensus is such a con. What does it mean? It means that a group of people have reached a decision between themselves on which they are agreed to proceed - but in this "consensus" there was no attempt to consult with the people of Britain. It's not even a consensus of the parties - because the bulk of the Tory, Labour and Lib Dem membership were never ever asked either.
It's disgusting. I don't want consensus politics - I want democracy. Proper democracy where the government rule by consent of the people not the consent of fellow MPs. Consensus is so overblown. It's great if you're trying to decide whether to go out for an Italian, Indian or Chinese meal - but it is dangerous when you're talking about how our country is governed. It is dangerous because it is not your "consent" that is being sought, but the consent of the ruling elite - the very thing our parliamentary system is supposed to prevent.
No more consensus politics. If you ever hear a politician mention "consensus" in any sense relating to government then never ever vote for that person again - even if it's your dad.
It's not that I'm a Tory supporter or fan of David Cameron - I'm sure you know by now that I'm not - it's the fact that I dislike this idea of "consensus politics" for good reasons.
First of all, who said we wanted consensus politics? Have we ever been asked if we want our government and opposition to agree on policy? And why would we want this anyway - if we did, then what would be the point of having elections? What would be the point in having an opposition if all they did was join a consensus in support of the government?
The job of Her Majesty's loyal opposition is to oppose the government. It's not a secret - the clue is in the name - it's just a shame that we have an opposition leader who seems to have forgotten this principle since he came to prominence as leader of the Tory party.
Worse still, the idea that the parties may even be able to agree on policy is a huge indicator of just how similar their politics are. It just confirms my view - and that of many others - that there is little point in voting because whoever gets in will be just the same as the mob they replace. Vote in Labour, Lib Dem or Tory and you'll get the same ideas, the same rhetoric and the same dreary drivel.
The fact that they are now starting to try to build "consensus" tells us that our political parties are not only broadly similar - they've even stopped pretending to be different! As far as they're concerned the job's done and the liberal progressive stitch up of Britain is complete.
Consensus is such a con. What does it mean? It means that a group of people have reached a decision between themselves on which they are agreed to proceed - but in this "consensus" there was no attempt to consult with the people of Britain. It's not even a consensus of the parties - because the bulk of the Tory, Labour and Lib Dem membership were never ever asked either.
It's disgusting. I don't want consensus politics - I want democracy. Proper democracy where the government rule by consent of the people not the consent of fellow MPs. Consensus is so overblown. It's great if you're trying to decide whether to go out for an Italian, Indian or Chinese meal - but it is dangerous when you're talking about how our country is governed. It is dangerous because it is not your "consent" that is being sought, but the consent of the ruling elite - the very thing our parliamentary system is supposed to prevent.
No more consensus politics. If you ever hear a politician mention "consensus" in any sense relating to government then never ever vote for that person again - even if it's your dad.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Frankenstein must die
The question of whether or not EU "leaders" will approve a bail out for the Greek government is a foregone conclusion - of course they will. They have to.
It won't be on any moral or legal ground that a bail out is agreed - although I'm sure they will try and frame it as such - but simply out of the necessity of saving their own skins and the whole EU project itself. The only question really at stake is how much all of this is going to cost us in Britain - not just for bailing out the Greeks, but in terms of the knock on effects on sterling, our economy and, potentially, having to step in and help out the Irish, Spanish and Portuguese too.
The problem for the Greeks isn't simply that their economy is in trouble - there aren't that many countries whose economy isn't faltering - it's that the mechanisms a government would normally use are not available to them because they do not have the control over their currency any more. Worse still, the currency they do use is controlled principally for the benefit of France and Germany - everyone else using the euro is just a "hanger on" - and as the German and French economies are very different to that of Greece, what is good for France and Germany isn't always so good for Greece.
But the euro can not be allowed to fail. To allow this to happen will mean the end of the European Union project itself. Of course, it is already doomed and will eventually collapse entirely anyway, but that doesn't mean that they won't keep the dying patient on life support for as long as they can.
If the quango NICE had a say in whether the treatment for saving the euro was economically viable they would deny access to the bail out and if the EU was a patient in the NHS there would be a sign over the bed reading "DNR".
But there's no "do not resuscitate" orders for the EU Frankenstein project. The EU "nation", stitched together over five decades from the body parts of two dozen different, disparate and incompatible countries and recently brought to life by the shock of its new constitution can only be kept alive with expensive artificial stimulants - and it's going to cost Britain an arm and a leg to stop the Greek fingers and Spanish ears from dropping off.
It's a waste of money. Let the monster die.
It won't be on any moral or legal ground that a bail out is agreed - although I'm sure they will try and frame it as such - but simply out of the necessity of saving their own skins and the whole EU project itself. The only question really at stake is how much all of this is going to cost us in Britain - not just for bailing out the Greeks, but in terms of the knock on effects on sterling, our economy and, potentially, having to step in and help out the Irish, Spanish and Portuguese too.
The problem for the Greeks isn't simply that their economy is in trouble - there aren't that many countries whose economy isn't faltering - it's that the mechanisms a government would normally use are not available to them because they do not have the control over their currency any more. Worse still, the currency they do use is controlled principally for the benefit of France and Germany - everyone else using the euro is just a "hanger on" - and as the German and French economies are very different to that of Greece, what is good for France and Germany isn't always so good for Greece.
But the euro can not be allowed to fail. To allow this to happen will mean the end of the European Union project itself. Of course, it is already doomed and will eventually collapse entirely anyway, but that doesn't mean that they won't keep the dying patient on life support for as long as they can.
If the quango NICE had a say in whether the treatment for saving the euro was economically viable they would deny access to the bail out and if the EU was a patient in the NHS there would be a sign over the bed reading "DNR".
But there's no "do not resuscitate" orders for the EU Frankenstein project. The EU "nation", stitched together over five decades from the body parts of two dozen different, disparate and incompatible countries and recently brought to life by the shock of its new constitution can only be kept alive with expensive artificial stimulants - and it's going to cost Britain an arm and a leg to stop the Greek fingers and Spanish ears from dropping off.
It's a waste of money. Let the monster die.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
The future of "broken Britain"
I don't know if you saw that report of a poll in The Times online which suggested that most people now agree that we are living in a broken society, but there were a couple of interesting revelations in it. The first was this one .....
Nearly three fifths of voters say that they hardly recognise the country they are living in, while 42 per cent say they would emigrate if they could.
Nearly three fifths of voters say that they hardly recognise the country they are living in, while 42 per cent say they would emigrate if they could.
It is obvious from those results that the policy of multiculturalism - implemented without the consent of the people - has caused seriously divisive issues. I know how those people feel as the town I grew up in is utterly alien to me now even though I still live there. Would I emigrate, though? No - but I'll leave Slough when the time is appropriate.
The other surprising result was this one .....
Three fifths (60 per cent) of those polled say they look to the future with optimism, against 38 per cent who are looking forward with anxiety. While 45 per cent say Britain’s best years are behind us, 50 per cent say that they are still to come.
I say surprising, but this doesn't actually surprise me. It reflects my own view that Britain is about to enter a new era of conservatism as the age of progressive liberalism dribbles away to its entirely expected end. When I say "conservatism" I mean proper conservatism, not Conservatism.
It is not the Tory Party who will lead us out of broken Britain, but a new era of social conservatism. The people have had enough of progressive liberal policies and are not prepared to endure another fifty years of experiment and failure. They want this country restored to how it used to be and they expect to get it.
You see, you can't have 70% of people believing that we're living in broken Britain and 50% believing that we're basically heading in the right direction. Those results demonstrate that the British people really do remain socially conservative and that they really have had enough of social liberalism.
The times they are a changing - and this time they are going back to what works.
Nearly three fifths of voters say that they hardly recognise the country they are living in, while 42 per cent say they would emigrate if they could.
Nearly three fifths of voters say that they hardly recognise the country they are living in, while 42 per cent say they would emigrate if they could.
It is obvious from those results that the policy of multiculturalism - implemented without the consent of the people - has caused seriously divisive issues. I know how those people feel as the town I grew up in is utterly alien to me now even though I still live there. Would I emigrate, though? No - but I'll leave Slough when the time is appropriate.
The other surprising result was this one .....
Three fifths (60 per cent) of those polled say they look to the future with optimism, against 38 per cent who are looking forward with anxiety. While 45 per cent say Britain’s best years are behind us, 50 per cent say that they are still to come.
I say surprising, but this doesn't actually surprise me. It reflects my own view that Britain is about to enter a new era of conservatism as the age of progressive liberalism dribbles away to its entirely expected end. When I say "conservatism" I mean proper conservatism, not Conservatism.
It is not the Tory Party who will lead us out of broken Britain, but a new era of social conservatism. The people have had enough of progressive liberal policies and are not prepared to endure another fifty years of experiment and failure. They want this country restored to how it used to be and they expect to get it.
You see, you can't have 70% of people believing that we're living in broken Britain and 50% believing that we're basically heading in the right direction. Those results demonstrate that the British people really do remain socially conservative and that they really have had enough of social liberalism.
The times they are a changing - and this time they are going back to what works.
Monday, February 08, 2010
Ranting Stan's Irrational Hatred Of The Week: Speed bumps
I was off visiting relations over the weekend so didn't get the opportunity to post an irrational hatred - and I'm shortly off to visit a client site so won't be around for much of today or tomorrow. I didn't want my loyal readership to think I'd forgotten them though, so here's a belated irrational hatred to keep you both entertained till I can find some time to post something more substantial.
This week's irrational hatred is speed bumps. Actually, I don't know if my hatred of speed bumps is particularly irrational as I hate them for what I think are two very good reasons. The first of those is that they are uncomfortable and potentially damaging for my car - particularly at the moment as most of them are crumbling and potholed following the recent cold spell and sharp frosts.
I've particularly noticed this since the Alfa was "customised" by a German 4x4 driver who thought that a particularly icy road was a good place to test out his tailgating technique. Since then I've been driving around in my brother's ancient Land Rover which, for all its endearing qualities, lacks a certain comfort factor at the best of times. When driving over speed bumps, though, one might just as well allow Mike Tyson to deliver a rabbit punch every 30 yards or so.
The other reason I hate speed bumps, though is that they represent the attitude of liberal progressives to law enforcement and law making. The "purpose" of speed bumps, allegedly, is to deter speeding - but the vast majority of us are deterred from speeding by speed limits backed up by the possibility of punishment if we transgress. Those people who do speed are not deterred by speed limits OR speed bumps.
Worse still, because speed bumps are often designed with gaps to one side and in the centre of the road, they encourage speeding drivers to drive recklessly as they swerve around the speed bumps to maintain the best speed with the least inconvenience. We've all seem them do it - whether it is the teenager in the dressed up Vauxhall Nova or the company director in his BMW 5 series - and at speed, the more you steer the more likely you are to lose control and plough into some innocent driver or, worse, pedestrian.
So speed bumps do nothing to stop speeding motorists and may actually encourage reckless driving. What they do do, though, is punish the law abiding motorist. In essence, this is the thinking of the liberal progressive establishment in every day practice. Because of an unwillingness or incapability to prevent the law breakers from misbehaving, the liberal progressives resort to punishing everyone else.
That is the attitude of liberal progressives. They fail to understand the basic principles of law and law enforcement - that the law should be made to achieve either the greatest good or the least inconvenience for the many. Instead they introduce laws and law enforcement methods that benefit few, but have a considerable impact on the many.
That is why they love speed bumps and that is why I hate them.
This week's irrational hatred is speed bumps. Actually, I don't know if my hatred of speed bumps is particularly irrational as I hate them for what I think are two very good reasons. The first of those is that they are uncomfortable and potentially damaging for my car - particularly at the moment as most of them are crumbling and potholed following the recent cold spell and sharp frosts.
I've particularly noticed this since the Alfa was "customised" by a German 4x4 driver who thought that a particularly icy road was a good place to test out his tailgating technique. Since then I've been driving around in my brother's ancient Land Rover which, for all its endearing qualities, lacks a certain comfort factor at the best of times. When driving over speed bumps, though, one might just as well allow Mike Tyson to deliver a rabbit punch every 30 yards or so.
The other reason I hate speed bumps, though is that they represent the attitude of liberal progressives to law enforcement and law making. The "purpose" of speed bumps, allegedly, is to deter speeding - but the vast majority of us are deterred from speeding by speed limits backed up by the possibility of punishment if we transgress. Those people who do speed are not deterred by speed limits OR speed bumps.
Worse still, because speed bumps are often designed with gaps to one side and in the centre of the road, they encourage speeding drivers to drive recklessly as they swerve around the speed bumps to maintain the best speed with the least inconvenience. We've all seem them do it - whether it is the teenager in the dressed up Vauxhall Nova or the company director in his BMW 5 series - and at speed, the more you steer the more likely you are to lose control and plough into some innocent driver or, worse, pedestrian.
So speed bumps do nothing to stop speeding motorists and may actually encourage reckless driving. What they do do, though, is punish the law abiding motorist. In essence, this is the thinking of the liberal progressive establishment in every day practice. Because of an unwillingness or incapability to prevent the law breakers from misbehaving, the liberal progressives resort to punishing everyone else.
That is the attitude of liberal progressives. They fail to understand the basic principles of law and law enforcement - that the law should be made to achieve either the greatest good or the least inconvenience for the many. Instead they introduce laws and law enforcement methods that benefit few, but have a considerable impact on the many.
That is why they love speed bumps and that is why I hate them.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Power hungry
After all the suffering and hardship endured by Britons during World War Two, it was a cruel twist of fate that the winters that followed the end of that conflict were amongst the harshest and coldest on record and, with a national shortage of fuel, even relatively wealthy people, such as George Orwell, resorted to burning furniture to keep themselves warm.
However, at least the government of the time had a perfectly reasonable excuse for failing to meet the needs of the people for power - we'd just come out of a hugely expensive and incredibly destructive war. The government of today has no such excuse.
Ofgem are warning that "families face "unaffordable" energy bills and power cut" in a few years time unless £200 billion - yes, billion - is spent now to improve power supply and storage. You don't have to be George Osborne to work out that this puts Britain in something of a financial pickle.
Our energy suppliers are mostly foreign. They really don't give a damn if fuel bills are "unaffordable" - it just means they make more profit. They don't give a damn if British industry is crippled by power cuts - it just means they make more profit. These companies are not going to spend billions of pounds on our energy infrastructure unless there is something in it for them - and making less profit is hardly an incentive.
The "dash for gas" might have seemed like a good idea at the time. Hey, anything that meant we didn't have to rely on bolshy British coal miners has got to be a good thing, right? Wrong - particularly if it means we have to rely on unstable Russian gas oligarchs, mad Middle East mullahs and dodgy French engineering.
We need to take back control of our energy supply and generation. We need to make sure that we can provide for our energy needs without relying on foreign support or favour. We need to realise that wind farms are never ever going to be able to provide this even if we carpet the whole of the United Kingdom in the ugly monstrosities.
We need to take back control of energy supply, generation and distribution. We need to make ourselves as independent in meeting our energy needs as it is possible to be. To do this we need four things.
First we need to re nationalise our energy industry entirely. Secondly, we need to give up this ridiculous pursuit of "renewable" supply which is currently incapable of providing us with the energy we need. Thirdly, we need to modernise our existing coal fired power stations and build lots more. Fourth, we need to make long term investment in skills and technology that will enable us to build our own nuclear power plants for the future.
Two of those we can do quickly. We can take back control of our energy industry relatively easily and we can withdraw from the pursuit of renewable nirvana in no time. The coal fired power stations will take a little longer as we not only need to build them, but we have to restore our coal industry as well. However, it will buy us enough time to do what is necessary for the fourth requirement.
Because that is the really long term goal. Those people who want us to go nuclear now are not living in the real world. The problem with that is that there isn't enough nuclear expertise to go around - and Britain is virtually devoid of it. Furthermore, such is the dire state of our education system that we are unlikely to be able to produce people with the skills and brains to do it ourselves - and reliance on foreign skill is not what I want because it is not good for Britain.
So, in the interim we keep what coal fired plants we have going. We build new ones. We re-open coal mines and dig new ones. That will give us the energy we are going to need for the next 20-50 years - because it will take at least that long to restore our education system to the extent that we are able to start, once more, producing the best of the best in engineering, design and technology.
However, at least the government of the time had a perfectly reasonable excuse for failing to meet the needs of the people for power - we'd just come out of a hugely expensive and incredibly destructive war. The government of today has no such excuse.
Ofgem are warning that "families face "unaffordable" energy bills and power cut" in a few years time unless £200 billion - yes, billion - is spent now to improve power supply and storage. You don't have to be George Osborne to work out that this puts Britain in something of a financial pickle.
Our energy suppliers are mostly foreign. They really don't give a damn if fuel bills are "unaffordable" - it just means they make more profit. They don't give a damn if British industry is crippled by power cuts - it just means they make more profit. These companies are not going to spend billions of pounds on our energy infrastructure unless there is something in it for them - and making less profit is hardly an incentive.
The "dash for gas" might have seemed like a good idea at the time. Hey, anything that meant we didn't have to rely on bolshy British coal miners has got to be a good thing, right? Wrong - particularly if it means we have to rely on unstable Russian gas oligarchs, mad Middle East mullahs and dodgy French engineering.
We need to take back control of our energy supply and generation. We need to make sure that we can provide for our energy needs without relying on foreign support or favour. We need to realise that wind farms are never ever going to be able to provide this even if we carpet the whole of the United Kingdom in the ugly monstrosities.
We need to take back control of energy supply, generation and distribution. We need to make ourselves as independent in meeting our energy needs as it is possible to be. To do this we need four things.
First we need to re nationalise our energy industry entirely. Secondly, we need to give up this ridiculous pursuit of "renewable" supply which is currently incapable of providing us with the energy we need. Thirdly, we need to modernise our existing coal fired power stations and build lots more. Fourth, we need to make long term investment in skills and technology that will enable us to build our own nuclear power plants for the future.
Two of those we can do quickly. We can take back control of our energy industry relatively easily and we can withdraw from the pursuit of renewable nirvana in no time. The coal fired power stations will take a little longer as we not only need to build them, but we have to restore our coal industry as well. However, it will buy us enough time to do what is necessary for the fourth requirement.
Because that is the really long term goal. Those people who want us to go nuclear now are not living in the real world. The problem with that is that there isn't enough nuclear expertise to go around - and Britain is virtually devoid of it. Furthermore, such is the dire state of our education system that we are unlikely to be able to produce people with the skills and brains to do it ourselves - and reliance on foreign skill is not what I want because it is not good for Britain.
So, in the interim we keep what coal fired plants we have going. We build new ones. We re-open coal mines and dig new ones. That will give us the energy we are going to need for the next 20-50 years - because it will take at least that long to restore our education system to the extent that we are able to start, once more, producing the best of the best in engineering, design and technology.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Why progressive liberalism fails in government
It is undeniable that progressive liberalism is a failed political ideology in government when compared to conservatism. It is undeniable because it falls behind conservatism on just about every measure of national progress you can think of.
Whether it is education, crime, health, social mobility, the economy, manufacturing, employment, equality or general quality of life issues there have been marked declines over the last 50 years of progressive liberalism whereas, in comparison, the previous 50 years of conservatism brought meteoric improvements in all these areas.
So it’s not a question of whether progressive liberalism fails or not – it is only a question of why does it fail?
It fails for the simple reason that it ignores the basic principle of good government – i.e. that a government should always aim to do what is right for the majority of the people it governs.
What does that mean?
It means that any thing which the government proposes should be aimed at achieving the maximum benefit or the least inconvenience for the greatest number of people.
Progressive liberalism fails because it turns this basic fundamental of good governance on its head. Rather than enacting laws for the benefit of most people it enacts laws for the benefit of a few. Rather than enacting laws which cause the least inconvenience for the majority of people they enact laws which cause the majority the greatest inconvenience.
Such a system is bound to cause dissatisfaction, division and can only lead to a fractured nation in a perpetual state of conflict as more and more minority groups compete for the special attention of government – and the more that the government concedes to these special interest groups the more divisive it becomes.
To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, a government can not keep everybody happy all of the time so its aim first and foremost must always be to keep as many people happy as often as they can. If by doing so that means that a few minority groups have to accept being slightly worse off than the majority then so be it. If, however, the actions of government mean that the majority are the ones who have to accept infringements on their rights, freedoms and liberties then that nation is heading for a monumental fall.
Good governance should be about doing the most good for the most people – not the fewest. Progressive liberalism ignores this principle and this is why it will always fail.
Whether it is education, crime, health, social mobility, the economy, manufacturing, employment, equality or general quality of life issues there have been marked declines over the last 50 years of progressive liberalism whereas, in comparison, the previous 50 years of conservatism brought meteoric improvements in all these areas.
So it’s not a question of whether progressive liberalism fails or not – it is only a question of why does it fail?
It fails for the simple reason that it ignores the basic principle of good government – i.e. that a government should always aim to do what is right for the majority of the people it governs.
What does that mean?
It means that any thing which the government proposes should be aimed at achieving the maximum benefit or the least inconvenience for the greatest number of people.
Progressive liberalism fails because it turns this basic fundamental of good governance on its head. Rather than enacting laws for the benefit of most people it enacts laws for the benefit of a few. Rather than enacting laws which cause the least inconvenience for the majority of people they enact laws which cause the majority the greatest inconvenience.
Such a system is bound to cause dissatisfaction, division and can only lead to a fractured nation in a perpetual state of conflict as more and more minority groups compete for the special attention of government – and the more that the government concedes to these special interest groups the more divisive it becomes.
To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, a government can not keep everybody happy all of the time so its aim first and foremost must always be to keep as many people happy as often as they can. If by doing so that means that a few minority groups have to accept being slightly worse off than the majority then so be it. If, however, the actions of government mean that the majority are the ones who have to accept infringements on their rights, freedoms and liberties then that nation is heading for a monumental fall.
Good governance should be about doing the most good for the most people – not the fewest. Progressive liberalism ignores this principle and this is why it will always fail.
MIssing the point on profiling
As airports are set to introduce more and more stringent and intrusive methods to determine whether or not little old Granny Smith is really a suicide bomber with 5lbs of Semtex hidden in her balls of wool, the debate about "profiling" starts up again.
Some say it won't work because not all those who have tried to explode a bomb on an aeroplane would have fitted the "profile" of a Moslem suicide bomber - but this is where they miss the point.
No system of screening people at airport security will be 100% perfect. Even if you submit everyone boarding the plane to strip searches, body cavity searches and whole body scanning there is always a chance that someone will get something through that will blow up the aeroplane. It's only a matter of time before someone invents an explosive prosthetic limb or detonating dentures.
Airport security is a percentage game and you have to play the percentages - and that means having a system which causes the least inconvenience to the majority of people while being most likely to catch or deter those who are likely to carry out attacks.
The crucial word there is "deter". If those who are most likely to try and blow themselves up on an aeroplane know that they are the most likely to be stopped, searched, questioned and probed to a far higher degree than Granny Smith they will be less inclined to try in the first place. Yes, it will be unfair on those Moslems who really are innocently going about their business, but that's the price you pay for having a significant proportion of your "religion" hell bent on random mass murder. If they don't like it they could try doing something to reduce that murderous element.
There is another benefit to racial profiling terrorists too. One of the biggest problems for the intelligence services is that they find it very hard to get inside these terrorist organisations as they tend to recruit mostly from a certain racial group. If racial profiling is introduced at airport security they will possibly resort to recruiting more white men and women - which would give the security services the opportunity to infiltrate these organisations and stop attacks before they develop.
Racial profiling would not prevent every attack, but it would do more to reduce the possibility than anything else. The security services have no problem using racial profiling to detect and deter football hooligans or neo-Nazi sympathisers - and it has been very effective - why are they so reluctant to use it to detect and deter Moslem terrorists?
Some say it won't work because not all those who have tried to explode a bomb on an aeroplane would have fitted the "profile" of a Moslem suicide bomber - but this is where they miss the point.
No system of screening people at airport security will be 100% perfect. Even if you submit everyone boarding the plane to strip searches, body cavity searches and whole body scanning there is always a chance that someone will get something through that will blow up the aeroplane. It's only a matter of time before someone invents an explosive prosthetic limb or detonating dentures.
Airport security is a percentage game and you have to play the percentages - and that means having a system which causes the least inconvenience to the majority of people while being most likely to catch or deter those who are likely to carry out attacks.
The crucial word there is "deter". If those who are most likely to try and blow themselves up on an aeroplane know that they are the most likely to be stopped, searched, questioned and probed to a far higher degree than Granny Smith they will be less inclined to try in the first place. Yes, it will be unfair on those Moslems who really are innocently going about their business, but that's the price you pay for having a significant proportion of your "religion" hell bent on random mass murder. If they don't like it they could try doing something to reduce that murderous element.
There is another benefit to racial profiling terrorists too. One of the biggest problems for the intelligence services is that they find it very hard to get inside these terrorist organisations as they tend to recruit mostly from a certain racial group. If racial profiling is introduced at airport security they will possibly resort to recruiting more white men and women - which would give the security services the opportunity to infiltrate these organisations and stop attacks before they develop.
Racial profiling would not prevent every attack, but it would do more to reduce the possibility than anything else. The security services have no problem using racial profiling to detect and deter football hooligans or neo-Nazi sympathisers - and it has been very effective - why are they so reluctant to use it to detect and deter Moslem terrorists?
Monday, February 01, 2010
Cameron flip flops again
David Cameron has backtracked on Tory "policy" once again by saying that a government under his leadership will not make "swingeing cuts" in their first year of office sparking rumours of a rift between Cameron and the Shadow Chancellor, Boy George Osborne.
To be honest, it doesn't surprise me that Cameron has flip flopped once again as the man does not appear to have any strong convictions on anything with the exception of his divine right to be the national leader - and if there is one thing that is certain in politics it is that a man who believes himself to be born to govern the country will say and do just about anything to make that belief a reality.
It's not completely surprising to me that Cameron flip flops around like this - after all, he's been that way since he first became leader of the Tory Party - but what does surprise me is that he has bought into the socialist idea that government spending means more national growth. It doesn't - unless you include growth in welfarism, benefits spending, single motherhood, crime and violence as "national growth".
There is no doubt that targeted spending on income generating areas can produce an increase in national growth and prosperity, but that means spending money on making something that your people want or that you can sell abroad. In other words, manufacturing. It also needs to be money that is spent internally and goes to your own people and businesses - it's no good spending billions of pounds to support the car industry in Japan or Germany! The other thing that government spending needs to do in circumstances like this is to have an impact on the short term - although it is always a good idea to invest in the future when you have the money to do so, when times are hard you have to do what is necessary for the here and now.
But by declaring that his government will not make "swingeing cuts" in their first year of office, Cameron is saying that he accepts (once again) that all that this current government spends money on is necessary when it quite clearly isn't. Once again, Cameron is saying that he will stick to Labour spending plans as he did when he first became leader of the Conservative Party - a "commitment" he then backtracked on a year or so ago.
I know I've said this before, but I'll keep saying it until someone does it. There is an obvious and easy way to make significant spending cuts in the first month let alone the first year - you tell all the quangos and agencies currently running Britain that they must cut their budget by 20%. How they do this you leave up to them - but you tell them they must do it.
Quangos were responsible for £130 billion of spending two or three years ago - it's quite likely that they are spending anything upwards of £150 billion today, but let's assume they are still spending £130 billion.
A 20% cut in that budget next year will save the country £26 billion.
You can save more in that one simple measure than all the tinkering around the edges proposed by the Tories and Lib Dems manage with their ideas for saving £100 million here and £80 million there. You don't have to make changes to the taxation system, you don't have to decide what quangos and agencies to get rid of altogether (although, in future years, there is plenty of scope for a massive quango cull) and what you do will have virtually no effect on "front line" services. And you can do it on the day you take office.
But Cameron has revealed once more his true colours. He IS a socialist.
To be honest, it doesn't surprise me that Cameron has flip flopped once again as the man does not appear to have any strong convictions on anything with the exception of his divine right to be the national leader - and if there is one thing that is certain in politics it is that a man who believes himself to be born to govern the country will say and do just about anything to make that belief a reality.
It's not completely surprising to me that Cameron flip flops around like this - after all, he's been that way since he first became leader of the Tory Party - but what does surprise me is that he has bought into the socialist idea that government spending means more national growth. It doesn't - unless you include growth in welfarism, benefits spending, single motherhood, crime and violence as "national growth".
There is no doubt that targeted spending on income generating areas can produce an increase in national growth and prosperity, but that means spending money on making something that your people want or that you can sell abroad. In other words, manufacturing. It also needs to be money that is spent internally and goes to your own people and businesses - it's no good spending billions of pounds to support the car industry in Japan or Germany! The other thing that government spending needs to do in circumstances like this is to have an impact on the short term - although it is always a good idea to invest in the future when you have the money to do so, when times are hard you have to do what is necessary for the here and now.
But by declaring that his government will not make "swingeing cuts" in their first year of office, Cameron is saying that he accepts (once again) that all that this current government spends money on is necessary when it quite clearly isn't. Once again, Cameron is saying that he will stick to Labour spending plans as he did when he first became leader of the Conservative Party - a "commitment" he then backtracked on a year or so ago.
I know I've said this before, but I'll keep saying it until someone does it. There is an obvious and easy way to make significant spending cuts in the first month let alone the first year - you tell all the quangos and agencies currently running Britain that they must cut their budget by 20%. How they do this you leave up to them - but you tell them they must do it.
Quangos were responsible for £130 billion of spending two or three years ago - it's quite likely that they are spending anything upwards of £150 billion today, but let's assume they are still spending £130 billion.
A 20% cut in that budget next year will save the country £26 billion.
You can save more in that one simple measure than all the tinkering around the edges proposed by the Tories and Lib Dems manage with their ideas for saving £100 million here and £80 million there. You don't have to make changes to the taxation system, you don't have to decide what quangos and agencies to get rid of altogether (although, in future years, there is plenty of scope for a massive quango cull) and what you do will have virtually no effect on "front line" services. And you can do it on the day you take office.
But Cameron has revealed once more his true colours. He IS a socialist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)