Under pressure

I hear today that there are suggestions that school children are suffering from more stress than ever before with the pressure of examinations. Although I make no secret of my belief that school exams have become easier and grades inflated (simply as a political tool to demonstrate how "successful" an education programme has been) I can quite easily believe that children are under more pressure with examinations than they have ever been.

When I was coming to the end of my time in junior school (as we used to call it back then) we were vaguely aware of the impending 11+ test - but there was no attempt to teach towards it and there was no major importance placed on the examination. We didn't go through practice tests or mock examinations - one day we were ushered into a classroom, took the test and that was it. A few months later we got a letter asking us to choose the school we wanted to go to and, for those of us who passed, this included grammar schools.

It was different at grammar school with O levels - we were obviously taught specifically for those tests from quite a few years back - however there was not the emphasis on the importance of getting results other than from the point of view of getting into sixth form and on to university. For those of us uninterested in sixth form or university it was no big deal.

One of the reasons why this wasn't so important and why there was less stress placed on children was that there were plenty of job options available. Of course, it helped that I lived next door to the biggest trading estate in Europe, but that wasn't the sole reason. Back then, Britain was still predominantly a manufacturing nation.

There was a big demand for workers at all levels - from manual labourers, through semi-skilled and skilled right up to graduate class. Whatever your level of education there was always a decent well paid job available (by the standards of the time) for anyone prepared to put a bit of effort into finding one.

There were thousands of apprenticeships for school leavers providing young people with an oppotunity to learn a valuable life long trade. However, most apprenticeships were "indentured" requiring a long term commitment from the employee of four to five years.

On top of those formal apprenticeships there were also lots of firms - large, medium and small - offering a kind of informal apprenticeship and sponsoring "day release" enabling school leavers to work four days a week and attend a college course, paid for by your employer, on the other day. Virtually everyone I knew, regardless of which school they went to, went through this system - either finding an apprenticeship or a job with day release if they left school at sixteen.

I'll be honest, I've never been so well off as I was in those first few years as a wage earner - even though I only started off on £16 a week. I should also point out that the dole paid £9 a week at the time I started work and there was no tax or NI on top of that!

By the time I'd had my deductions and handed mum a fiver for "upkeep" I was worse off than most people claiming unemployment benefit - but I still seemed to have enough cash to go out six nights a week and spend most lunchtimes in the boozer nursing a pint of Trophy bitter and a cheese roll.

I even had enough money to run a motorcycle - well, a second hand FS1E*, but it was unrestricted and good for 60 when flat on the tank with a following wind. After a couple of pay rises and a year or so saving I'd managed to upgrade the Fizzy to a Kawasaki KH250** and started paying for driving lessons!

However, by then - unfortunately - our membership of the EEC and the Labour government had done their damage and Britain was in the middle of the winter of discontent and dire economic circumstances (see - nothing really changes). Our manufacturing base was already in decline and with it were the jobs and training which us youngsters had taken for granted when leaving school.

And this is why there is so much pressure on kids today. Even university graduates are finding it hard to find jobs and often end up working at KFC or Poundland. All those technical colleges converted to universities and firms no longer bother to offer day release schemes.

The over emphasis on university and "degrees" means that too many kids are vying for too few spots in those universities and competing for ever declining slices of the government cash that pays for those universities (not including the massive debt they incur through student loans).

This is the reality that faces school leavers today and this is why there is so much pressure and, consequently, so much stress for school children. It's not that the exams are so tough - they aren't compared to O levels and A levels of the sixties and seventies (and everyone really knows they aren't).

This is also why it is so daft to talk about a "high tech" economy. Even assuming we could do "high tech" better than the emerging nations (which is doubtful) it is ridiculous to assume that everybody is capable of working in "high tech". A target of 50% in university would be fine if 50% of jobs were high really skilled graduate jobs - but they aren't - and 50% of school leavers are not really university potential either.

Indeed, I suspect that 90% of "graduate" positions today would have been filled more than adequately by 16 year old school leavers on day release back in 1973 - and I suspect that considerably more than 50% of jobs available today do not require particularly high levels of education.

What we need is a properly balanced mixed economy with an emphasis on manufacturing - not service - providing a range of job options for school leavers. On top of that we need a proper education system that does select the best to go on university, but that also provides the majority with a decent level of education as well.

And we need proper apprenticeships and business sponsored day release at technical colleges for school leavers who don't want to go into sixth form or university, but just want to work and earn enough money to buy a few beers a week and a motorcycle.

* The Yamaha FS1E was a 50cc sports moped and learner legal for sixteen year olds. Affectionately known as the Fizzy (or Fizzie) it was every 16 year old school boys ambition to get his leg over one - far more than it was to get his leg over in the other way, if you know what I mean! How times change.

**The Kawasaki KH250 was a learner legal (17 years +), three cylinder, two stroke, rev happy, 250cc motorcycle with fiendish acceleration and a propensity to buck around like an angry bull under braking. It handled like a brick and the factory fitted tyres were lethal in the wet - but I loved it to bits and went everywhere on that bike.

The perfect excuse

Perhaps one of the daftest headlines I've seen for sometime is this one from The Telegraph.

Men owe women for 'creating beer' claims academic

You may not be surprised to find that the "academic" in question is a woman. Her claim is based on the evidence that for hundreds of years it is was the job of women to brew beer.

Fair enough, I'm not disputing that claim, but that doesn't prove it was a woman who "created" beer any more than it proves that it was a woman who created bread. It just proves that for hundreds of years it was left to women to do the job of making beer.

And for hundreds of years it was left to women to do the job of laundry, child rearing, sewing, cooking, cleaning and looking after the home.

So if men have women to thank for beer - then, by the logic of this academic, women only have themselves to blame for creating housework. So excuse me while I pop to the local for a swift half and a game of darts while the missus gets on with the ironing.

So much for that idea

As the government prepares to ban the "legal high" mephedrone at least there is some good that has come out of the whole sorry saga.

It puts an end to the fallacy that legalising drugs will make them safe.

A bore draw

OK, I didn't watch it all - just the last twenty minutes - but what a banal, boring event the much vaunted clash of the chancellors turned out to be.

Apart from the fact that they spent most of the time agreeing with each other (so much for clear blue water - there isn't even a murky grey smear of difference) the only other striking thing about the event was how utterly undynamic all three were. You'd feel more energised after washing down a bottle of Valium with neat vodka than you would watching Darling, Cable and Osborne in full flow.

The format didn't much help either. In case you didn't see it, it went sort of like this.

Someone in the audience asks a pre-prepared question.
The moderator asks one of the prospective chancellors to answer the question.
The chosen chancellor says the questioner is right and they must do something about it.
The other two agree.
The moderator then asks what they would do about it.
Each prospective chancellor then answers with vague generalisations using the words "global", "fair" and "regulation" a lot without ever saying anything particularly specific.
The moderator asks for another pre-prepared question from the audience.

None of us is any the wiser.

Oh - except that I'm all the more convinced that the Boy George is completely out of his depth even in the company of such mediocrity as Darling and Cable.

Digital switch is dogma, not choice

I'm not a fan of the digital broadcast revolution.

We did get Sky Digital early at the start of this millennium, but got rid of it as soon as we could following a year of varying quality of service - varying between appalling and abysmal. After a year of putting up with pixelating programmes and frozen screens that required a complicated reboot of the set top box we were only too glad to get rid of it.

Of course, we have Freeview now which is tolerable - but only because we don't pay for it. Anyone of my age will remember the frequent interruptions to television programmes caused by technological breakdowns, faulty transmitters and "atmospherics" in the sixties so we're fairly used to that sort of thing now.

It's just a shame that just as they'd got the kinks ironed out of analogue TV to the point where it was generally reliable they then decide to junk it for more troublesome technology. It also means we have a TV aerial that wouldn't look out of place atop a battleship superstructure, but at least it gives somewhere for the magpies to roost.

The switch to digital is supposed to be about more "choice". It's true that there are more TV channels to choose from, but they are all showing the same dross that the main five channels chuck out anyway - just repeated ad infinitum. They even seem to schedule the same dozen films again and again and again and again. How many times have they put Terminator 2 on in the last six months?

So digital TV has hardly brought more choice and I doubt that digital radio will either - but yet again we're not going to get the choice. They're just going to turn off analogue radio from 2015. The question is ...why?

This isn't driven by the market - it's driven by some government obsession with the digital revolution. Why can't they just let the market decide? If digital proves good enough then people will switch to it - if they don't then it's not appropriate to switch off the analogue choices.

If it was really about "choice" then they'd let the market decide.

Be careful who you pick on

I've just been reading Boris Johnson's tale of littering over on The Telegraph.

It's an anecdote which manages to be amusing and worrying at the same time. Amusing because it reminds me of something that happened to me many years ago and worrying because it highlights the attitude of many young people - their contempt for law and authority, their propensity to lie freely when law and authority catch up with them and their worship of celebrity.

It's all very well for mayor Boris to confront these people - it's not so easy for the rest of us. Johnson got away with this because of who he is but, as many have found out, when the average Joe Public does the same thing the response is often to have their head kicked in.

Anyway, back to the anecdote. It reminded me of a time back in the eighties when I was working as a van courier. On this occasion I had the company of a colleague called Brendan - a remarkably phlegmatic and even tempered chap from the Black Country who was happier on a motorcycle than in a "tin box".

We were making our way one summers day along the outside lane of Marylebone Road in my Ford Escort van when we came to one of the many sets of lights on red. While we waited for the lights to turn green a BMW 3 series pulled up on our left with four yuppies braying and whooping inside.

As the lights turned green the BMW sped off, but not before one of the yuppies had launched a half eaten apple through the open window of our van barely missing Brendan. He wasn't too pleased at their behaviour.

Of course, they were stopped at the next set of lights and we soon drew back alongside. Brendan, in his broad midlands accent, asked what they thought they were doing - in a pleasant way. Far from being apologetic they seemed to find the situation and his accent terribly funny.

The lights started to turn green again and, as they were about to speed off once more, Brendan took a last draw on his cigarette and then launched it through the open window of the BMW with a deft flick of some considerable power. I saw it explode with a shower of sparks on the dashboard of the BMW and spew a myriad of hot coals all over the interior of the car.

As we drove off we could see them stuck at the lights frantically trying to extinguish the various embers burning into the cloth of the front seats - and probably their clothing too - while the cars behind hooted impatiently. Brendan coolly finished off the apple and the BMW never caught up with us again.

I'm not sure if that tale has a moral - except maybe that if you're going to annoy somebody then it's best not to pick someone who happens to be a member of a Hell's Angel chapter.

Ranting Stan's Sunday Drive: Ford Classic

If there was one car that was guaranteed to catch a young boy's eye in the sixties it was the Ford Classic.

The Classic seemed to me to exude the glamour of the US from it's attractive streamlined front graced with five stars and twin headlamps through to the graceful fins at the rear. The Classic was a real head turner. If anything, it represented the emergence of Britain from the austerity of the fifties into the bright new world of the nineteen sixties.

But it was largely unloved by the British people. Even though it was, in essence, nothing more than a stretched out Anglia - which had proven very popular with the British public - the Classic failed to capture the imagination of British car buyers and was only in production for three short years.

Consequently you saw very few on British roads even when they were relatively new and the sight of a Classic today is as rare as hen's teeth. That's a shame, as I think they were one of the most visually appealing mainstream cars from that time. Mind you, it's Ford's fault - when you go around naming something you make as "Classic" you better make damn sure it really is.

The "special" one

A group of MPs have questioned Britain's "special relationship" with the USA and some parts of the media have suggested that this means the relationship is over.

In truth, all they have actually done is attempt to restate what the "special relationship" is - and they got it more or less right. Over the last twenty years or so - and the last decade in particular - the general assumption has been that the "special relationship" consists of some sort of unwritten reciprocal arrangement to scratch one another's back.

This is mostly a media driven assumption - because the media today is extremely lazy and largely ignorant - but it is fairly easy to understand given the lengths Tony Blair went to ingratiate himself with the US authorities and public. But Blair wasn't doing that for Britain's benefit - because Blair is no fool.

Blair knew that he wasn't going to be PM for ever and he knows that most ex-Prime Ministers end up comparatively scratching an obscure living once they depart office. That was never going to be enough for the vain Blair and his crone wife. They wanted fame and money and they knew where that money was and where the pursuit of fame is rewarded - so Blair manipulated that "special relationship" for his own ends.

Personally speaking, that is enough to condemn Blair as a person and a politician - that he put his personal goals before those of the country he was supposed to be leading - but most people still don't understand that about Blair. I don't blame them - after all, we've become used to our politicians putting personal ambition before national interest ever since we joined the EU and the lines are now so blurred that few people recognise this when it happens.

Blair manipulated the "special relationship" to serve his own ends in the same way that many politicians on both sides of the House of Commons manipulate our relationship with the EU for their own ends. The difference is that the relationship with the EU is an enforced and uncomfortable one which is causing considerable damage to our national status and culture.

The "special relationship" with the US was not a political one. Instead it was about two distinct and separate nations who happened to have a lot in common - shared values, culture and even history. It was never about what we could do for each other except incidentally - it was about what we had in common with each other.

What ruined that relationship was not anything that happened in the last twenty years - it is what happened in 1973 when Heath took us into an alliance with a bunch of countries with whom we had little in common and nothing to learn from.

Our "special relationship" with the USA is the same now as it was in 1940 - and the same as it is with Australia, New Zealand and Canada. It's never had an official name, but generally it is known as the Anglosphere. The Anglosphere consists of other nations who, mainly due to our imperial past, have a lot in common with British values and culture and it is an accident of history that one of those happened to be the most powerful nation of the 20th century.

That's all the "special relationship" ever was and will be. The only way it can be changed is if something happens to change the values and culture of one of those nations. Well, something is happening that is changing the values and culture of one of those nations, but it is not in America, or in Canada or in Australia - it is happening here and it is called the EU.

No to Clarke and the euro

Over on The Telegraph, Simon Heffer is doing his best to annoy me again.

He is suggesting that Dave Cameron should replace the Boy George with Ken Clarke as shadow chancellor and, should Dave's party win the election, hand Clarke the keys to Number 11. Please allow me to explain why this is plain wrong.

First of all, Mr. Heffer goes to great lengths to confirm his anti-EU credentials.

No one who regularly reads this column could be in doubt of my attitude towards our masters in Brussels, and how they have robbed us of our money, our sovereignty and many of our freedoms over the past 37 years.

Yes, but knowing that and being prepared to do something about it are two very different things, Mr. Heffer. Anyone who is seriously opposed to Britain's membership of the European Union can not possibly approve the appointment of someone like Clarke to such an important position in government.

Clarke doesn't just want us to be part of the EU - he wants us to be part of the Eurozone. Indeed, if he had got his way, Britain would already be using the euro as our currency. Clarke was so adamant about this point that he was prepared to support Labour in their push for the euro - the sort of behaviour that should have seen the man sacked from the Tory party!

Had Britain joined the euro then our economic position would be even worse than it currently is. The dilemma that faces Greece is nothing compared to the disastrous state our economy would be in - and Clarke wanted that.

That would make his position as Chancellor - or even shadow chancellor - untenable. How can Heffer not know this? Labour strategists aren't stupid - they'd have a field day laying into Clarke's stance on the euro and they'd make damn sure the people of Britain were aware of this.

What is more, the very idea of putting such a committed supporter of the EU into such a position in government should be a serious concern to any real EU sceptic. I don't want Clarke as Chancellor - I don't even want him on the front bench whatever side of the House he sits. I want him where I want all the other MP's who support our membership of the EU - unemployed.

There's no doubt that Cameron's front bench is inexperienced, weak and extraordinarily immature - that's the price you pay when you choose your people based on how they look rather than what they can do. The Boy George has been out of his depth since day one of his appointment and I'm not the only one who has mentioned this.

And there can be no doubt either that our economic state is such that it will require a firm and expert hand on the tiller - but appointing a man committed to handing control of our economy to a foreign government is not the way to resolve this.

No compromise

Sometimes I get a bit frustrated with the situation I find myself in. By that I mean that I don't feel comfortable about supporting any of the political parties because there simply isn't one which I completely or even mostly agree with.

In truth, most of the parties have one or even several policies that I can agree with or, at least, see some merit in - even the Labour Party (although, oddly enough for a conservative, the party I least have anything in common with is the Tory Party - but perhaps that is because I expect them to conservative which they clearly are not).

In that sense most people prioritise. They decide what is important to them politically and then vote for the party which they least disagree with. For example, the recent revival of Labour in the polls is put down to most voters believing that Labour are better placed to steer us through the economic maelstrom. It's not that they necessarily think that what Labour is doing is right - chances are they don't - but they do think it's less wrong than what the Tory party is proposing (if anyone actually knows what the Tories are proposing, 'cos I'm damned if I do).

Does that make sense? It does to me.

Essentially, what I am saying is that the party that wins elections is not the one that most people support - it is the one that the fewest disagree with. Actual support is reflected in membership numbers - i.e. the people who most agree with a political party's policies are likely to sign up as members to that party - and the fact that support for all the main political parties has waned considerably over the last 10-20 years or so is indicative of just how few people actually support the policies of the Labour, Tory or Lib Dem parties.

People still turn out in large numbers to put their X next to those parties candidates, but they do so not because they support them - they do so because they disagree with them less than they do the other parties. I've done this myself in the past. The last time I voted for a party I actually supported was in 1979 when, as a Liberal party member, I voted Liberal (hey, I was only 18 - if I can't be stupidly idealistic at 18 then when can I be?).

I'm just not comfortable in voting that way anymore. Next time I go into a polling booth I want to be able to put my mark next to the name of a candidate whose party I mostly agree with. If there was one I completely agreed with that would be even better, but such a party does not exist (and with my rather unusual mix of political philosophies they are unlikely to).

And if I'm not happy with any of the options available to me on the day I won't vote for any of them - but I will spoil my ballot paper.

For what it is worth, I'd like to urge everyone else to do the same. If you really agree with the Tory party policies then vote for them - but if you are thinking of voting for them just because you disagree with them less than you disagree with the Labour party then don't. Check out all the options too - whether it is UKIP, the Greens or BNP - and if you feel that any of those match your views better than the Tories, vote for them.

Vote for a party that you actually support. A good rule of thumb would be to ask yourself if you could see yourself as a member of that party - if you can't then you probably shouldn't be voting for them. Whatever you do, don't vote for a party just because you think they aren't as bad as the other lot.

All in the same boat

Over on The Telegraph comment page, Toby Young (no, I have no idea who he is either) wonders why the Tories and Labour are running neck and neck in the polls.

So what, exactly, is going on here? Why can’t the Tories put clear blue water between them and Labour?

A good question, Mr. Young.

It's not really - I was being sarcastic. It's a stupid question. The Tories can't put "clear blue water" between them and Labour in the polls because there is no "clear blue water" between them and Labour in general policy and the fundamental aims of their parties.

Whichever party gets elected to form a government we're going to get a progressive liberal government. Labour and the Tories may squabble over the minutiae of detail, but basically they are both pushing in the same direction.

Given that there is so little difference between Labour and Tory policy, it's actually quite surprising that the Tories are as high in the polls as they are - but the reason for that is that most people who say they will vote Tory at the next election will vote that way just because they always vote Conservative. Of that 36% from the latest poll, I would guess that at around 90% of those will always vote Tory (i.e. they are guaranteed around a 30-32% share of the vote just from their core vote).

And it's not as if Labour have moved to the right either. The centre ground of British politics is way to the left of where it was fifty, forty or even twenty years ago. The "centre ground" has been moving inexorably to the left of the political spectrum since the sixties and the pace of that move has, if anything, increased over the last five years since Cameron became leader of the opposition.

Even if the Tories do win the next election, those who voted for them are going to be disappointed - because they will still have the same government they had before. The only real difference will be that the new administration has even less experience and even fewer truly talented people to draw upon to form a government than the Labour party.

The Tories have spent fifty years paddling their battered craft closer and closer to the good ship Labour - discarding conservative ideals as they go - and now they've jumped aboard and cast the remnants of conservatism to drift with the tide.

The Conservative Party is no longer a conservative party - and more and more people are beginning to realise this. They can't open up clear blue water between them and the Labour party because they are all in the same boat and they are not fighting over which direction to steer the ship - only about whose flag is to fly from the main mast.

Doctors should mind their own business

I was a little busy yesterday with various things and, as it was Budget day, I wanted to get something posted about the budget as soon as I could but if there was one thing that annoyed me more than anything yesterday it was the reports of a call by doctors to ban smoking in private cars.

This was supposedly to protect children - but the call was not for a ban on smoking in private cars when children are present. No, they want to ban smoking in cars regardless of who is in it and whose car it is.

Leaving aside the obvious about personal intrusion, it's none of the doctors damn business what we get up to. They are not elected, they are not paid to decide legislation and their views are no more relevant or valid than those of anyone else - they are just members of the public like you and I.

What is more, when literally thousands of people are dying each year simply because of their incompetence and the failure of the institutions where they work, they really should concentrate in putting their own house in order before giving their opinions on areas which are absolutely none of their business.

The NHS is a disaster zone. Their hospitals are infested with superbugs. Patients are stuffed in cupboards and left to starve. Basic care is forgotten and dignity for patients non-existent. GP's work less for more and half of the people brought in to cover the work they refuse to do can't even speak basic English.

If they were genuinely interested in saving lives they'd start by sorting out that mess - not interfering in what you and I do while alone in our cars. I don't even smoke, but I'm happy to let smokers light up in my car. If I was going to spend my life fretting about carcinogens then the ones I'd be more concerned about are those pumped out by diesel engined vehicles - trains, buses, lorries and cars - far more than the odd B&H in my presence.

Incidentally, one of the illnesses in children that doctors attribute to second hand cigarette smoke is asthma. If that is true then why have the rates of asthma risen so dramatically in the last 30 years while the rates of smoking (as well as the places one can smoke) have declined considerably.

When I was a kid, most of us spent most of our time in the company of smokers, but somehow we didn't all get asthma or diseases of the middle ear. If there was a genuine link between the two then you would have expected to see asthma rates decline at a similar rate to smoking - but it hasn't. It has gone up. That sort of thing sets off my bullshit detector.

Not a budget for Britain

The last Labour budget before the General Election has been about as much of a damp squib as it is possible for a pre-election budget to be - but I have a feeling that it has done enough to placate Labour voters to ensure that the next budget will not be delivered by George Osborne.

Given that the Labour Party is taking direction from the Unite union which in turn is taking direction from the Communist Party it was the kind of "bash the rich" budget we've come to expect from Labour while in office, but without the large bribes they would normally offer at the same time.

However, perhaps the biggest indication of just how much Labour are under the influence of the unions is the total lack of commitment to cut spending. Instead, the public sector share of the economy is expected to rise from 54% this year to 75% in 2014/2015.

We've seen it already with the unexpected announcement that unemployment has fallen. It didn't really fall - the number of people employed in the productive private sector continues to drop substantially. All that is happening is that the state is employing more and more people in non-productive public sector jobs and this rampant rise in the client state is taking up the shortfall in private enterprise employment.

The budget, to be quite frank, is a total fudge. Darling has failed to take the necessary steps to curb the public sector and has simply done the obvious thing of putting up tax. He's demonstrated no interest in repairing the economy - only in shoring up Labour's shaky credentials with its biggest financiers and disillusioned supporters.

It may be enough to keep Labour in power, but it's not going to save this nation from financial collapse. Once again we see where this government's priorities lie - and Britain and the British people come last.

Double standards

First of all, I have to say that I believe David Milliband's response to the alleged use of forged British passports by Mossad spies was the correct one. Indeed, I was actually reasonably impressed by the tone of his comments as well as the tough stance the FO has taken.

However, I suspect that a lot of that was due to the fact that he was dealing with a nation which I honestly don't believe Milliband has any interest in supporting. In fact, I suspect that Milliband - like a lot of people on the left - would be happier if Israel would somehow cease to exist as they believe this would solve a lot of the world's problems with Islamism. It wouldn't, of course, as Islamic militancy and violence existed for a long time before modern Israel came along.

But the clincher for me is the fact that Milliband works himself into a lather over the use of forged passports by Israelis - but seems remarkably unconcerned about the use of legitimate British passports by Islamic militants. Indeed, they hand them out to all and sundry like sweets to children. Not only that, but proven terrorists are welcomed into this country where they are then given homes, money and support while they continue to direct and encourage violence against our own people and our allies.

I think Milliband was quite right to kick out an Israeli diplomat - but by the same standard there are several thousand Islamic militants that he should be do the same thing to. The fact that he won't exposes where his true sympathies lie.

A man with no shame

David Cameron is quite right to suggest that public perception of MPs is that they are all out for what they can get - but I am staggered by the sheer effrontery of the man in his claim that they are not all like that.

This from a man who has a huge country pile in Oxfordshire within an easy commute to his place of work - a commute which many of his constituents make every day at their own expense - and a considerable personal fortune, but still took huge amounts of public money to pay for a second home.

If he really means what he says he can lead by example. First of all, he can pay back every penny he has taken from the public purse to pay for his homes and then he can sell his London home and give the money to charity.

Until he does that he will remain one of the sleazy, money grubbing, self interested, pocket stuffers. He's right - they aren't all like that, but his record suggests that he is.

The road to ruin

According to the OECD, more than half of Britain's GDP now comes from government spending.

The figures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) disclose that central and local government spending made up 52.1 per cent of Britain’s GDP last year.

Now I'm no economics expert, but the way I read that it says that we are not just spending 52% of our GDP on the public sector, but that 52% of our GDP comes from public spending - and that does not include the cost of bailing out the banks! Maybe I'm wrong - if so, perhaps someone can clear that up for me - but that's how it reads to me.

In other words, if our GDP is £1000 billion (I know it isn't) then £520 billion of that is government spending. In other words, our GDP without including what government spends is just £480 billion.

What is also obvious to me is that a government spending more than is raised in total from private enterprise - not just the total tax, but every penny that private business makes plus another 2% on top - is taking this country on the road to ruin. Even if the tax rate was 100% this government would still not raise enough to cover its spending!

It also blows wide open the myth of GDP growth. In the thirteen years since Labour came to power some 12% of our GDP growth didn't actually exist - it was just Labour spending. Personally, I think it is wrong to consider government spending as part of GDP - but these things are not designed to give us, the people, the full picture. They are designed to enable government to tell us whatever they want to - and before anyone blames Labour for this, it all started under the Thatcher government who were the first to start fiddling the figures.

Thus we've spent the last 20 years being told that everything in the garden was rosy. The truth is that inflation is much higher than claimed, unemployment is considerably more than we're told (1 in 3 people of working age are unemployed in London), our economy is on the rocks and being battered by massive waves of debt and this country is now in serious danger of ending up in the poor house.

Dear prudence

If I hear one more politician from the Labour, Tory or Liberal Democrat parties tell us of the need for financial "prudence" I will go spare.

They wouldn't know financial prudence if it bit them on the backside. The Labour Party, while our dear leader was Chancellor, frittered away untold billions of pounds of public money on various pet projects and for no discernible improvement.

But worse than that, both the opposition parties supported them in doing so. Indeed, David Cameron took great pride in telling us all how he would stick to Labour spending plans if he were Prime Minister.

Look, I've no intrinsic objections to the idea of the state taking tax from the people to pay for essential services which the public want and demand - I just have a very different idea of what those services are. As a homeowner, I know what financial prudence really means - it means living within your means and not spending what you haven't got.

Our politicians don't understand this and most likely never will - hardly surprising given their history on claiming expenses and hugely excessive personal spending.

The next time a politician from any of these parties mentions "prudence" on national TV or radio the right response from the interviewer would be to give that politician a swift, hard kick up the backside while telling him to get out and never darken our doors again.

Their idea of "prudence" has cost us dear.

Ranting Stan's Sunday Drive: Austin Allegro

Introduced in 1973 as the replacement for the hugely successful 1100/1300 range the Austin Allegro is possibly unique in the car world - because I can think of no other car which was worse than the car it replaced in almost every respect.

To be fair, the "All aggro" had a very hard act to follow in the classic Issigonis designed ADO16 and it wasn't the fault of the car that the launch was more about what the car wasn't than what it was.

Despite its appearance, it wasn't a hatchback, it wasn't very good looking (in fact it was downright ugly) and it wasn't very well put together. Other than that, the only thing that grabbed attention was the square "Quartic" steering wheel - an innovation so successful that it was dropped soon after launch. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about the Allegro is that it survived in production for ten years and more than half a million of the things found owners.

The nickname "All aggro" was also largely deserved with problems with the "Hydragas" suspension which tended to either make the occupants feel sea sick or leave the car spreadeagled on roads like Bambi on ice.

I only drove an Allegro once - and that was more than enough for me. It wasn't a driver's car. However, it was a very pleasant car to be driven in (as long as you could handle the suspension) because it was very spacious inside with plenty of rear legroom and headroom.

There must have been something about the Allegro, though, because there still seem to be a fair few of them on our roads in regular use and I know two people who have had nothing but Allegros for the last 20 years. I've no idea what it is about the car, but they appear to survive better than just about anything else from that era. There could be any number of reasons for that, but I suspect that it is just the great British tradition of supporting the underdog.

Something sinister at the BBC

On the face of it, this report from the BBC website seems reasonable.

But check out the picture of Lord Pearson. Do you think it would have been possible for the BBC to have found a more sinister picture of the UKIP leader?

I don't - and I don't think it is a coincidence either. This is another example of the BBC's institutional bias showing through its rather thin veneer of "impartiality".

I know that news organisations put a great deal of effort into finding the "right" pictures for their articles. The old adage that a picture speaks a thousand words is as true today as it has ever been and the BBC use this to promote their particular ideology.

The BBC is not impartial.

It does not deserve to be publicly funded.

English Airways

To be honest, I don't have much sympathy with BA over the planned strike by cabin crew. Not because I support the unions position - I don't. As far as I can see, this strike will probably result in a lot more of them losing their jobs and having to take pay cuts as it will probably be the final nail in the airlines coffin - but if they want to destroy the company that pays their wages then good luck to them.

I don't care about BA because they've spent the last 10-20 years trying to divest themselves of the "stigma" of the word "British" in their name. The only time they ever refer to themselves as "British Airways" is when it suits them to - like when they want something from the government or the people of Britain. The rest of the time they stick to "BA" and pretend they're nothing to do with Britain.

Personally, I think the management and staff of BA deserve each other.

Perhaps, when the company is finally dead and buried, we can have a national airline that is proud to carry the name of our country.

A classical mistake

Over on The Telegraph, Simon Heffer is having a poke at Labour's record on individual liberty.

We live in a country where harmless people taking pictures of cathedrals are warned off by police invoking anti-terrorism laws; where the same legislation is used to regulate the positioning of wheelie bins; where smoking is banned even in public places whose owners wish to allow it; where the hunting of vermin is banned even on the land of those who wish to have it hunted. All these invasions of individual autonomy have taken place since 1997.

All fair points and quite true. Heffer goes on to describe how a book about liberalism has forced him to think about such things and wonders how it is that liberalism has such a bad name these days.

Well, first of all - it doesn't. The term "liberal" is indeed used as a derogatory term by US conservatives, but beyond that relatively small band of people it is generally seen as a positive thing. Heffer points out that "Mrs Thatcher was a 19th century liberal" and goes on to describe himself as a "Gladstonian liberal".

As Heffer rightly notes, 19th century, Gladstonian liberalism was very different from the liberalism of today. Today, "liberalism" generally means progressive liberalism which is simply a form of socialism (but one that avoids the stigma of the term socialism) which employs the tools of political correctness and the "rights" of victim groups to push cultural Marxism on to an unsuspecting people.

What Heffer forgets though, is that the form of classical liberalism he refers to took root during the time of the nation state. This is a crucial point to understand about classical liberalism and individual liberty as I will now try to explain.

To have individual liberty and "autonomy" you need to have sovereignty - the power to make the decisions that affect your "territory" - in this case, your person. The further that sovereignty is removed from an individual, the less autonomy they will have. In any form of society, no individual will have complete autonomy - even if there is no organised system of government - because there are always others that you may have to defer that autonomy too whether it be members of your immediate family or the "tribe". This is a simple natural state (even primitive animals defer autonomy).

In the historical rise of a civilised society, that autonomy is deferred to various levels - from the individual to the family. From the family to the parish. From the parish to the county and from the county to the nation. Through each stage, the autonomy of the individual decreases. The only thing that binds it together throughout each stage is the culture - the shared values, traditions and institutions of the society.

Deferment of autonomy is an historically bottom up process. It begins with the individual and rises up through the various levels of societal structure. The governed defer autonomy to the government. This is why the nation state is the ultimate conclusion of society as it is the top level of society that can exist for any given culture (which is also why "multiculturalism" can not work and will eventually lead to the break up of a nation).

Classical liberalism took root during the time when the nation state had risen to prominence throughout the world. It worked only because of the nation state - it can not work in a form beyond that as that relies on a top down process where the governors defer autonomy of the governed, not vice versa - and where it does not defer autonomy it imposes its requirements on a people regardless of - and often against - their culture.

This is what we are seeing with modern progressive liberalism. We are seeing the imposition of rules and laws which go against our national culture - and this is resulting in the erosion of traditional British liberty. Those rules and laws increasingly come not from our government, but from various unelected and unaccountable corporate bodies of bureaucrats - the UN, EU, WTO etc.

Classical 19th century liberalism worked as well as it did only because of the existence of the nation state and only within the context of a nation state. People like Heffer who suppose that the same principles can work on a global context fail to understand the basic principle of individual liberty - the deferment of autonomy is a bottom up process and only acceptable amongst people with shared values, traditions and institutions - i.e. a shared culture.

People like Heffer want their cake and to eat it too. They want the social and personal benefits that are derived from the nation state at the same time as they want a globalised "laissez faire"* economic system - but they can't have it both ways. If you have this globalised economy, then you will need to accept that some global authority is going to decide what you can and can not do - regardless of your historic national, cultural traditions - and you have to realise that this "authority", once established, is never going give you any of your personal autonomy back and will only take more and more of it away.

* It's worth noting also that the term "laissez faire" also rose to prominence with the nation state and was only used in the context of a national economy.

Money for nothing?

You know, I had no idea that the Labour Party was so reliant on one union for a quarter of its funding and that over one hundred Labour MPs are members of that union - Unite. I can't help feeling that there is something rotten about that.

That the governing party should be so dependent on one organisation and appears to reward that organisation with parliamentary seats and cabinet posts would cause outrage if that organisation were a private enterprise. Imagine if the Tories were dependent on BaE for a quarter of its funding and went on to stuff its front benches with BaE management - there would be outrage from the left (and from me too).

I just hope the mainstream parties don't use this as an excuse to resurrect the idea of public funding for political parties. I'm sure they will try, but there is no justification for this whatsoever. We should, however, have strict rules on funding for political parties - the first of which being that all donations to a political party must be from individual British subjects using their own money and capped at £50,000 per year. There should be nu funding from corporations - whether private enterprises or public bodies.

I also want to see and end to corporate political lobbying - again, regardless of whether it comes from a private corporation, a national union or trans-national NGO. I have no problem with the principle of a corporation - regardless of its nature - writing to their local MP, but they have no right to the ear of government just because they are large and powerful. That goes against the grain of democracy.

Above all, political parties must start to live within their means and only spend what they can afford to spend. If this means they have to get out on the streets to get their message across instead of relying on expensive and flashy television adverts then that has to be good. Perhaps then we can start to have a proper political debate instead of a media directed one.

These organisations are not handing over great wads of cash to the main political parties for nothing. They do it because they expect to gain something out of it. I just think that is plain wrong in a democracy - and it ought to be stopped.

Repeating myself (2)

Another subject I keep on banging on about - apparently to no avail - is globalised economics.

I still keep coming across articles and comments from people who seem to have an intimate grasp of the detail of micro and macro economics, but appear to have forgotten entirely the first rule of markets - that a market, if free, will find its own level.

For the last fifteen to twenty years we've taken advantage of this by allowing globalisation to progress. It means we get cheap clothes, cheap food and cheap consumer goods - but the market does not just apply to goods.

It applies just as equally to wages.

In a globalised market it is fantasy to assume that we can continue to pay ourselves the comparatively high salaries which we enjoy regardless of what job you are in. The emerging nations do not just have an endless supply of cheap labour to knock out t shirts at 10p a time, they are increasingly producing large numbers high quality graduates with rock solid degrees in engineering, science and technology.

What is more, they are increasingly able to offer these graduates positions where their knowledge will be put to use and will increase - and those graduates are happy to do that work for far less than someone doing the same job will demand in Britain.

And there are still people pushing the fallacy that we, in Britain, can just turn our attention to doing things that they can not do in these emerging nations. Like what? As a right wing conservative I'm often accused of racial stereotyping, but at least I don't go around suggesting that the Chinese and Indians are too thick to do really complicated jobs. Not only are they more than capable of doing anything that we can do in this country, they are far better placed to fund the research needed to come up with innovative new ideas and technologies.

Over the last fifty years or so we have seen our industrial segments slowly disappear as cheap foreign industries take over. Now we've reached the point where there is nothing left that we do that can not be done cheaper and just as well by the emerging nations. From agriculture to aerospace and textiles to technology - they can do it all. What little remains of our industrial base is largely foreign owned - and those that aren't are dependent on imports to make anything anyway whether it is the raw materials, the tools or the energy they use.

Granted, there are some things which you just can not outsource to other nations - like cleaning toilets, digging up roads or serving in shops - but as wages drop then so will demand for those sort of jobs. Why bother paying someone to clean your toilet when you can do it yourself for nothing? Why bother fixing the roads when nobody can afford the vehicles that use them? And what good is a shop if nobody has any money to buy anything?

The wealth of a nation comes from what it can produce and sell. If all that you are selling is stuff that comes from outside of the country then that means that is where all your wealth is going.

A country that makes nothing is worth nothing.

Globalisation is nothing new. It has been tried twice before and on both occasions it resulted in a credit bubble, market distortions and, eventually, a depression. This time, however, the globalisation is on a far larger scale, the credit bubble is enormous and the market distortions even greater.

The measures brought in are nothing more than sticking plasters on a gaping wound. They might last long enough to hide the scale of the damage for a short time, but they are not a solution - and nor is more world wide regulation by some unelected bunch of technocrats.

There is only one solution - a national government that puts the interests of its people, its businesses, its manufacturing and its producers before anything else. That means protectionism and rebuilding our manufacturing industry. You can keep putting off the inevitable all you like - but all that will do is ensure that the depression will be longer and deeper than it needs to be.

Repeating myself (1)

I know that I keep repeating myself on this blog, but I'm not going to make any apologies for doing so. The reason is simple - first of all, the same issues keep coming up in the news and secondly, most of the people I talk to still don't get the points I'm trying to make.

So here I go again.

Making the Upper House an elected chamber will not make Britain more "democratic". If all democracy was about was having lots of elections then the Soviet Union would have been one of the most democratic nations this world has ever seen. It wasn't. What makes a democracy is an electoral system which gives the people a real choice in their representative assembly (we have no choice now - just three parties with the same policies) backed by a constitution that prevents politicians - elected or not - from abusing the power they have.

Nu Labour have already done much to remove the constitutional barrier through a series of changes that amount to nothing less than constitutional vandalism. If they are allowed to remove the only barrier that remains in the House of Lords - and a pretty weak one it is at that after the changes they have already made - then there will be nothing left to prevent that abuse of power by some future government.

An elected second chamber - if it happens to reflect the makeup of the first chamber - increases the likelihood of that happening even more. Even if Labour's intentions are good (debatable) then there is nothing to suppose that all future governments intentions will be.

There have been almost as many versions of democracy tried as there are nations over the centuries - none worked better than the British system. It's why we have avoided the extremism and conflicts that have taken in place in so many of those other "democratic" nations - particularly in Europe. We should never forget that Hitler came to power quite legitimately - and that he could never have done so in Britain. Why on earth would we want to change our proven and successful system for a European model which has repeatedly failed?

Don't say you weren't warned. No - I don't mean that I warned you - the warnings are there in history. Ignore them at your peril, but don't ever say that you didn't know.

Lower alcohol limites for drivers will do nothing

The government are planning to introduce lower alcohol limits for drivers claiming that this will save 65 lives a year.

Rubbish! This claim that it will save lives is pushed out simply to justify the continuing attack on the liberal progressives two favourite targets - drivers and moderate drinkers.

If they were really concerned about "saving lives" they'd pull our troops out of Afghanistan.

If "saving lives" was really a concern of this government they'd do something about the NHS which kills untold thousands of people every year.

The vast majority of people drink and drive responsibly. They stick to the limit and drive home quite safely, responsibly and reliably. The ones that cause the problems are the ones who drink excessively and then drive and changing the drink drive limit will have no impact on them whatsoever. Half of them don't even have driving licences or insurance. An awful lot of them are people in positions of authority or celebrity. They drink more than the limit now and they will continue to do so no matter what that limit is.

This is yet another attack on Mr & Mrs Average - the law abiding, tax paying decent family types who enjoy a pint or a glass of wine with their friends every so often. We represent the thing that the liberal progressives hate most - decent, traditional, working class British subjects.

Now you know that they hate you - why do you keep voting for them?

Ranting Stan's Irrational Hatred Of The Week: Liquid Soap

Liquid soaps - the sort that come in plastic bottles with pump dispensers - are quite probably the biggest marketing con of the last ten years or so. There was a period - about 3 or 4 years ago - when Mrs Stan was enamoured with the things and our kitchen and bathroom sink were cluttered with liquid soaps.

Each bottle of liquid soap cost two or three quid. The pump dispenser encourages you to always use more than you really need and the bottle doesn't last much more than a week with a family of four. That's assuming that the pump dispenser works anyway. Half the time they don't - you pump and pump as the gunky mess dribbles out reluctantly then pump so hard the bottle slips on the wet porcelain and goes flying across the bathroom. When you chuck it away - after a week or two - you're chucking away a large lump of plastic complete with a pump dispenser and probably half an inch of gunk in the bottom.

Compare that to your average twin pack of Imperial Leather. It costs about a quid and will last you for two to three months. When it gets low you just get a new bar and mould the remnants of the old bar into the new bar. It never gets wasted and the rubbish from the new bar consists of a tiny scrap of paper.

Liquid soaps are wasteful, expensive and environmentally unfriendly.

I hate them.

A great sport .... ruined

The sport of cricket has long been my favourite and is just about the only professional sport I take any sort of real interest in now - but over the last ten years or so there has been very very little live coverage of it on television.

So I was quite looking forward to the live coverage of the Indian Premier League cricket that's on ITV4. What a load of old rubbish it was. It's not just that the coverage itself was awful - which it was - it's the sort of "cricket" that this version of the game produces.

Before cricket was tainted by money it was a game of subtlety and style. For anyone who really appreciates the game there are few better sights than that of a batsman playing a perfectly executed and timed cover drive - a front foot shot which appears so effortless and elegant yet results in the ball singeing along the turf of the outfield as it flashes to the boundary rope.

But with the IPL travesty that calls itself cricket there is none of that subtlety. It's all about flinging the bat at the ball with no subtlety whatsoever. There is no rhythm to the game, no elegance, no tactical battle - just endless slogging.

The crowd hoot and jeer as loud music pounds out incessantly from the stadium speakers. The players dress in brash coloured kit plastered in advertising and numbers. Numbers! Why the hell do cricket players need numbers on their shirts?

I won't be watching again - I don't know what it is, but the IPL isn't cricket. It's taken a great game and ruined it as money in sport invariably does.

To the police - a reminder

The death of David Askew, hounded to death by gangs of youths, has brought out the police to tell us that they did "everything they could" to stop his tormentors. I believe that they believe they did - but I do not believe that they did.

The trouble is, the police have forgotten what they are there for. They think - or rather, the people who determine strategy think - that the job of the police is to report offences and, if possible, solve crimes. Although that is a part of what they do it is NOT the purpose of the police force. So, just to remind the police of what their job is, here - once again - is Sir Robert Peel's first principle.

The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

Did you notice that? In case you didn't let me write it again - this time with some emphasis.

The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

Get it now?

No. I don't think you did completely. So let me add a little more emphasis.

The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

Now you see it don't you? No - I can see that you still don't completely understand it so, one last time, here it is with some added emphasis.

The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

Now you get it - so what are you going to do about it? David Askew died because the police failed in their basic mission - to prevent crime and disorder. They might insist that they did everything they could - I know they did not because they failed to fulfil even the basic purpose for their existence.

Where's the liberal outrage?

When it comes to compulsory sex education in school I am firmly opposed to it for a number of reasons.

First of all, I am against it because I do not see that it is any business of the state. I am, I think, a responsible parent. I know my kids better than any government official and I know when they will need to know about sex and how much to tell them at any given time. As far as I'm concerned, sex education is the job of the parent or guardian and nobody else.

That said, I have no problem with the teaching of the human reproductive system as part of biology as long as it is done in a cold, scientific manner - but this sort of thing isn't usually taught until well into secondary school.

I'm also opposed to it because I do not believe that it achieves its stated objectives - i.e. to reduce the number of young, unmarried girls getting pregnant. Before we had sex education, such things were very rare occurrences, but now they are commonplace. Of course, the liberals like to justify it by reminding us that there was a significant of rise in teenage pregnancies during the sixties - but this is a false argument. Firstly because the vast majority of teenage women getting pregnant during the sixties were older teenagers and married. Secondly, it was the sixties that first saw the introduction of sex education in school and thirdly, there was the "sexual revolution".

I'm also opposed to it because I don't agree with the idea that sex education should be non-judgemental. If you are going to have sex education it should be just the opposite with particular emphasis placed on sex being part of a loving relationship - preferably between a husband and his wife - and that its main purpose is not recreational but to produce children. We all know that most children respond well to clear boundaries - and that includes telling them what is right and wrong. If you do not make this clear when you discuss sex with them then of course they will push those boundaries - its what kids do (as any parent knows). You have to be judgemental with children and in clear terms.

Another reason for my opposition to compulsory sex education is that it will sexualise extremely young children. Childhood is a very precious time for anybody - it is also extremely short in the context of our lives. Discussing sex with young children forces them to think about adult things that they should have no interest in. Childhood should be about playing games, playing with toys, playing with friends - not playing with each others genitals.

Finally, we quite rightly get upset about the abuse of children by Catholic priests - but abuse of our children by teachers is far more prevalent. It doesn't matter if the vast majority of teacher-pupil relationships are consensual or even if the pupil was over the age of consent at the time - it still represents an appalling abuse of power by teachers and a serious cause for concern for any right minded parent.

The idea of letting some unrelated adult discuss intimate sexual detail with a child who is likely to see that adult as an authority figure and, consequently, someone they have to acquiesce to is disturbingly creepy to say the very least. The fact that many teachers go on to use that position of authority as a basis for a sexual relationship with a child in their care would cause outrage amongst the liberal progressives if it was anything other than a state approved official - but they don't mind as long as its one of their own.

Cameron should take heed

Suzy Jagger wonders what happened to the feminist parliamentary dream represented by the "Blair Babes" of 1997 over on The Times.

Are the likes of Caroline Flint and Theresa Villiers the true heirs to Lady Thatcher? What was the “outstanding contribution” to public life that Gordon Brown attributed to Hazel Blears when she resigned from the Cabinet last year?


In part, she answers her own questions. Even though there are more women MPs now than there has ever, the majority of them are neither heard nor seen while those that have been promoted to the front benches - on both sides of the house - have invariably been rubbish at the job.

That is inevitable when the decision on who should get a particular job is not based on whether they have the requisite experience, flair or capability - but simply the fact they are of the "right" gender (or religion, sexual preference or ethnicity).

If there is a lesson to be learned here (and let's face it - the liberals love to tell us how "lessons have been learned") it is that women only shortlists for prospective parliamentary candidates today will mean a dearth of seriously capable politicians available to hold high office tomorrow.

Merit is the only factor that should matter when it comes to choosing your candidate for a parliamentary seat - particularly if it is one you hope to take from the opposition and hold on to. Parachuting some dullard into place on the basis that they fulfil a quota is a bad idea.

Finally, you have to wonder about the hypocrisy of it as well. As a white, heterosexual male I've spent the last 40 years of my life being told that I'm a sexist, racist homophobe by the liberal left - but I'm not the one saying that women are more inclined to vote for women, blacks or more likely to vote for blacks, Asians are more likely to vote for Asians and gays are more likely to vote for gays.

If all that is true, then it is must be true also that women are more sexist than men, blacks and Asians more racist than whites and gays are more bigoted than heterosexuals. Either that or the really racist, sexist, bigoted bunch are the liberals.

Daft and dangerous

A report claims that two thirds of convicts serving prison sentences of less than one year go on to re offend costing the economy some £10 billion every year.

This is the equivalent of £400 for every household in Britain. As usual, this is the "evidence" that the hand-wringing liberals use to justify community "punishments" as, they claim, this is proof that prison doesn't work.

However, the same story in the Telegraph then reports .....

Around 60,000 offenders a year are jailed for less than 12 months – mostly for theft and violent crime - costing £286million a year to keep them in prison, the NAO said.

So, if you release them it costs the economy £10 billion - but it costs £256 million to keep them locked up. Maths isn't my strong point, but that works out at less than 1% of the cost of releasing them doesn't it? When it comes to value for money, keeping criminals locked up certainly works well compared to letting them out.

It's also worth remembering that when Labour came to power - promising to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime - re offending rates for released convicts were much lower than they are now at a little under 60%. However, even with a re offending rate of two thirds prison compares well to some other forms of punishment.

More than 90% of persistent young criminals on the community punishment programme re-offended within two years, an Oxford University study suggests.

And this is the sort of thing they claim is "better". Let's just sum up the liberal position here ...

Releasing criminals from prison costs £10,000,000,000
Keeping them locked up costs £256,000,000.
Re offending rates for those punished with jail is 67%.
Re offending rates for those punished with community punishments is 90%.

... and their conclusion is that jail doesn't work? They are not just daft - they are dangerous. My guess is that crime would fall considerably if we locked up all liberal progressives and threw away the key.

The purpose of this blog

I just want to clear something up about this blog and my purpose behind writing it.

The sole reason I started this blog was simply so that I had somewhere where I could have my say on anything that interested, delighted, annoyed or infuriated me. I blog under the assumed name of "Stan" simply because I sometimes want to say things that will not be politically correct and this could - I'm not saying it would, just could - cause conflicts with my employer who, like most employers, are required to sack people who say things the establishment don't like or prefer to keep hidden.

I use the name "Stan" for two reasons. Firstly, it seemed to fit well with "Ranting" and secondly, because, although it is not my name I do have a connection to it which my close friends will understand.

I am not a political blogger - I do not belong to any political party - I just happen to get annoyed and infuriated by a lot of things that are related to politics. I am not a single subject blogger who writes around a narrow theme - that wouldn't serve the purpose. I write about pretty much anything and everything because I am interested in pretty much anything and everything - the one major exception being sport.

That's not because I'm not sporty. I have, in my time, played competitive rugby, cricket and football as an adult. I dare say that I may even have reached a decent level in any of those had it not been for a nasty motorcycle accident when I was in my early twenties. I still play golf occasionally and I still take an interest in certain sports at an amateur level - but I lost interest in sports when they started to become businesses motivated almost entirely by money. I can't be bothered with that.

The clue to the purpose of this blog is in the title "Ranting Stan".

I'm Stan and I like a good rant.

Quarter of a million workers go on strike ......

.... and hardly anyone notices.

Let's see ..... the average wage for a public sector worker is around £25K a year which is about £70 a day. They're striking for 2 days for which they'll get no pay saving us, the taxpayer, around £30 million roughly.

Shame it's just two days. Do you think they might extend it a little ..... say, a couple of years?

Rights and wrongs

Whatever your views on Jon Venables release and subsequent return to prison there surely can be no disagreement on our right to know what he did to warrant this.

The Injustice Secretary, or whatever Jack Straw is officially called these days, says we don't have a right to know and other Labour politicians have expressed the opinion that the law decides this and that it isn't in the public interest.

Where in law does it say that the public do not have a right to know what crime a criminal has committed? How can the re-imprisonment of a serious offender not be public interest?

In these times when "rights" are scattered around like confetti at a wedding, it is increasingly obvious that certain "rights" of certain people trump those of all others - and it's us, the law abiding majority, whose rights are least respected.

Ranting Stan's Sunday Drive: Jaguar 420 G

I've always been a fan of Jaguar and remain one today, but of all the saloon cars they've built the 420 G is probably the least remembered - and yet happens to be my favourite.

For me it represents the ultimate combination of style and refined luxury - the S type being just a little too jelly mould and the XJ series being a little too brash (even though I love both of those too).

The 420 G was basically a Mark X with some minor detail changes, but enough to stand out as a model in its own right. A 4.2 litre straight six engine producing 265bhp meant that the 420 G was no slouch despite the massive proportions of the car and was capable of topping 120 mph and reaching 60 mph in around 10 seconds.

The size and style of the Jaguar 420 G resulted in it becoming a firm favourite for those with the means to be wafted around in chauffeur driven luxury and thus avoid the fate of the XJ which, being short on rear space, was better to drive than be driven in and became associated with dodgy car salesmen in the Arthur Daley mould or the S type which, thanks to shows like "The Sweeney" became associated with criminals.

Of course, being a working class kid from Slough, I never got to drive or be driven in a 420 G. Nevertheless, there were enough of them about in the late sixties and early seventies to leave a lasting impression on that working class kid and it remains the classic Jaguar I would most like to own today.

Shrink to fit

The news that the BBC is going to cut a couple of radio stations and reduce its Internet presence is a bit of a smokescreen. On the face of it it sounds as if the BBC, like the rest of us, is doing its best to reduce its costs. It isn't - and has no intention of doing so, but it has led to a debate about what we want from the BBC.

Do we keep Radio 3 and Radio 4 or just Radio 4? Do we need BBC 2 and BBC 4 or can we get by with just one TV channel? This is what I keep hearing - where do we cut the BBC?

We cut it at its source of funding - the licence fee.

The BBC is too big and is doing too much - way beyond its remit, in my opinion - but the debate about what services to cut is not the right way to think about how to reduce it. The obvious answer - obvious answer to me, anyway - is to force the BBC management to make the decision about what to cut and you do this by reducing the amount they receive from the taxpayer.

I'd start with a 10% reduction in the licence fee every year for five years followed by a ten year freeze. That should be enough to get the BBC to cut some of its multitude of stations and services.

Whether we're left with just one TV channel and one radio station is irrelevant - but if, after that fifteen year period, the BBC is failing to fulfil its remit as a public service broadcaster then just get rid of it.

Could this happen here?

To be honest, I don't know much about Wilders politics or that of his Freedom party - but the fact they are described by the media as "far right" suggests they are probably something like the BNP and, according to the Telegraph piece, Wilders is on course to become the next Prime Minister of Holland.

Personally, I've always thought it unlikely that a party like the BNP could ever make serious inroads into our political system. It happens all the time in Europe because - well, most Europeans are more reactionary and less stoical than us British. The politics of other European nations have always been a little flaky and swings towards extremism on the right and the left are not uncommon. On the whole, Europe does not have a great history on democracy - which is one of the reasons why I can not understand why we allow them to tell us how to do it!

However, I always thought Holland - of all the European countries - was the one most like us. The Dutch are a famously stoical and tolerant bunch as well. They are a constitutional monarchy and they don't have a history of political swings towards extremism. As I said, I don't actually know just how "extremist" Wilders is (probably not at all), but the fact that someone described as "far right" is seriously being touted as the next PM of Holland is still quite a surprise.

So could it happen here?

No - not under our present system.

You see, the factor in Wilders favour is the voting system - proportional representation - and we don't have PR in Britain.

At the moment.

But if some people get their way we will have - and then the prospect of a genuinely far right or far left party becoming a significant factor in our political system will be far greater.

Don't say you weren't warned.

What this case tells us about the BBC

There's more to this than meets the eye.

I'm not going to comment on the jail sentence which, as some commenter has already said, seems unduly harsh, but more about what this reveals about the prevailing ethos at the BBC.

It reveals just how immoral and seedy the BBC truly has become as an organisation. Once upon a time, "Auntie" held itself up as a paragon of virtue and high standards. What we now know - as evidenced by the employment of overpaid juvenile presenters who make dirty phone calls on air and the evidence of this case - is that the BBC is a cess pit of bed-hopping, cheating immorality.

In essence, the BBC is a microcosm of progressive liberalism and indicative of society in general under progressive liberalism - a showy surface of respectability underneath which lurks a filthy rotten body.

Time the youth took some responsibility

I briefly caught a discussion on the radio last night about youth and politics. I didn't hear the start or the end, but the discussion seemed to revolve around the revelation that something like 56% of 18-25 year olds have not bothered to register to vote. Furthermore, at the last election, although the overall turnout was just above 60% of the electorate the figure for those under 25 was just 37%.

I didn't catch the names of those involved in the discussion, but I heard someone say that young people were turned off politics because of the language used with "the right honourable this" and "the right honourable that". What a load of tosh. Why would the youth of today be put off by that when they weren't bothered in the least 50 or 60 years ago? Does this idiot think things would be better if Cameron referred to Brown as "the Labour dude" or Hague referred to his colleagues in the Tory Party as his "homies"?

I heard someone say that it would help if 16 year olds were given the vote. Why? If they can't be bothered to register at 18, what on earth makes this person think they'd do it at 16? In my opinion the voting age should, if anything, be raised not lowered.

The reality is that the youth of today, in general, prefer to whittle away their time on FaceSpace or MyTwit discussing clothes, pop music or gap years in Thailand. Those that do take an interest in politics generally prefer not to align themselves to some democratic process or political party, but prefer instead to sign up to non-democratic, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) who seek to impose their agenda without having to go through the dreary process of competing in elections.

Today's youth have never been so popular. They have TV stations dedicated specifically for their entertainment but funded by licence fee payers. Even the non-specific TV stations tend to plan their output for the 16-35 audience (can anyone explain to me why BBC One's Friday night line up consists almost entirely of shows aimed at that age group when the vast majority of them are out getting plastered in some drinking warehouse on a Friday night?).

On our high streets we have shops who only seem interested in people aged under 40. Our pubs, clubs and restaurants seem to cater specifically for younger clientele - except those that want to exploit us older people by making us pay rip off prices for half a plate of barely cooked pureed sludge (I don't want a jus or foam or froth - I have my own teeth and I like to chew my food not suck it!).

Why do we have to keep making allowances for the youth of today? Particularly as they are, apparently, amongst the most stupid in Europe? They must be - why else would we have the highest teen pregnancy rates, binge drinking rates and drug taking rates? Everyone over the age of 10 knows that sexual intercourse leads to pregnancy, drinking too much makes you fall over in your own vomit and taking hard drugs leaves you as a hopeless brain-addled addict - but they still do it in more numbers in this country than any other in Europe!

I'm fed up of this pandering to the youth of today who are forever being told that we must do more for them*. Why? Isn't it about time we stopped treating them like children and made them face up to their responsibilities? If they don't want to vote - don't let them vote. Raise the voting age up to 30 and see if that gets a response. Tell them now - use it or lose it.

* At the same time as we are pandering to adolescents and perma-adolescents (those over 20 who refuse to behave like adults) we have become the most child unfriendly society I can remember.

Cameron can win - but he needs the BNP

Yesterday I was saying that I don't think the Tories can win enough seats at the next election to enable them to form a government based on the latest opinion polls. However, there was one factor that I forgot to take into account - the BNP factor.

After the last election, someone did an analysis of the UKIP factor on Tory results - I think it was over on EU Referendum. Their analysis suggested that there were a number of closely contested seats which , had the UKIP vote transferred to the Tory party then the Conservatives would have won the seat - and if this had been translated across the country then the final result would have been much tighter resulting in, probably, a hung parliament.

Of course, not everyone who voted UKIP would necessarily have put their X next to the Tory party if UKIP weren't an option - there are plenty of left wing voters who are EU sceptics too - but there is no doubt that UKIP are very much a party in the old Tory mould and much more likely to attract right wing votes.

Of course, there have always been minor parties on the right and the left which have taken small amounts of votes away from the two main parties. I don't include the Lib Dems in this as they basically inherited an established voter base from the Liberal Party. Yes, there were defections from both Labour and Conservative voters to the Lib Dems, but these were balanced out by defections from the Liberal Party vote to Labour and Tory.

However, the arrival of UKIP on the scene was a significant change. Although they remain a minor party, there is no doubt that the number of votes they are winning is enough to influence results - and generally this is to the detriment of the Tory Party. While this has been happening to the Tory vote there hasn't been a similar significant challenge to the Labour vote.*

Until now. The growth of the BNP over the last decade means that they are now at a point where they could become Labour's "UKIP" - a party which takes enough votes away from Labour to leave them short in marginal seats that could result in a Tory victory. Make no mistake, the BNP are a party which appeals primarily to working class voters who would usually vote Labour.

The BNP factor may be crucial in the coming General Election. Will it be enough to give Cameron's Conservatives an election victory? Probably not, but it may just be enough to ensure a hung parliament. What is certain is that the Tories are reliant on the BNP doing well to have any hope of forming the next government.

I wonder how they feel about that!

* Some might point to the Green Party as Labour's equivalent to UKIP, but I don't include them in this even though The Green Party is an ultra left party. They appeal, primarily, to middle class urban voters and are more likely, if anything, to be taking votes away from the Tories and Lib Dems in urban areas where eco-fascism is popular than they are Labour - and Labour are very strong in urban areas. Nobody who has a serious interest in the environment and rural affairs would vote Green.

Desperate Dave

Call me Dave sound increasingly desperate as he tries to bolster public support for the Tory party - and fails.

Ever since the Tories elected Cameron as leader we've been subjected to a sustained media campaign to get him elected as Prime Minister - even though we don't elect Prime Ministers in this country. We elect MPs and it is they who choose who will be PM - with the ruling party usually having the say so and choosing their esteemed leader.

Nevertheless, the media have been telling us for years that Cam's the man to lead us. They don't like Brown, the media. I don't either, but I have more respect for him than I do Cameron - not a great deal more, but you don't need much to beat absolutely none whatsoever.

Despite their best efforts - and the fact that Brown's tenure as PM has been one disaster after another - the media's love affair with Cameron has failed to catch on with the voting public if the latest polls are anything to go by.

The latest polls suggest - according to the experts - a hung parliament with Labour being the largest party. I disagree. Thanks to the distribution and makeup of constituencies, a Tory poll lead of a couple of percentage points won't be enough for them to overturn a Labour majority. If we went to the polls tomorrow and the result matched the latest opinion poll I would expect Labour to retain a slim majority in parliament - not much, but enough to enable them to form a government.

To force a hung parliament, the Tories need to be rating around 45% in the opinion polls. To win a majority this will need to be 50% or over - anything less will leave parliament hung or, at the very best, a Tory majority so slender that they would have to horse trade with minor parties to get anything done.

So why is it that the voting public remain unconvinced by Cameron despite the best efforts of the media? That's hard to say - whatever can it be about a man who has no firm political principles, flip flops from one point of view to another, promises one thing one minute then something else the next and hasn't yet managed to put forward a single coherent, solid policy on any subject whatsoever.

Beats me.