We are told that the government should give £12,000 to the families of not only the victims of the IRA, but also to the terrorists who killed them.
This is morally wrong. These terrorists were murderers - they chose themselves to risk death - while the victims did not. We cannot appease terrorists like this - what happened during The Troubles was disgraceful and while there is peace now we should not risk stupidity like this.
And besides that, why should the taxpayer compensate the victims? Perhaps the remaining former members of the IRA should cough up.
Sunday, 25 January 2009
Wednesday, 21 January 2009
Brown can learn from Obama
Obama has begun "a new era of openness" in the US government. Perhaps there's a policy we agree on then?
Brown bottled his attempt to make MPs exempt from Freedom of Information requests following an excellent question from Douglas Carswell at PMQs (and Brown blames the Tories for "withdrawing their support").
So for all the good he has to say about Obama, why doesn't he copy one of his good policies? This and the fact there are tax cuts in his stimulus are about all I agree with him on.
Brown bottled his attempt to make MPs exempt from Freedom of Information requests following an excellent question from Douglas Carswell at PMQs (and Brown blames the Tories for "withdrawing their support").
So for all the good he has to say about Obama, why doesn't he copy one of his good policies? This and the fact there are tax cuts in his stimulus are about all I agree with him on.
Tuesday, 20 January 2009
What's with the Obama obsession?
Across the world it seems people are worshipping him as if he's going to solve the world's problems, perhaps even save the world as Gordon Brown claimed, etc.
First of all, I like Obama. I think he's a charismatic, leader-like figure - a great speaker and someone who can lead America. I don't like his policies however, nor the worldwide obsession.
He's black (or indeed mixed race). That's the way he was born, get over it. It makes little different to the sort of leader he is, although it's certainly an achievement when you think of Martin Luther King just over 40 years ago was campaigning for desegregation. Yes, it's a sign of incredible change, but it's come about because a black man like Obama has proved that he can win the people's support. It's meritocracy as far as I can see, he outdid the other candidates.
The worldwide obsession annoys me. He's not going to save the world, I don't see him having major effects worldwide except for not starting wars in the Middle East, and so on. His domestic policies don't look great, although I won't have to see the effect of them.
But all credit to him, his inauguration speech was excellent, it put shivers through your spine as his speeches often do.
As for Bush, he's gone back to Texas, and I'm sure the Americans don't mind.
First of all, I like Obama. I think he's a charismatic, leader-like figure - a great speaker and someone who can lead America. I don't like his policies however, nor the worldwide obsession.
He's black (or indeed mixed race). That's the way he was born, get over it. It makes little different to the sort of leader he is, although it's certainly an achievement when you think of Martin Luther King just over 40 years ago was campaigning for desegregation. Yes, it's a sign of incredible change, but it's come about because a black man like Obama has proved that he can win the people's support. It's meritocracy as far as I can see, he outdid the other candidates.
The worldwide obsession annoys me. He's not going to save the world, I don't see him having major effects worldwide except for not starting wars in the Middle East, and so on. His domestic policies don't look great, although I won't have to see the effect of them.
But all credit to him, his inauguration speech was excellent, it put shivers through your spine as his speeches often do.
As for Bush, he's gone back to Texas, and I'm sure the Americans don't mind.
Sunday, 18 January 2009
Ken Clarke's back
Risky move especially with the new 13% poll lead.
He's a heavyweight yes, but I only see his Europhile views dividing the party.
I'm hoping David Davis is also back tomorrow.
He's a heavyweight yes, but I only see his Europhile views dividing the party.
I'm hoping David Davis is also back tomorrow.
Thursday, 15 January 2009
Upholding Parliamentary democracy
Whether you agree with the Heathrow proposals or not, we should all agree that it is an absolute shambles that they will not be voted on by the UK Parliament, supposedly the supreme body of UK power, but instead will be forced through by ministers and quangos. This shows utter contempt for democracy and the voters, who elected MPs to represent them.
And I congratulate John McDonnell for his courage in expressing his beliefs of Parliamentary sovereignty. He was suspended as by Parliament's rules, but he deserves to be congratulated as he stood up to a government that clearly cares little for democracy.
And I congratulate John McDonnell for his courage in expressing his beliefs of Parliamentary sovereignty. He was suspended as by Parliament's rules, but he deserves to be congratulated as he stood up to a government that clearly cares little for democracy.
Tuesday, 13 January 2009
Equality applied to........the old class war!
An article in today's Daily Mail is an eye-opener - not only have they applied their principles of "equality" and "positive action", which is normally anti-white anti-male discrimination, but now they want to legislate to stop the middle classes' "unfair advantage".
I've been brought up in a middle class family, and I have friends from working class families. The differences are massive. Generally, middle class parents apply rules and discipline, make sure they do well in school, and the like - just as their parents did. Working class parents don't and just give up - just as their inept parents did.
If Harperson and her bunch want to try to tackle her old favourite issue of class, they should sort out attitudes - all are clearly not equal, and that is the way things will stay unless they use the equality of opportunity they currently have.
Chances are this will create more non-jobs, more forms, etc too, which during a downturn is the last thing we need.
The only advantage the middle classes have is that generally they were brought up properly.
I've been brought up in a middle class family, and I have friends from working class families. The differences are massive. Generally, middle class parents apply rules and discipline, make sure they do well in school, and the like - just as their parents did. Working class parents don't and just give up - just as their inept parents did.
If Harperson and her bunch want to try to tackle her old favourite issue of class, they should sort out attitudes - all are clearly not equal, and that is the way things will stay unless they use the equality of opportunity they currently have.
Chances are this will create more non-jobs, more forms, etc too, which during a downturn is the last thing we need.
The only advantage the middle classes have is that generally they were brought up properly.
Saturday, 10 January 2009
Racism racism racism
So Prince Harry has called another soldier a Paki. Light-heartedly of course, and the soldier in question is unlikely to care.
Yet it's started a racism row.
Don't these people have better things to do? Don't they have jobs?
Oh yes of course, they work in the "equality and diversity co-ordinator" non-jobs on £100,000 per year (all out of the taxpayer's pocket).
Yet it's started a racism row.
Don't these people have better things to do? Don't they have jobs?
Oh yes of course, they work in the "equality and diversity co-ordinator" non-jobs on £100,000 per year (all out of the taxpayer's pocket).
Friday, 9 January 2009
Justice for the victims of the armed robbery today
The events in Farfield have shocked us all - this has shown that we will always have armed robberies, but also that our gun control laws are not working.
In 1997, Blair's government and his anti-gun lobby used Dunblane to force through legislation banning handguns. We aren't told much about the gun, but we are told it is a "handgun". All the 1997 law has done has put handguns in the hands of criminals.
The law-abiding citizen is not allowed to own a gun, and criminals know this, and ABUSE it. They know that they can raid a shop and can get away with armed robbery. In the USA it's different - the likelihood is there's a pistol under the counter or someone armed in the backroom, and they could get shot.
What we need is a real right to bear arms in our homes - and I'm not saying AK-47s, but a semi-auto rifle or .22 caliber pistol are fine to defend your home or business against armed intruders. Guns will always be around, and criminals will always get hold of them - when guns are in the hands of citizens, who will only use them in self-defence (and you'd expect training - there's some jobs to relieve the pressure of the recession a bit).
I'm not going to deny we will occasionally get massacres like Dunblane, and armed robberies. They will always happen. But the benefits outweigh the costs; issuing licences locally will mean that it is harder for someone who might carry out the attack, i.e. a convicted felon, the mentally unstable, "loners" and the like.
The point about "loners" is that Dunblane and Virginia Tech were both carried out by them - this instability means that they may not be of the right mind to carry a gun.
The 1920 gun control laws (our first) were actually to stop people taking up arms and starting a communist revolution. Before then the right to bear arms was protected by the 1689 Bill of Rights, which strangely enough is the origin of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
I by no means want to see a gun culture of any sort over here, but Labour have already allowed that to happen in the underworld, so it's just about avoiding the glamorisation of guns. Guns aren't things that should be glamourised, they are just methods of protection - and it's about time that the liberals (who strangely enough tend to be anti-gun) recognised that guns are an excellent method of defence, and that criminals will always get guns.
In 1997, Blair's government and his anti-gun lobby used Dunblane to force through legislation banning handguns. We aren't told much about the gun, but we are told it is a "handgun". All the 1997 law has done has put handguns in the hands of criminals.
The law-abiding citizen is not allowed to own a gun, and criminals know this, and ABUSE it. They know that they can raid a shop and can get away with armed robbery. In the USA it's different - the likelihood is there's a pistol under the counter or someone armed in the backroom, and they could get shot.
What we need is a real right to bear arms in our homes - and I'm not saying AK-47s, but a semi-auto rifle or .22 caliber pistol are fine to defend your home or business against armed intruders. Guns will always be around, and criminals will always get hold of them - when guns are in the hands of citizens, who will only use them in self-defence (and you'd expect training - there's some jobs to relieve the pressure of the recession a bit).
I'm not going to deny we will occasionally get massacres like Dunblane, and armed robberies. They will always happen. But the benefits outweigh the costs; issuing licences locally will mean that it is harder for someone who might carry out the attack, i.e. a convicted felon, the mentally unstable, "loners" and the like.
The point about "loners" is that Dunblane and Virginia Tech were both carried out by them - this instability means that they may not be of the right mind to carry a gun.
The 1920 gun control laws (our first) were actually to stop people taking up arms and starting a communist revolution. Before then the right to bear arms was protected by the 1689 Bill of Rights, which strangely enough is the origin of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
I by no means want to see a gun culture of any sort over here, but Labour have already allowed that to happen in the underworld, so it's just about avoiding the glamorisation of guns. Guns aren't things that should be glamourised, they are just methods of protection - and it's about time that the liberals (who strangely enough tend to be anti-gun) recognised that guns are an excellent method of defence, and that criminals will always get guns.
Thursday, 8 January 2009
A bad day for savers
So the Bank of England has decided to cut interest rates to its lowest level since it was set up in 1694 - 1.5%. While cutting them from October's 5% to "encourage lending" has done nothing to ease the ability to lend, cutting them again is hardly going to help.
Has the BoE fallen into the government's trap of borrowing and debt? Banks are unwilling to lend because of the likelihood of defaulting (as has caused the crisis in the first place) and instead needs to encourage saving.
If more money is invested in banks in saver's accounts, banks will now have more money to lend out - so more financial security. They will be more willing to lend, and will be more confident that borrowers will have savings to fall back on. As well as this, with savings, when times get hard people will have more money to spend, and will be less likely to go straight to the dole office for help.
This is exactly why saving should be encouraged - it is a long-term solution for financial security and to reduce welfare payments. That is why I am pleased that David Cameron has promised provisions for cutting income tax on savings, and although I'd hope for them to go further, it's a good start for stopping the country's spending binge and could also produce greater economic stability.
Has the BoE fallen into the government's trap of borrowing and debt? Banks are unwilling to lend because of the likelihood of defaulting (as has caused the crisis in the first place) and instead needs to encourage saving.
If more money is invested in banks in saver's accounts, banks will now have more money to lend out - so more financial security. They will be more willing to lend, and will be more confident that borrowers will have savings to fall back on. As well as this, with savings, when times get hard people will have more money to spend, and will be less likely to go straight to the dole office for help.
This is exactly why saving should be encouraged - it is a long-term solution for financial security and to reduce welfare payments. That is why I am pleased that David Cameron has promised provisions for cutting income tax on savings, and although I'd hope for them to go further, it's a good start for stopping the country's spending binge and could also produce greater economic stability.
Wednesday, 7 January 2009
Economy not working? Print more money!
Or so Gordon Brown seems to think is the answer.
It doesn't take a genius to work out that if you increase the monetary supply money becomes worth less (the level of gold reserves normally remains static) - inflation.
Germany 1923, or Zimbabwe now. I'd rather keep my savings and learn to drive thank you very much.
Or is it a ploy to destroy the pound so he can do what he's always wanted - join the Euro?
Expect to see plenty of wheelbarrows in the street if this goes ahead.
It doesn't take a genius to work out that if you increase the monetary supply money becomes worth less (the level of gold reserves normally remains static) - inflation.
Germany 1923, or Zimbabwe now. I'd rather keep my savings and learn to drive thank you very much.
Or is it a ploy to destroy the pound so he can do what he's always wanted - join the Euro?
Expect to see plenty of wheelbarrows in the street if this goes ahead.
Tackling each problem one by one
How did it all start? History GCSE, the Weimar Republic in fact, and diagrams of left/right explaining the parties. That's what first gave me some knowledge of how politics worked, even if it was in a vastly different system to what we have in the UK.
Having realised the amount of politically correct rubbish that has been practically forced into us, often subtly, be it the expansion of racism to what really isn't racist (e.g. black coffee), the decline in any respect for morality or the myth of global warming created only to control, I have realised it's about time some common sense was pushed into the system.
I note that another major reason is the European Union - only through finding myself, sometimes inadvertently, information about the British payments to the EU, the waste, the fact the auditors don't sign off the accounts, the lack of democracy or accountability, and right down to the EU directive that schools should "teach the European dimension" (i.e. indoctrinate that the EU is good) and that means I had no awareness of this before my interest in politics came about. It's about time British leaders showed some strength and stood up for British interests in Europe. If we can't carry out our interests while in the EU, it is not in our interest to be in there, simple as that. If you ask a Europhile why the EU is good, you get the same answer, "it's unified Europe and stopped wars". That is rubbish for a number of reasons. Both world wars were sparked due to pan-Nationalism - in WW1 excluding colonialism and the offshoots of that the Habsberg Empire's ceding of Bosnia, while WW2 was sparked by Hitler's expansionism. The Habsberg army failed to cope with 14 languages, something that the proposed EU army will certainly have problems with. There has not been a war on the continent because the former Powers are now liberal democracies (apparently) with no interest in attacking each other. I also remind you of Yugoslavia, that was a superstate of many peoples that failed simply because of that - the EU is more likely to create wars, especially when it doesn't like criticism.
Which then moves me on to the subversion of democracy. Damian Green was arrested for publishing leaked material - hardly a crime, but according to the Met, it was - proving exactly why we need elected police chiefs which will rid us of the likes of Ian Blair and Bob Quick because no sane person could vote for either to be running their police. Parliament has lost its power to both the EU and quangos, and is in danger of just becoming a Welsh Assembly-esque talking shop - that would be a sad day. Taking a look at the latest Queen's Speech shows how we are practically just another region of the EU submitting to its every wish, not a democratically guided nation. Local councils have no real power - I take you to a recent decision in Newport. A company applied to build new houses and a new building of some sort (that would require more traffic on an already congested road).
Local survey - rejected the plans
Local people - rejected the plans
Local council - rejected the plans
Welsh Assembly - accepted the plans
Contempt for local people's views; localism is something recognised since the Poor Law which was administered locally and should be respected - democracy and freedom are the founding stones of the UK - take them away and we are just part of a puppet state.
Having realised the amount of politically correct rubbish that has been practically forced into us, often subtly, be it the expansion of racism to what really isn't racist (e.g. black coffee), the decline in any respect for morality or the myth of global warming created only to control, I have realised it's about time some common sense was pushed into the system.
I note that another major reason is the European Union - only through finding myself, sometimes inadvertently, information about the British payments to the EU, the waste, the fact the auditors don't sign off the accounts, the lack of democracy or accountability, and right down to the EU directive that schools should "teach the European dimension" (i.e. indoctrinate that the EU is good) and that means I had no awareness of this before my interest in politics came about. It's about time British leaders showed some strength and stood up for British interests in Europe. If we can't carry out our interests while in the EU, it is not in our interest to be in there, simple as that. If you ask a Europhile why the EU is good, you get the same answer, "it's unified Europe and stopped wars". That is rubbish for a number of reasons. Both world wars were sparked due to pan-Nationalism - in WW1 excluding colonialism and the offshoots of that the Habsberg Empire's ceding of Bosnia, while WW2 was sparked by Hitler's expansionism. The Habsberg army failed to cope with 14 languages, something that the proposed EU army will certainly have problems with. There has not been a war on the continent because the former Powers are now liberal democracies (apparently) with no interest in attacking each other. I also remind you of Yugoslavia, that was a superstate of many peoples that failed simply because of that - the EU is more likely to create wars, especially when it doesn't like criticism.
Which then moves me on to the subversion of democracy. Damian Green was arrested for publishing leaked material - hardly a crime, but according to the Met, it was - proving exactly why we need elected police chiefs which will rid us of the likes of Ian Blair and Bob Quick because no sane person could vote for either to be running their police. Parliament has lost its power to both the EU and quangos, and is in danger of just becoming a Welsh Assembly-esque talking shop - that would be a sad day. Taking a look at the latest Queen's Speech shows how we are practically just another region of the EU submitting to its every wish, not a democratically guided nation. Local councils have no real power - I take you to a recent decision in Newport. A company applied to build new houses and a new building of some sort (that would require more traffic on an already congested road).
Local survey - rejected the plans
Local people - rejected the plans
Local council - rejected the plans
Welsh Assembly - accepted the plans
Contempt for local people's views; localism is something recognised since the Poor Law which was administered locally and should be respected - democracy and freedom are the founding stones of the UK - take them away and we are just part of a puppet state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
