One man, two votes

We're supposedly set to learn the date of the referendum on voting reform - a date which every one seems to think is going to be May 5th next year. If anything is likely to put a strain on the coalition love-in then this might be it.

The Tories favour retaining the traditional first past the post system - a one man, one vote form of voting which is simple, transparent and reasonably quick. The Lib Dems favour a proportional system - preferably using a one man, multiple vote system which is complicated, wide open to abuse and fraud and takes ages to deliver a result.

Some people argue that listing your preferred candidates is still one man, one vote - but it isn't. It's a single ballot paper, but each person casts multiple votes on each ballot paper - so there is no way it can be considered as a one man, one vote system.

I've mentioned before that a PR system of voting will completely change the way we do politics in this country and will remove the historic link between constituent and MP. The thing people forget - more than ever following the last election and the "leaders debates" - is that we do not vote for a party or a "leader"; we vote for an individual to represent us at parliament.

Of course, many people just vote for the individual who represents the party they support most - and that is fine - but it still should not detract from the simple fact that by electing a person to represent us at parliament the first past the post system gives us a direct link to governance that a proportional system will not have.

No doubt I'll come back to this in the coming months, but I know I am fighting a losing battle. The media have decided they want voting reform and voting reform we will get. That's probably the most dis-spiriting thing about politics today - that we get what the media (and the broadcast media in particular) decide we will get and not a lot else.

This is why policy decisions are made by leaking possibilities to the media to see what their reaction will be - and why the budget, which used to be so secret that only the Chancellor and a few advisers knew what would be in it right up until he rose to his feet in the Commons, is now common knowledge for days and often weeks in advance.

A couple of quickies

Listening to various "experts" pontificating over the election, a couple of things have struck me over the last couple of days.

First of all, I keep hearing them say that the "people" have "decided" that we want the parties to work together. I don't see how they can draw that conclusion - millions of people voted for the various parties wanting to see the party they voted for gain an overall majority. We didn't "choose" this situation - it just arose because the three main parties are unelectable in their own right.

That's not the same as saying we want them to work together - it's saying we think they are all rubbish.

The second thing that struck me was supposedly intelligent and knowledgeable people talking about "unelected" Prime Ministers.

In the sense that they mean, we have never ever had an elected Prime Minister. The PM is chosen by the governing party - not the people. The person chosen as PM is usually (but not always) a member of the House of Commons and, therefore, elected.

It's a fundamental part of our parliamentary system and the fact that so many people fail to understand this is ridiculous. In some ways I shouldn't be surprised as the failure of our schools to teach anything about Britain or British history other than how awful we were has been evident for some time - but most of the people making these stupid statements about "unelected" Prime Ministers were educated a long time before our education system was turned into a left wing indoctrination programme.

It makes me wonder if they are being disingenuous rather than inaccurate. If they are, then they are deliberately seeking to mislead the people as much as the government is. If they aren't then they really should not be given the prominence they receive on national television and radio to peddle their lack of knowledge.

The herd mentality of the political media

From a personal point of view, it's been nice to see a number of commentators in the mainstream media coming out and agreeing with me that these televised leaders debates may have been a bad idea.

Although that is, in some small way, quite satisfying, it is much less satisfying that only managed to reach this conclusion after the event. It demonstrates, in my view, a considerable failing in our political media that they are unable to consider the consequences of something before it happens correctly.

This is due, at least in part, to the fact that they are so deeply enmeshed in the political machine itself that so many are now unable to think independently anymore. They political media is the grease that keeps the political wheels of the three main parties moving and in power. They are the reason why progressive liberalism has such a hold on British politics and why nothing else can get a look in at the moment.

The leaders and main players of the three main parties know that they'll have camera crews, reporters and photographers following their every step as they move from stage-managed "public" event to another and they make use of this free and extraordinarily biased publicity while every other party scrabbles for the crumbs that the media throw in their direction - on very one-sided terms.

The trouble is, because the political media are so close to the three main parties, they have lost the capability for objective journalism which is why they can not see the possible consequences of various proposals such as these debates.

It's why they can not understand the problems that things such as proportional representation, an elected House of Lords or alterations to the voting system will bring. They have a herd mentality now and can not think beyond the narrow margins that they work in. Nor will they be able to as long as they remain in the thrall of the three main parties.

What we need more than ever is an independent and free media.

The big sleep

Ok, I only managed to watch three quarters of an hour of the "prime ministerial" debate last night - and that was more than enough to get me dozing off in my armchair. As debates go, it was one hell of a yawn and if this is the best that they can come up with galvanise the public into going to the polling booths to cast their votes then we could be in for a record low turn out on May 6th.

Where do I begin? I suppose the best place is to start with the policies and hard substance that the three leaders came up with.

............

OK - that's got that bit over with so let's move on to what this was really about - style and personality.

Brown looked awkward and shabby. For some reason he always reminds me of the TV detective Lieutenant Columbo played by Peter Falk - perhaps it's the dodgy eye. If his stylists gave him a grubby mac and stuck a half-chewed cigar in his paw he'd probably appeal much more to viewers than he does now. Or he might look like a flasher - it's hard to know unless they try it.

Of course, they can't do that because modern politicians never wear overcoats these days (because they are rarely out of their cars) and because being seen to be a smoker is considered slightly worse than strangling cats for a hobby.

Cameron looked shifty. The poor man tries so hard to appear sincere, but fails miserably - he just comes across as opportunist and fake. Part of the problem is that nobody knows what he stands for still. He talks in vague, sweeping generalisations and mouths the required rhetoric - but none of it sounds genuine no matter how hard he tries to appear earnest and passionate. It's clearly as false as Lt. Columbo's glass eye.

Clegg won the "debate" easily - but that was to be expected. As the leader of the Liberal Democrats he has nothing to defend so could spend all his time on the attack - but the man looked like a sixth former at a school assembly alongside his headmaster and geography teacher. That image was exacerbated by the patronising way both Cameron and Brown repeatedly kept trying to ally themselves to Clegg - possibly a tactic in the event of a hung parliament.

Ultimately, none of them had anything to say that was new, fresh or even vaguely approached the idea of real solutions to Britain's many problems. Worst of all, they all seemed to agree on the fundamental approach to these problems with only minor differences on detail. This is, of course, because all three lead parties with broadly similar political philosophies - left of centre progressive liberalism.

Overall, the event confirmed my worst fears. It will do nothing to improve the democratic process of Britain but will further entrench the social liberal hegemony. The media got what they wanted - they froze out dissent, stifled argument and bolstered the liberal elite's stranglehold on British politics.

They'll spend the next few days telling us how fantastic this was - how it was "groundbreaking" and will change the face of British politics forever. In truth it was dull, dishonest and instead of changing anything it has merely ensured that the progressive liberal hold on the political system - an ideology supported by the media at the expense of all others - remains intact.

I suspect that was always the intention.

The Pink Inquisition

McCarthyism is alive and well and living in Britain.

I found this out last night as I watched Channel 4 News and a debate about immigration consisting of Chris Grayling for the Tory Party, Chris Huhne for the Liberal Democrats and Phil Woolas for Labour.

Th debate was dull with none of the parties offering any solutions to the problem, but as it ended, Jon Snow - the news presenter - turned to Chris Grayling (who was the only one in the studio) and began asking him questions about his comments regarding B&B owners turning away gays.

He then finished with a series of rapid fire questions - I don't recall the exact wording or sequence, but they were along the lines of .....

"How did you vote on civil partnerships?"
"How did you vote on Section 28?"
How did you vote on gay adoption?"

This amounted to nothing less than a McCarthy style witch hunt - but one being conducted by an unelected clique. Grayling's voting in the House of Commons is a matter of record - Snow could have found out the questions to all of these with a little research - but that wasn't the point.

The point was to ram home the message that opposition to the pink agenda will not be tolerated - that those who dare oppose it will be ruthlessly hunted down, vilified and, if possible, punished.

Personally, I've been indifferent about gay rights up until this point - it doesn't effect me so I don't much care about it either way - but this has revealed something sinister. It has revealed the fact that elected members of parliament are no longer allowed to hold opinions that do not match those of the liberal elite who really run this country.

I believe that people have the right to approve of homosexuality, but equally believe that others have just as much right to disapprove of it. The most important thing is that those opinions are freely and honestly held - not demanded or forced.

I also believe that news presenters are not there to push their own opinions down the throat of the watching public. Snow is entitled to his own views, of course, but he is not entitled to use a news programme to push those views or promote his own personal agenda.

He should be sacked. If he isn't then we will know that McCarthyism is not just alive and well in this country - it is an active policy of the media.

The deficit delusion

All three of the main political parties are making the same noises regarding the economy. All three of them have creative - and largely unsubstantiated - plans for reducing the budget deficit.

None of them seem to understand that this is not enough. Not only is it just "not enough", it's far far too little.

None of them have any proper plans for tackling the real issue - the spiralling debt problems. What they are basically saying is that all they are going to do is reduce the speed at which they continue to recklessly spend money they don't have.

Nor is there any point in paying off any of the national debt while running a deficit. If you have £100,000 of debt, does it help to borrow £6000 more and pay off £3000 of that debt? of course not - you'll now be £103,000 in debt! As long as we continue to run a budget deficit then the national debt will continue to increase.

All this talk by the main parties about how they will tackle the budget deficit is deceitful and delusional. The deficit doesn't need to be halved or slashed - it needs to be eliminated entirely.

Everyone knows this, but no one is saying it. They won't say it because they know it won't be popular - but it is necessary. We have to reduce spending and/or raise taxes to the point where the budget is in surplus. Until that is done, our national debt will continue to increase and the harder it will be to administer the medicine required.

We can not continue to spend what we haven't got.

We can't even continue to spend slightly less of what we haven't got.

We must spend less than we have available and use the surplus to reduce the huge debt burden.

There is no other choice. To pretend there is is delusional.

A bad smell

I don't smoke.

Well, I do smoke the very occasional cigar - nothing complements the smoky subtlety of a good malt whisky like a quality cigar - but I don't smoke cigarettes. It's not because I have any particular objection to cigarette smoking - I don't - it's just a habit that never caught on with me.

One of the reasons for that is possibly that I grew up in a household that was permanently shrouded in a fug of cigarette smoke. My dad smoked cigarettes, my mother smoked cigarettes and both my older brothers smoked cigarettes. I remember how we would all be sitting around chuckling along to Morecambe & Wise with a blue grey haze hanging from the ceiling like an inverted morning mist.

I know that all of my many cousins grew up in similar households as did my school chums. I remember wedding receptions where the adult guests smoked freely in the local village halls while us kids sipped our bottles of cola through straws and how a dozen or more of us would crowd around a table at the local British Legion where the ashtray would be overflowing with stubbed out cigarette butts while we peered through a shroud of cigarette smoke at the band playing "Tie A Yellow Ribbon" for the third time that evening.

Despite all this, neither myself or any of the other kids I knew at the time suffered from the effects of "passive smoking". There was one kid at school who was always ill with ear infections, asthma and the like, but his parents were amongst the few that didn't smoke, refused to allow smoking in their home and were obsessive vegetarians. I remember going around there once for tea (not the drink, but the evening meal as it used to be when we had dinner at midday) and being confronted with a plate of leaves. I never went there again and that kid never seemed to have any friends.

Anyway, people of my generation grew up in homes filled with cigarette smoke. We played in streets choked with leaded petrol fumes, smoke from coal fires and pollution from the Slough Trading Estate.

So why is it all different now?

Between 500 to 1,000 children a year end up in hospital because they are exposed to their parents' smoking.

Right. So we now live in a world where kids rarely come into contact with cigarette smoke, don't play in streets clogged with pollution from coal fires and leaded petrol and they're less healthy than we were?

Something stinks about this story and it isn't cigarette smoke.

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.

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.

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.

It's official - breathing is bad for your health

That's according to the US Environmental Protection Agency after they formally declared that "greenhouse" gases endanger health. The principal gas they are concerned about, of course, is CO2 which you and I exhale every time we take a breath - so we're killing ourselves by breathing according to this ridiculous ruling.

It's also worth pointing out that by far the most prevalent greenhouse gas is water vapour. So, according to the barking mad people who make these decisions, water is a dangerous substance.

It just demonstrates how ridiculous this whole thing has become when the product of our breathing and the essential elements of life on earth are declared harmful to public health - but what would you expect when the people who perpetuate this myth are allowed to blatantly lie on TV and in our media without so much as a challenge?

Only this morning on BBC Breakfast, Sir David King - the government's chief propaganda - sorry scientific - advisor declared that they "know" man's activities are responsible for the warming we saw in the 20th century.

They know no such thing - it is supposition based on flawed computer models which have been proven to be incapable of predicting the climate even a year or two in advance let alone 100 years from now. And yet he is allowed to state this as a fact when it is nothing of the sort.

Well, he might as well make the most of it while he can. One day - not that far off in my opinion - the fallacy of the AGW argument is going to be exposed for what it is. And when that happens, the people who have sought to pull the wool over our eyes will have to face some very difficult questions - to say the least.

The curious case of Climategate and auto-suggest

Harold Ambler on Talking About The Weather has discovered something curious about the Climategate scandal and goings on at Google. He noticed that when the row first broke, the Google auto suggest feature would kindly fill in the word climategate as soon as you typed the first few letters into the search box.

This no longer happens. Indeed, as you can see from the images below, even if you type the whole phrase in you get no hints - instead getting something about "climate guatemala" (which doesn't even match the letter sequence!) - and yet the query yields 30,000,000 hits.














As Ambler points out, this curious anomaly only appears to afflict the phrase "climategate". Ambler has been in contact with Google who have assured him that there has been no policy decision to suppress the scandal - I'm not convinced.

Indeed, following on from the leaked CRU emails, this adds even more fuel to the Anthropogenic Global Warming conspiracy theory which is unfolding before our eyes. We can now see that the conspiracy does not just include various politicised scientists and environmental groups, but major media organisations as well - and not just the BBC either!

The real "deniers"

As someone who is somewhat sceptical of the argument that the world is warming dangerously due to human emissions of carbon dioxide, I've been following the "Climategate" (oh, blimey!) incident with interest.

If you haven't heard of this you could be forgiven as the MSM have made very little of the incident - particularly on the BBC - despite the incredible revelations that have been made. Essentially it comes down to this - someone hacked or "acquired" a large number of emails and other info from the Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA).

These emails have been confirmed as genuine and reveal - amongst other things - a conspiracy by a small number of highly politicised scientists to hide, manipulate and massage data with the clear intent of promoting the dubious Anthropogenic Global Warming theory through both the IPCC, scientific journals and the MSM. As Booker says, it is a huge scandal for science which makes it all the more incredible that the coverage has been so thin.

This small group of scientists have repeatedly sought to prevent other independent scientists from reviewing the methods and data used to promote the AGW theory, denying them access to data and computer code which would allow them to test the conclusions of this small group of AGW proponents.

It is these people who like to label sceptics as "deniers" - but now we see who the real deniers are. They are a disgrace to the scientific community.

Talking heads

Back in the days when the TV bulletin was fifteen to twenty minutes long once a night the news was just that - news. A newsreader would read out the headlines either accompanied by a picture of the related person/incident or a short film without commentary.

The nearest we would get to opinion would be a raised eyebrow or an inflection in the voice of the newsreader, but with the rise of 24 hour rolling news channels TV news reporting has changed radically.

One of the most disturbing changes - in my opinion - has been the rise of the talking head; a person who may or may not be employed by the news broadcaster, but is promoted by that organisation as an "expert" on a subject.

Now virtually every item of news includes the appearance of a talking head to explain what the news means - but this is almost invariably based purely on their own personal opinion or (if they are indeed employed by that broadcaster) the opinion of their bosses.

I have two problems with this. First of all, it doesn't allow much room for the viewer to form their own opinion. Although many will do so anyway, there is a huge number of people who will accept what that talking head says just because they are supposed to be an expert and they are appearing on a well regarded news channel which they trust.

My second problem is that it is not news broadcasting, but opinion forming which I believe should be kept out of television news reporting. Essentially, it is a form of propaganda which is insidious and damaging.

Defining moments in our lives

I mentioned yesterday that we had some family news, but what I didn't say was that the news was bad. It was only much later in the day when we found out just how bad the news was, however. I'm not going to go into detail - no one has died - but a family has been left devastated by a criminal act.

What I will say is this. There are things happening in this country which the authorities, including the police and with the collusion of the media are making sure we are not being informed about. They are doing this for political reasons and they are doing it to disguise the fact that this country has descended into a feral cesspool of vile, immoral criminality as a direct result of the policies pursued by this and previous governments over the last forty years or more.

More and more of us are now discovering the truth about just how bad things are - but only because something has happened to someone we care about.

This is not good.

Conflicting results

Given this governments fondness for using statistics to promote their "success" it would seem that the latest data on knife crime is showing that new policies are having a positive effect.

The government's Tackling Knives Action Programme started last July in 10 police areas in England and Wales.

Robberies with sharp instruments against those aged 19 and under also fell by 13% while knife-related hospital admissions fell 32%, compared to 18% in non-TKAP areas.

That's good isn't it? OK - it's clear from those statistics that there is something not quite right with the TKAP programme if those areas failed to reduce knife crime as much as non-TKAP areas, but overall it is positive surely?

Not entirely.

In its first nine months, 126 people died after being attacked with a knife or other sharp object - seven more than in the same period the previous year.

Hmmm - so there are fewer knife offences, but more people dying from knife wounds? Something isn't quite right here. Perhaps the knife users are getting better at using their tool of choice or maybe the NHS is getting worse at treating knife wounds?

Or maybe the statistics are complete and utter rubbish.

Bath or holiday? You can't have both.

Who says so?

A certain Lord Redesdale of the all-party parliamentary climate change group.

"We can either heat our homes and have hot baths, or fly but not both. There really does need to be much tougher policies on reducing carbon emissions from the homes."

Of course, when he says "we" he means you and me - not him. I really can't imagine his Lordship giving up his hot bath and foreign holidays - sorry, I mean fact-finding missions to the Caribbean - can you?

What is all this about? "Tougher policies on reducing carbon emissions from the homes"? That sounds suspiciously like compulsion to me - i.e. we (the ruling elite) have to force you (the mug electorate) to use less energy because we (the ruling elite) can't be arsed to have an effective energy policy.

So we're going to be forced to use less energy - and for what? Man's CO2 contribution is but a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of CO2 that enters the atmosphere naturally - and Britain's contribution to that drop is negligible. If everyone in Britain stopped producing C)2 tomorrow it would make absolutely no difference whatsoever - so why are we to be forced to use less energy?

The answer, of course, is that it isn't about using less energy - it's about raising more money through taxation. We'll be forced to use less by being taxed more on the energy we do use - one way or another.

Partly it will be through the general taxation - money taken from the taxpayer to pay for the largely useless and heavily subsidised wind farms which are not economically viable without huge subsidies from the state.

And then they'll be the money raised through indirect taxation - taxes or costly requirements placed on energy suppliers which they will recoup by charging us more for using less energy which is increasingly unavailable when we need it anyhow.

And all this for what? An imagined problem that exists only in the minds of "green" fools and the computer programs of climate models and which real world data tells us does not exist.

Who are the racist fascists?

The BNP on "The Big Questions"

I watched the BBC's "The Big Questions" yesterday morning where one of the big questions considered was something like "Does the BNP have the right to freedom of speech?".

First of all, I should say that the question itself is preposterous - of course the BNP have the same right to freedom of speech as anyone else. Anyone who says otherwise IS a fascist. The very fact that we are even asking the question is somewhat revealing about Britain today where we are restricted on what we can say on a significant number of issues under threat of dismissal from our employment and even arrest and imprisonment.

Nevertheless, somebody in the BBC thought it was a question worth asking so the BBC invited a couple of people on from the BNP to be the punchbag - sorry, to argue their case - one of whom was Andrew Brons, the newly elected BNP MEP for Yorkshire (or some fake region or other).

Now, I've seen a few interviews with BNP members - including Nick Griffin - but this is the first time I can recall seeing someone from the BNP actually being engaged in a debate of sorts. Over the last few years there has been a policy of "no platform" among the mainstream parties and press which, I think, seems to mean that they refused to share a stage with someone from the BNP and debate with them.

The idea behind that policy, I believe, was to deny the BNP the oxygen of publicity - unfortunately for the mainstream establishment, this has failed and the BNP have won significantly high profile seats which now means they have to be heard.

No problem, went the argument. Once we get to hear what they say they will be condemned from their own mouths. Well, maybe this will still turn out to be so, but - on the evidence of yesterday - it's not the BNP who are going to be exposed as nasty, vicious, fascist thugs.

Brons and his companion - a vicar whose name escapes me - were reasonable, polite and measured while the "celebrity" panel were the ones with spittle flying from their lips, ranting, finger pointing, shouting and name calling (the one exception being the black poet Benjamin Zephaniah who was also entirely reasonable and polite).

It was a similar thing among the audience with a proportion being reasonably polite and dignified while a significant sections only response was to call out names, shout and repeat easily refuted misinformation about BNP policies. On this evidence, the idea of beating the BNP with argument is going to fail as abysmally as the no platform policy.

Meanwhile in South Africa

Also yesterday, I read a report in Live magazine about South Africa which, as I've mentioned before, is rapidly heading the way of Zimbabwe. Over the last few years there have been some 3000 white farmers murdered - often in horrific ways involving extreme torture as well - in what are clearly racist motivated incidents. There have been very few prosecutions for these murders.

As a consequence of this rise in violence against the white minority there have been some 900,000 white people who have fled the country - some 20% of the population. The response of the South African government to this was for the Security Minister, Charles Ngacula, to say ....

"They can continue to whinge until they are blue in the face, be as negative as they want to, or they can simply leave the country."

The old "if they don't like it, they can go home" argument. The report mentions that numerous "reforms" are being implemented under the slogan "Africa for Africans" - while it is clear that white Africans don't count in that group.

In Britain we ban a Dutch politician from entering the country because he made a film that says some negative things about Islam while we frequently welcome and fawn over the convicted ANC terrorist Nelson Mandela - a man who has been filmed singing a song imploring his followers to "kill the whites". If some leftist fools get their way, this convicted terrorist and self-confirmed racist will be given a statue in the middle of Trafalgar Square.

From Blair babes to Brown boobies?

Driving home last night I was listening to the PM show on Radio 4 when a discussion began on why it is that it only seems to be women who are dropping out of the Brown cabinet - Smith, Blears etc.

The discussion centred around whether or not this was because Gordon Brown has a "problem" with women. Yes, said one forgettable Labour party representative. No, said the other utterly unremarkable Brown supporter - both of whom were female.

What nobody mentioned, however, is that apart from being women all those who have resigned have another factor in common - they were crap at the job. Not only that, but in the case of Smith she actually knew she was crap and completely out of her depth. She was a prime example of a woman promoted to a position purely on account of her gender - she had no discernible talent for the job and is quite probably the worst Home Secretary we've had that I can remember - and given the hopelessness of her predecessors, that is no mean feat!

There are other reasons why it is only women who are standing down from the Cabinet. Perhaps women are less adept at handling the pressure or maybe women are less loyal than men? I don't know, but it's a sign of the times that when women fail at a job the reaction is to assume it's the fault of a man.

Are we opening the door to extremists?

Alice Miles thinks that denial is going to open the door to the "extremists" of the BNP.

.... mainstream political leaders need to talk more about race, poverty and migration. Continuing to triangulate gingerly around the issues is leaving the door open to the extremists.

Actually, it is because successive Labour and Tory governments have left the door wide open to extremists coming here from all over the place that people have finally had enough of unrestrained immigration. That is why a British tourist was murdered in Mali - because we let in a dangerous extremist Moslem "cleric" and terrorist. That's why some of the world's most wanted criminals are believed to be in Britain.

That's why we have to submit to having our hard won and centuries cherished traditional freedoms and liberties being eroded. It's because there are countless thousands of Moslem extremists now living here that our police forces are unable to concern themselves with tackling crime and disorder as they are so busy tracking terrorists.

That's why organised crime - almost entirely run by foreign extremists - is rising significantly and why slavery is once more a regular feature in Britain today.

When it comes to worrying about "extremists" the BNP are the least of the concerns for the ordinary British person. If the mainstream media and the main political parties are serious about tackling extremism then lets see them start kicking out some of the scum like Quatada who infest our country and leech off our welfare state while orchestrating the demise of our nation.

It was the Labour and Tory parties who "opened the door to extremists" when they allowed unrestricted immigration into our country - without ever asking us what we thought of that. When they start to take the real and foreign extremists seriously then they can start talking about the concerns they have over the policies of a legitimate and British political party.