Sunday, 28 February 2010

Burning Our Money 'On The Money' - Again!

He has a post which is well worth reading. Discussing the fact that Her Majesty has had 10 Prime Ministers in her reign, and discussing their performance, he says:

"In her name, and without a shot being fired, they have surrendered large chunks of national sovereignty to a fascist superstate ruled over by the very people we'd spent the previous thousand years defending ourselves against. They have taken Britain into illegal wars yielding nothing but pain. They've watered down our criminal justice system and permitted a massive upsurge in lawlessness. They've dumbed down our education system, destroyed our work ethic, and undermined our cultural integrity. Her great-great grandmother would have been seriously unamused."

Do go read the rest.

Cameron's Brighton Speech

Unfortunately it was not possible to watch this speech due to a prior commitment, however three youtube videos are available (H/T: Calling England) which are reproduced:

Nothing too controversial there, other than a 'picky' point about 'flying round the world' - which won't do much for the environment.

How Cameron can talk about an"expensive, bloated bureaucracy at the top and then they see so many things where they have so little control" really does beggar belief. For one moment I thought he was discussing the EU! He may well wish to reform, pare and thereby cut the costs of our parliament, but that is but a drop in the ocean when one considers that it would be one hell of a lot of money that would still be spent on an institution that would be doing no more than 'rubber-stamping' laws emanating from Brussels, said laws being the majority of all laws which affect our country. The next part of his speech, on Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) constitutes what I believe is a 'first' - a double 'U-turn'. You may recall I posted here about how in 2008 RDAs were going and how present Conservative policy stated they would be 'reformed' - oh but hang on, now they are going again! Make your mind up Dave!

In all the videos and as confirmed by David Blackburn, on Politics Home, not one mention of the EU or immigration, subjects he should be discussing - and by not doing so, is misleading the people. He talks about social problems, problems caused in the main by unlimited immigration from the EU and about which he can do nothing. He talks about another 5 years of Labour's taxes, when he knows full well that the EU plan is for harmonisation of tax.

Some political commentators here, here and here feel that this speech has won Cameron the election - personally I am not so sure. Cameron is still vulnerable on the basic democratic question of who governs our country - and that is a question that I hope will gain prominence the nearer election day approaches. He has a contradiction in policy of wishing to devolve power downwards, whilst accepting centralisation of power in Brussels - and the two do not sit easily side by side.

Conservatives Meet Firm & Resolute - Hague

So said William Hague yesterday in his speech to the Conservative Spring Conference. Really William? So how come this report says that "One MP claimed "60 to 70 MPs" are unhappy with the leadership....."? And that is without the views of those candidates hoping to become MPs!

'Talking' to a few Conservative candidates and explaining to one that whilst the best I could hope for in Witney was a repeat of the Euro result, thereby putting a dent in Cameron's majority, the response I got was "I feel so strongly about my country and Europe that you "dent" away - maybe then people will start listening." - a view echoed by others.

If David Cameron's candidates are not wholly behind him one has to ask what chance does he stand of getting the country behind him?*

* Silly me - forgot Cameron's order of priority is:  Cameron>EU>Cameron>Party>Cameron>Country. Fairs fair, how more 'patriotic' could he get?

d'Ancona Gets It Wrong Again

Matthew d'Ancona, writing the op-ed in the Sunday Telegraph, quotes a shadow cabinet member saying: "This election is going to be a really bloody punch-up." followed by his own verdict: "That's for sure.

Along with d'Ancona, the shadow cabinet member is totally incorrect - the really bloody punch-up will happen within the Tory party after Cameron has lost the election!

Just a thought.........

Labour To Treat People Like Dogs?

It would seem so, if this report in the Mail is correct, in that 'a costly licence' will be required before anyone can keep a dog, as well as having to have third-party insurance.

WTFF! Now those who wish to keep a dog have to be 'licenced'???

What about pensioners, living on a pittance where their only income is a state pension, they will be subject to what amounts to another tax?

And the cost of all this with what will be another quango/fake charity being created to oversee the scheme?

No doubt this fake charity has already been given a name, such as Canine Unit National Trust?

Vote For Change? Voters Don't Seem To Think So

David Cameron believes it is 'make up your mind' time, according to this report in the Mail, however the majority of the 374 comments seem to think the person who has to make up his mind is David Cameron. Unsurprisingly the two topics which dominate are the EU and Immigration.

A separate report from the Press Association says that Cameron believes it is his patriotic duty to defeat Brown. How dare Cameron talk about patriotic duty when he is quite content to allow Britain to be governed from abroad, how dare Cameron talk about patriotic duty when in 2006, at a meeting in Witney hosted by a West Oxfordshire Business Luncheon Club, I asked him if he felt any shame about being a member of a House of Commons who had agreed to hand governance of our country to the continent and he answered in the negative.

Having met David Cameron on more than one occasion I have to say that as a person he is most agreeable, charming, talkative, a good MP and extremely pleasant company. What I cannot understand is how someone like that can have such crap political ideas!

David Cameron is obviously in the wrong party and should perhaps sport a yellow rosette!*

* Appropriate on the patriotic front, as well as illustrating his political beliefs.

Afterthought: Does Vote for Change mean the Conservatives are to hold a ballot for a new leader? One can but hope!

Saturday, 27 February 2010

Nah Paul - Its Probably Yet Another 'Putsch'

Paul Waugh twitters.

Talk About An Inflated Ego!

According to the News of the World David Cameron will tell us tomorrow that we need him! FFS - we need more of the same like we need another hole in our heads!

The NOW report Cameron will give another pledge - to hard-working families that he will repay their support by putting them — and the country — first. Firstly, he has shown his pledges are worthless as he just keeps breaking them. Secondly, if he really did intend to put the country first, he would abandon his dictatorial denial to the country and allow them a referendum on our membership of the EU!

Were I a Conservative Party member or supporter I would be worried, big time, that with this speech, as reported, Cameron had lost it - and I don't mean the election because that. at the moment, is already lost.

Writing in the NOW Cameron says "We also need to bring this approach to the way we do politics in this country, so we will hand vast swathes of power back to people. It’s your street, it’s your neighbourhood, it’s your police force, it’s your school — so we’re going to let you take control of it." And our country, iDave? You seem to have missed that bit out - I wonder why? You are not going to let us take control of our country then?

"Responsibility and aspiration. Two simple values that will have a profound effect on our country." It is to be regretted that the two simple values Cameron thinks will have a profound effect on our country are the two values that are so noticable in him and his party by their absence!

An April Election?

An article in the Telegraph, by Patrick Hennessy, reports on Labour preparations for an April election, based on leaked emails.

One has to ask why would No10 leak emails if not to destablise other political parties? This must point to 6th May, which the article suggests as the most likely date, otherwise the leak destroys any attempt by Brown to wrong-foot his opposition.

Another reason to doubt Brown calling an election in early March is that Darling has said he will present a budget. That date has been pencilled in for the end of March - 23rd I believe (according to previous reports) - although the actual date has not yet been announced, so yes it it could be brought forward, one presumes.

Que Sera, Sera - as Doris Day sang..........

Sex Education

Peter Hitchens has a short critique which begins "Sex education has failed. So the Establishment decrees that we must have more of it........" and continues by explaining that "in 1963 parents in Norwich were told that their young were to be instructed in sexual matters because the illegitimacy rate in that fine city had reached an alarming 7.7 per cent (compared with a national rate of 5.9 per cent). The national rate is now 46 per cent and climbing...."

As an illustration that modern methods and ideas are dubious in the extreme, back in the 50s I attended a mixed co-ed boarding school where I learned everything about sex - without increasing the birth rate!

Just a thought.....!

Update: Alasdair Palmer, in the Telegraph, on the same subject: "The reason Britain has such a high rate of teenage pregnancy is because we have so many teenagers who want to get pregnant: they don't do it out of stupidity or ignorance, but knowing full well what the consequences will be." Yup, free housing, benefits, etc, etc, etc!

New World Order

James Delingpole has a very good post on the above including two links, one to a UN paper paving the way for a world government and the other showing what a trillion dollars looks like. Then remember that the UN paper is proposing a cost of $45trillion!

The more one reads the UN paper the more one should be afraid, very afraid, due to the seemingly delusional qualities of the views expressed. For example it talks about global food shortages - yet who were the driving force to grow biofuels, at the expense of food? It discusses the need to shift towards a green economy which will address the challenges of climate change - climate change is not proven, so how can there be challenges?

After reading Delingpole's post, the UN paper, and seeing what a trillion dollars looks like, go view Lord Monckton in the previous post (if you have not already done so) - please.

Lord Monckton - UKIP's Environmental Policy

There follows three YouTube videos on the launch of the above, a subject which I know Fausty has posted previously. However, the more one listens to this quietly spoken man, the more one feels that he is telling the truth.


Hoisted On His Own Petard

Our Dear Leader writes in the Guardian and is obviously 'playing without a goalkeeper'!

".....the violation of an unwritten ethical code that should guide us in our daily lives" An ethical code that should guide our daily lives? Err Gordon, MacBride?

".....each of us is our brothers' and sisters' keeper......" If I had the opportunity to choose my keeper, it ain't going to be you or the other idiots, Cameron and Clegg!

It is accepted, Gordon, that you are only talking to the sheep in Wales - but come on!

Meet Cameron - Dictator-In-Waiting

David Cameron has posted on the Blue Blog, complete with video, in which he informs us that the Conservative Party is both modern and radical - and that is the way it is going to stay!

Highlighting that the Conservative Party has selected more women candidates, more asian candidates - Cameron misses the point. It does not matter if he selects his women candidates from Venus, Mars or wherever, if the f'ing policies are crap what difference does that make? - as if this 'changes' things

He maintains his party is leading the debate on the environment and on poverty and that the changes in Conservative policy were not made to modernise for modernisation's sake. No, he made the changes so that, if elected, the Conservatives could continue to remain members of the EU!

Cameron states he wants the Conservative Party to be the party for all the country, addressing all the issues. In which case, perhaps Cameron would address the issue of our membership of the EU, a subject about which he is afraid to engage in debate.

Stating that our problems can't be solved with a little tinker here and there, Cameron maintains it is the time for bold action. Then be bold, Dave, return the Conservative Party to its 'grass roots', stop dictating to it who can and cannot stand in a constituency and stop dictating to the country what we, the people, can vote on, or not vote on as the case may be.

Defying anyone to call his policies timid, it would seem from recent opinion polls that the country does think they are timid - so what you going to do about that Dave? An old adage springs to mind, one that iDave should remember. If one is unable to perform on the pot, they should vacate it and let someone else take over!

What The Future Holds

Ian Parker-Joseph, IPJ on Politics, has posted about how the EU is beginning, post Lisbon, to impose its will on this country. Politicians pontificate on what is 'good for the country' with their policies on, for example, immigration and taxation and do not realise that they are in fact 'talking to an empty room'.

How many of the electorate are aware of these laws waiting to be implemented? When they do appear they will do so in the form of Directives or Regulations and will require implementation by our parliament without question. And the Lib/Lab/Con still think they will, if elected, govern this country?

What about COM (2009) 0078 for example? which is a "Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty concerning the common positions of the Council on the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services; a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services and 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws; and a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Group of European Regulators in Telecoms." On reading the document you will note that regardless of the Council's (Heads of Government) views, the Commission intends proceeding anyway - and that is democracy?

Consider COM (2009) 0029 which is a "Proposal for a Council Directive on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation".and from which I quote "There is a tremendous development of the mobility of taxpayers, of the number of cross border transactions and of the internationalisation of financial instruments, which makes it more and more difficult for Member States to assess taxes due properly, while they stick to national sovereignty as regards the level of taxes." And the Lib/Lab/Con still believe they can set our tax regulations?

Or COM (2009 0020 which is "aimed at further simplifying, modernising and harmonising the VAT invoicing rules."; or COM (2009) 0021 a "Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax as regards the rules on invoicing." and COM (2008) 0869 a "Proposal for a Council Decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States.

If the Lib/Lab/Con politicians wish to continue inhabiting their dream world, in which they still consider themselves our government, then it cannot be argued that that is not their right. What is not, repeat not, their right is to continue imposing this dream world on the electorate, to refuse any discussion on the basic question of who governs us and to refuse to agree that it is the electorate's right to vote on that basic question.

Autonomous Mind has posted a critique of David Cameron, of which every word is true. Making the point that Cameron has turned the Conservative Party into a version of Labour-Lite and therefore what is on offer to the electorate is more of the same but with different faces hides another suggestion that is worthy of consideration. Because, regardless of what Cameron may have said in the past and which we can now see was pure 'electioneering' - and not worth the paper on which it was written, he is - and always has, deep down - been firmly in favour of EU membership, being a Europhile, and consequently he had to change the Conservative Party in order that Britain might remain a member.

An example of the disingeniousness of Cameron and his party is that they have adopted the slogan 'Vote for Change' as an election slogan. FFS! What change? As Autonomous Mind so rightly says it is more of the same, but with different faces! Still Cameron continues with what he calls an essential "massive devolution of power to the people", yet cannot see the contradiction of that with membership of the EU. We continue to have Hague The Vague prattling on about how good and different his party will be when compared to the present government. Presenting 'a stark choice for Britain', Hague also continues the lies when he says "Where Labour have refused to control immigration we will properly control it; where they betrayed democracy by refusing a referendum we will build a referendum whenever the powers of the voters are given away into our law;" and "make the House of Commons more democratic". If Britain is unable to control total immigration then how does Hague reckon he can control it properly''? As to this promise of a referendum 'whenever the powers of voters are given away', any 'power' that is one voters should decide on is a power that has been usurped. So the first Directive or Regulation that imposes a new law, or change to an existing 'home-grown' law will trigger a referendum? Should Cameron become the next Prime Minister, he and his party had better grant that referendum or it will just confirm my suspicion that they are the 'controlling f'tards' I suspect them of being! How can Hague 'make the House of Commons more democratic' if those we send there cannot formulate the laws by which we live?

It is this continual 'obfuscation' and 'prevarication' with the truth by our politicians which makes me so mad. I have, reluctantly, come to the conclusion that, with a few exceptions, the only way Britain will return to being a truly democratic nation is to shoot the lot of them and start again by giving the EU a 'Churchill Salute' and then walking away. So what do the EU do - invade us in order to impose their will? Perhaps they need to be reminded that Britain has 'chastised' the countries of Europe on more than one occasion during the past 300 odd years and no doubt we could do it again!

Friday, 26 February 2010

The Answer Dave Is 'Simples'

Writing in the Guardian, Nicholas Watts and Polly Curtis report that David Cameron is planning for a 'hung' parliament.

"What's going wrong with our campaign?" the shadow cabinet minister asked. "Are we just making the odd mistake, or is there a deeper problem?"

Actually the reason for the closing of the polls is down to the 'deeper problem' - although the use of the phrase 'the odd mistake' is stretching incredulity somewhat, when one considers the gaffes aplenty that have been made.

To recover lost ground the Conservative Party need to do six things:

1. Promise a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU within the first year of a new parliament.
2. Promise that all, repeat all, immigration will be stopped, while the present 'over population' problem is resolved.
3. Revert to true 'Conservative' policies, thus providing a clear distinction between the two parties - Labour and Conservative - as presently there is virtually no distinction whatsoever.
4. Promote Carswell to a Conservative cabinet.
5. Put into operation 'The Plan' and 'Direct Democracy'.
6. Replace Cameron with Hannan!

Just a suggestion for the Tories!

Oh, I Don't Know.................

Looking at the pictorial image used in this article by Bruno Waterfield, writing in the Daily Telegraph, I believe it can be said with some justification that Nigel Farage showed admirable restraint! If that is 'her man', one can but feel pity for Mrs. Rompuy.

Waterfield, reporting that the introduction of the Lisbon Treaty has triggered bitter in-fighting between Mr Van Rompuy, Baroness Ashton, the foreign minister, and the Commission over who is in charge of representing Europe on the global stage, it should be noted that the fears of Ashton and Barroso are groundless.

It is understood, on good authority, that the 'company car' supplied to Rompuy is a Franco-German joint venture called a SarMerk - a vehicle far from Angular in body appearance (closest I could get to an Anglicised pronunciation of the German 'Angela' - do keep up!) and compromised by a power unit that 'sarfers' from having 'no legs' resulting in its motor unit being so close to the ground. (with no apologies for the 'sarky' comment directed at the French half of the vehicle)

A further sense of security that Rompuy should enjoy, in his efforts to 'empire build' is that Ashton is obviously unable to handle her 'man well'!

The EU Tries To Regulate God

No, really! The Commission have produced a communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - "A Community approach on the prevention of natural and man made disasters". An attempt to prevent man made disasters - ok, that is your Elf 'n Safety brigade. However, the prevention of natural disasters? 

The idea anyone, let alone the EU*, can prevent natural disasters can best be summed up in two words - Jesus Christ!

* A Deranged Organisation staffed entirely with/by deranged people.

Beglium Don't Seem To Like Us - Wonder Why?

Courtesy of Gawain Towler, England Expects, it would appear that we Brits are not 'flavour of the month' with Beglium.


No need to get personal!

Is A General Election In The Offing?

No, this is not another post 'talking-up' the possibility of an earlier general election date than the most obvious one of 6th May, but is prompted by what looks suspiciously like what Labour hopes will be a 'vote winner'.

This snippet of information has appeared on the website of the Department of Health. One shudders to think what the bureaucratic cost of 'managing' this will be and no doubt yet another quango will be formed to handle it. At first sight it would also seem to be a bit of a 'pigs-ear' of a policy, in that whilst asylum seekers who co-operate with the UKBA will receive free NHS treatment, those that do not, won't. So how will the NHS recover the charges, as presumably asylum seekers are not awash with cash?

Access to the consultation documents can be had here however it does seem odd that the foreward, written by Ann Keen who is Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (for a few weeks more, anyway) states: "However, we cannot afford to become an ‘international health service’, providing free treatment for all. This would also risk encouraging people to enter, or remain, in the country solely to access treatment." when we do seem to encourage people to enter and remain here, whilst accessing our benefits system - and the difference is?

This proposal would seem to raise some questions for those living abroad, even in another EU member state. Whilst the document invites comments from the public, as with other proposals, said comments will, no doubt, be ignored - but hey, they will have 'consulted' and can then tick another box!

As yet, no comment on Conservative Home on behalf of the 'New' New Labour Party, if and when they assume office.

Thursday, 25 February 2010

As A Nation, Are We Mad? Don't Answer That!!

Douglas Murray posts on Abdullah Hakim Quick. And then we wonder why there is a 'terrorist problem', why there is 'social unrest'? FFS!!!!!!

Dear Brussels, May we have a divorce please? It is more than obvious that you don't like us and we most definitely don't like you. An amicable divorce would then allow us to kick out 'rabble rousers' - plus all the other 'undesirables' that we are forced to maintain. That in itself should save us a bob or two in our fight to overturn our fiscal deficit, plus the loss of the £45million a day you get from us might just make you concentrate your minds on your budget and running costs!

In fact, we will deport them, by the shortest route available - ie, to Calais - hows that? You believe in all this crap about equality, diversity and 'rights' - then you handle it and them!

Are we racist? No! Are we 'Little Englanders'? Probably, but then we believe in our country and its traditions and customs and none of you are ever going to wreck that!

Got the message? Good! Now just p's off!

Difference Of Opinion?

Goodnight Vienna, on Calling England, posts on Rachmaninov entitled Rach on Rach, which possibly is where Rach should be put - on the rack!

If one wants sublime piano music, much as I adore Beethoven and Mozart, I feel sure the following is worthy of being number one on anyone's list.

And the second movement of the 2nd Piano Concerto is not far behind.

With the utmost respect, perhaps Goodnight Vienna, when next undertaking some retail therapy, should put these two on her 'Chopin List'?

A False Story?

Guido Fawkes receives many 'tips' but I feel this one is a bit of red herring; they may have been put on 'red alert', but not for the reason Guido intimates.

It is a fact that Alastair Darling has stated that there will be a budget before the general election and the only question would seem what it will contain. Were Gordon Brown to undermine his Chancellor by calling an early election one feels that what Darling would release would put the 'forces of hell' in the shade!

Gary Gibbon proffers a more likely scenario when he says "The most expected date for the Budget is 24th March, but it is still not announced. The most expected date for the Prime Minister to announce an election date is 29th March. Parliament could come back in what should’ve been its Easter recess – perhaps 7th, 8th and 9th April – and then could be dissolved on 12th April. That week could see the manifesto launches. The television debates could be on the 15th April (ITV), 22nd April (Sky) and 29th April (BBC). Oh, and the election on 6th May."

We shall see.................

The State Must Control

Commenting on the sad death of Khyra Ishaq, Ed Balls is quoted as saying that "he was 'determined' to make sure that local authorities were given the power to make sure children are safe." and that "but [the authorities] didn't see Khyra, they didn't enter the house."

Yet according to this report "Birmingham City Council social workers Sanya Scott and Anne Gondo pay a pre-arranged visit but are refused entry to the house. The women decide that they have no concerns for Khyra's well-being after she is brought to meet them at the front door."  Following this visit one also has to question the mentality and judgement of this individual "The council mentor returns to the home but there is no answer. He leaves after posting a note through the letterbox."

It is obvious that there were 'powers' available to ensure this child's well-being but that they were not used, as exhibited by this report "The family were known to social services in the past, but were not considered to be at risk". If the family were known to social services then they must have been on some type of 'potential risk' register, in which case who made the decision that they were not at risk? This in turn contradicts Mr. Brownbill's statement "The children were not on the at risk register." Either they were 'known' to social services, or they were not.

Ed Balls' intention to insure that local authorities were given the power necessary to make children safe would not appear to solve the problem when this report shows "Birmingham City Council's social services department was under pressure at the time. Last year its children's services were found to be "not fit for purpose". An inquiry was commissioned the previous year after it emerged eight children known to social services had died in the city in four years. An audit by a Birmingham City Council scrutiny committee identified failings, including a shortage of experienced staff, inadequate monitoring, excessive paperwork and too little time with children and families".So the Council's social services department were 'not fit for purpose'; eight children die in four years and an audit report identified serious problems - and who did what, exactly, to rectify the faults?

Besides Ed Balls, on the evidence of the reports quoted above, not being able to get his facts right, he also misses one vital aspect of any system - that if you employ incompetents you have an immediate problem. But then it is hardly surprising when Ed Balls is at the heart of what can only be described as probably the most incompetent collection of politicians it has been this country's misfortune to have elected. Even more unfortunate for the country is the fact that, as I have posted previously, the next bunch do not look to be any different!

Farage Tells It Like It Is (2)

The full version of what Nigel said is now available - slightly different to the snippet put out by the BBC yesterday, but then the BBC never does tell the whole truth..........

Journalism - Again!

Benedict Brogan, writing the op-ed piece in today's Daily Telegraph, appears to be 'joining the party' a tad late - a fact echoed by Richard North over at EU Referendum.

In his piece Brogan states "The hysteria of the debate between an often secretive scientific establishment and the insurgents who reject its orthodoxies about man's role in whatever it is that is happening to the planet is trying the patience of voters – and readers of this newspaper – who are confused or angered (or both) by the lectures they get from each side."
Readers of the Daily Telegraph may well be angered - it is a pity that the Daily Telegraph itself did not get angered. In the past the newspaper, like the remainder of the MSM, blithly printed what they were given without any attempt to verify the 'facts' that they were given and without any attempt to explain what was the underlying reason of government energy policies. Witness this article, only as recently as 23rd June last year.

For some time now amongst the main 'voices' against this climate change scam have been those of Anthony Watts, North, Booker, Bishop Hill and James Delingpole. It was only when they managed to get their writing on this, the CRU emails and Pachauri picked up by others that the MSM in this country started to take notice - and even then in what seemed a grudging manner. But hey, the bandwagon is rolling now so, true to form, on jumps the Telegraph!

What is even more amazing is that in this piece even Brogan fails also to explain exactly what is wrong with the energy policies of the Lib/Lab/Con and why. Surely Brogan must also realise that as long as he continues to support the Cameron-Not-The-Conservative Party his lights will be well and truly 'put out'!

The EU & Its Raison-Detre - Not

James Higham, over at nourishingobscurity, has produced a three part post which is worthy of attention, whether one is eurosceptic or not.

This country is being changed beyond all recognition by our membership of the European Union and the policies that our governments have introduced over the years, policies dictated by membership of the EU. Our society is being changed by mass immigration, again the result of the adherence to policies originating in the EU.

What makes this post of James Higham all the more noteworthy is that he does not draw conclusions - he leaves you to do that.


Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

The Subject That Dare Not Speak Its Name

Yup, we're going to discuss immigration, prompted by an article in today's Daily Telegraph, by Judith Woods, that centres on Slough and the problems caused therein.

Not one of the three main political parties really wish to discuss immigration, although when they do it is to talk tough by mentioning 'caps on immigration' and similar phrases. When they do deign to discuss the subject what we get are meaningless statements from - to paraphrase: "What's the name of that prat", oh yes - Phil Woolas and Damian Green.

When surveyed, most people list immigration as one of the burning issues facing the country, yet why do the three main parties ignore the subject? Why? Because not one of them, were they to assume office can deal with the overall numbers entering the country due to their wish to remain a member of the European Union - a point I have made many times.

Only recently have Ministers had to deny the allegation that the present government deliberately set out to change our society by encouraging mass migration. Compared to the figure of 37,000 being granted a British passport in 1997, the figure is now over 200,000 - according data just released by the National Audit Office. Only an idiot would argue that encouraging mass migration would not change our country's society - which is one element of proof that the present government is comprised of idiots, but I digress.

Comments by members of the public demonstrate only too well the anger felt by some of our population.

"I've lived in Slough for 40 years and I hardly recognise the place. The High Street is full of shops run by other nationalities who don't speak our language. I'm not a racist, it's just the numbers of new people coming here are making me feel like a stranger in my own town."

"I've turned into a racist. I look around me and I can barely hear English being spoken, and there are intimidating groups of foreign youths hanging around, so the atmosphere is quite threatening. We're overrun and I'm afraid to go out at night."

"There are so many people from so many backgrounds, and when I look around I can see I'm part of a minority"

Never mind feeling like a stranger in ones own town, today most indigenous members of society feel like a stranger in their own country. Is it any wonder that stories emerge of immigrants with large families living in mansions at taxpayer's expense - a problem no government can rectify, thanks to the 'rights' these people have.

Slough constituency will be an interesting one to watch during the general election as Fiona MacTaggart, the sitting Labour MP, and the Liberal Democrat candidate, Chris Tucker, will both no doubt duck the issue. The UK Independence Party candidate Peter Mason-Apps can probably be relied on to raise the issue as will, one suspects, the Conservative Party candidate, Diana Coad who would appear to be one of a rare breed amongst her colleagues as she has shown in the past that she has not yet been 'cloned' by CCHQ - witness her stance, with Douglas Carswell against membership of the EU, coupled with her belief in Grammar Schools. Do not misunderstand my motives in highlighting the candidacy of Diana Coad - I do not support her party. Why Diana Coad stands out, in my mind, is that she appears to be one of a rare breed today - a candidate that has, in the words of Frederik Forsyth, "conviction, passion, honesty and integrity."

Immigration is a subject that is changing our society and alienating the present population; consequently politicians of all parties and their leaders owe it to the electorate to 'come clean' on the principles on which their policies are based and to discuss that and the topic with those whose votes they seek. While they are doing that perhaps they would also adopt the same line on membership of the EU and Energy.

Wednesday, 24 February 2010

Farage Tells It Like It Is!

It would seem that 'Our Nigel' is not that enamoured with European Union President Herman van Rompuy!

The BBC reports a volley of insults - I would call it a bit of plain English speaking.


Conservative Candidates Not On Message?

Damian Thompson reports that some Conservative candidates would appear to have minds of their own*.

"Three quarters of his prospective parliamentary candidates want to renegotiate the UK’s relationship with Europe “as a matter of priority”. And 91 per cent favour a cap on immigration. Meanwhile, only 28 per cent believe that the next government should legislate to make people behave in a “greener” way"

Perhaps the 'three quarters' who want a renegotiation of the UK's relationship with Europe 'as a matter of priority' should 'put their money where their mouth is' and get over to the Albion Alliance and sign a binding pledge to make that come about.

One wonders whether these candidates asked if the question differentiated between EU immigration and immigration from non-EU countries.

Obviously the 72 per cent who don't want legislation to make people greener know nothing about our subservience to the EU.

Fairs fair though, it is early days for these Conservative candidates and their 'cloning' is more than likely not yet complete. It is fairly certain that, come the election, all candidates will be singing from the same hymn sheet!

* Conservative candidates/minds of their own - definitely an oxymoron!

Another Conservative Policy U Turn

Back in 2008 the then shadow Local Government Secretary, one Eric Pickles, told a New Local Government fringe meeting that Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) would go on day one of a Conservative Administration - a policy confirmed by David Cameron. Fast forward to 2010 and what do we find? Regional Development Agencies will not be abolished, they will be 'reformed'.

Kept this one pretty quiet - did they not?

Wednesday 24th February 2010

Posting today will, of necessity, be quite light. One or two may be possible late afternoon/early evening.

Tuesday, 23 February 2010

Darling On Jeff Randall Live (Sky)

Politics Home carries a report on Alastair Darling's interview by Jeff Randall on Sky TV.

I have no wish to comment on Darling's 'revelations' about Number 10, or Gordon Brown; although it would seem that his comment on the fact he intends to present a Budget before the general election is indicative of the 6th May being 'the date'.

What I do wish to make comment on is the last sentence of this report by Politics Home: "This election is about two different competing visions about this country." Reading that, it is logical to presume that most of the political MSM - and the country - will assume this means that the competing visions about which he talks are Labour and Conservative.

In fact nothing could be further from the truth as basically there is no difference between Labour and the Conservatives; they both believe in membership of the EU; they both believe in central government control (regardless of their proposed 'devolution of power' utterances); they both believe in the scam of climate change; they both believe in participation of an unwinnable war; they both believe in the bureaucratic state.

The two different competing visions are between those of the Labour and Conservative Parties - and the vision that others have of an independent Britain; a self-governing Britain, incorporating real local democracy; a Britain that is able to trade with whoever and wherever it likes and a Britain where its elected representatives are honest, trustworthy and honourable men and women.

A US Report On Climategate

Watts Up With That has a post that is a must-read for anyone who has been following Richard North's numerous posts on the same subject.


Pachauri Torn A New One!

Richard North, EU Referendum, has a further critique on Rajendra Pachauri - do go read!

Flashman's Viewpoint

In 1945, George MacDonald Fraser, author of the immortal "Flashman" series, was fighting as a young subaltern with the valiant Border Regiment against the Japanese in Burma. He concluded his moving war memoir with these words:

"... they were Labour to to a man, but not necessarily socialist as the term is understood now. Their socialism was of a simple kind: they had known the ’thirties, and they didn’t want it again: the dole queue, the street corner, the true poverty of that time. They wanted jobs, and security, and a better future for their childen than they had had – and they got that, and were thankful for it. It was what they had fought for, over and beyond the pressing need of ensuring that Britain did not become a Nazi slave state.

Still, the Britain they see in their old age is hardly “the land fit for heroes” that they envisaged – if that land existed in their imaginations, it was probably a place where the pre-war values co-existed with decent wages and housing. It was a reasonable, perfectly possible dream, and for a time it existed, more or less. And then it changed, in the name of progress and improvement and enlightenment, which meant the destruction of much they had fought for and held dear, and the betrayal of familiar things that they had loved. Some of them, to superficial minds, will seem terribly trivial, even ludicrously so – things like county names, and shillings and pence, and the King James Version, and yards and feet and inches – yet they matter to a nation.

They did not fight for a Britain which would be dishonestly railroaded into Europe against the people’s will; they did not fight for a Britain where successive governments, by their weakness and folly, would encourage crime and violence on an unprecedented scale; they did not fight for a Britain where thugs and psychopaths could murder and maim and torture and never have a finger laid on them for it; they did not fight for a Britain whose leaders would be too cowardly to declare war on terrorism; they did not fight for a Britain whose Parliament would, time and again, betray the trust by legislating against the wishes of the country; they did not fight for a Britain where children could be snatched from their homes and parents by night on nothing more than the good old Inquisition principle of secret information; they did not fight for a Britain whose Churches and schools would be undermined by fashionable reformers; they did not fight for a Britain where free choice could be anathematised as “discrimination”; they did not fight for a Britain where to hold by truths and values which have been thought good and worthy for a thousand years would be to run the risk of being called “fascist” – that, really, is the greatest and most pitiful irony of all."

(George MacDonald Fraser, "Quartered Safe out Here: A Recollection of the War in Burma" (London, 1993), pp. 177-78).

James Delingpole Is Rightly Angry!

James Delingpole, with his latest blog posting, has shown his anger at the state of our politics today, coupled with a second barrel aimed at the MSM.

It has long been obvious to those with an internet connection that if informed writing incorporating information is wanted, newspapers and television is not the place to look - probably because those presently employed did not even attain a 'D' grade at the end of their courses in media studies!

Oh for more journalists like Delingpole and Gerald Warner!

Miliband (D) At Demos

David Miliband - who believes he is Foreign Secretary but has yet to realise that a fellow incompetent, Ashton, has actually usurped his position - has been addressing the faithful once again.

Talking of Gordon Brown's speech last Saturday Miliband says "He set out serious plans for the pursuit of noble causes based on clear values.  This speech is about those values, and how a re-elected Labour government would make them real" and one has to immediately ask what the hell have Labour been doing for the past 13 years, or is this a new set of 'values'?

Miliband also believes that Labour has changed the country for the better! WTF! Who has created the housing shortage by unlimited immigration? Who has caused all the social upheaval and unrest by unlimited immigration? Is it any wonder that the country is in the mess it is when a party of the left creates so many rights?

Miliband continues "Now the polls show the British people are not feeling particularly optimistic at the moment: the political system is in disrepute, our financial system has had to be rescued from deep collapse, the moral authority of the West is contested, and international institutions are all but paralysed on issues like climate change." but omits one other problem, which is that Labour are paralysed from the neck up!

If anything shows that Socialists are totally 'off their heads' it is the statement ".....only the centre-left, social democrats and radical liberals, can realise the progressive insight that a free and powerful people is made not born." Miliband is so indoctrinated with his socialistic ideals that he cannot realise we are all born free - it is only when there is a socialist government, or those like him (the present Conservative Party), that the freedom people were born with gets usurped!

This latest offering by Miliband can be summed up in four words - more of the same!

Not for me pal!

Is Speaker Bercow Fiddling Farage?

It might be thought that Bercow is not playing the game, when you have read the contents of  this report.

Access to the electoral roll is not available to Candidates, or their Election Agents, until a Notice of Election is issued. Also the question of using the Speakers office also must call into question a hint of impropriety?

Once again, just asking.........

Yet Another Pointless Political Idea

Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling have unveiled a new "Tax Framework for Business" at a global trade and investment conference in London, reports the Telegraph.

The tax framework he announced merely promised a tax system based on "competitiveness, fairness, simplicity". It also pledged a "commitment to lowering compliance costs".

Err, and how does Brown reckon this going to work when tax harmonisation is in the pipeline from Brussels and also there are presently 42 legislative acts on taxation in various stages of preparation, which include legislation involving Corporation Tax, Turnover Tax, VAT and Excise Duty.

Just a thought.........

And still our politicians persist in maintaining this charade that they 'govern' us!

Monday, 22 February 2010

Why Vote Lib/Lab/Con?

IPJ on Politics raises a very valid question to ask candidates when they come 'a knocking on your door', asking for your vote.

Let us, for the sake of argument, forget the candidates for they are but 'voting fodder' for their 'leaders' in Parliament on the basis that political parties believe that party comes before country - let us pose a simple question to Brown, Cameron and Clegg:

Those three are presenting their parties to the electorate on the basis that they are asking us to choose the party we wish to govern us. On what basis? All three have decided that they are content to have the majority of laws governing this country decided by none of them; neither have they explicitely asked the permission of those whom they are but servants, or employees, that this should happen. Since when did the 'tail wag the dog'?

All three leaders of the Lib/Lab/Con tell us that they will 'govern' in the interests of Britain, that they will stand up for Britain, that they will safeguard Britain's 'independence' as a 'sovereign nation'. All three have policies to solve our deficit; all three say that they will change our tax laws; all three say they will resolve the problems in our education system; all three say that we need a new Bill of Rights; all three say that they will resolve the problems with our justice system. 

Yet how many of the these will they be able to deny? Answer: none, because ratification of the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU the right to create whatever laws the Commission sees fit and to assume competence (responsibility) in any area of policy it wishes! Just look at the number of acts 'waiting in the wings' on each particular subject! Taxation: 42!; Economic and Monetary Policy: 28!; Freedom, Security and Justice: 112!!! And Brown, Cameron & Clegg still think they will form a 'government' for the United Kingdom?

Who writes the policies of the Lib/Lab/Con? Hans Christian Anderson? Walt Disney? Beatrix Potter?

FFS! - words fail me!!!!

The Trouble With Politicians & Government Today

Politics has long been thought of as the second oldest profession, but to those who study it and are involved, it is quickly recognised as bearing a strong resemblance to the first - the only difference being politicians charge one hell of a lot more!

Our politicians in this country, regardless of party, share common faults in that once they create a policy it never disappears. It may mutate into a variant of the original, but it never disappears. In that regard, government policies are the closest thing to eternal life we are ever likely to come across in our time on Earth. Our political parties appear to work on three basic rules; if it moves tax it, if it continues to move regulate it and if it stops moving subsidise it. Politicians regards the taxpayer as someone who works for the government but who does not have to take the civil service entrance examination.

Politicians complain bitterly about the state of society and how they will fix it, yet believe that that every time a law's broken, society is guilty - rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the idea that each individual is accountable for his/her actions. Socialist politicians seem to work on the principle that hard work never killed anyone and that it would be irresponsible of them to make people find out whether that adage is true nor not. It has been said that Socialists can be identified by the fact that they have read Lenin and Marx - Non-Socialists being identified as those who have understood Lenin and Marx. Is is a sad fact that the present leader of what is supposed to be Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition may have read Lenin and Marx but, most definitely, cannot claim to be a Non-Socialist.

All politicians of the three main parties believe that they - and only they -  can solve our country's problems - the pity is they cannot, all they seem to do is re-arrange them and in so doing then subsidise them. Governments in our country can be likened to a baby in that it is but one large alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. All politicians of the three main parties seem to have an inherent desire to regulate people, to curb their freedoms; yet seem to forget that freedom is but one generation from extinction. We the people must fight this idea that politicians have of what may be termed democratic dictatorship, or we will be telling our children and grandchildren how it used to be when we were free. 

The battle in Britain today is not against terrorism as some politicians inform us, it is about a battle of wills between our political elite and what they believe we should be allowed - and the people who believe in what was once a great country and which they wish it to return. Unfortunately, in general, people are disinterested in politics and have been led to believe that, if they remain uninvolved and disinterested, political parties will one day solve all the problems on their behalf. They have become immune to the fact that they are continually fed promises by our politicians who promptly then renege on those promises. The majority of Britain's present politicians - who have lied to the people, have deceived the people - have no apparent sense of honour, no apparent sense of pride in their country, nor any apparent sense of principle.

Yet again and again, come the time when the politicians need us, the people, to renew their lifestyle they come to us and say "Trust us, we know what is best for you, forget about our record, we know you want change and we will change". Regrettably, we seem to forget that we cannot trust them, that we know they have no idea what is best for us, that we cannot forget about their record and that the change we want is not the change they are offering - yet still we vote for them!

Perhaps we should remain in what has become the totalitarian state we now inhabit? Or has the time eventually arrived when we, the people, will say that enough is enough, that the Lib/Lab/Con have had their 'time', that we are going to see what the change offered by other parties is like - after all, following the mayhem caused by the Lib/Lab/Con, how can the alternative be worse?

Ack: This post was inspired by words, thoughts and phrases used by one of the greatest 'Conservative' politicians of our time: Ronald Reagan.

Afterthought: The nadir to which our politics has sunk is illustrated by the fact that, for the most part, the burning question of the past 48 hours is centred on bullying and the possible participation of our Prime Minister in that innoble art. Can politics sink any lower?