I'm sure it were ever thus; that election manifestos have always promised the earth to voters and then, once returned to power - or defeated - the promises go back into the box from whence they came, probably to be rolled out again in five years' time.
But in the past these hollow promises were made without the scrutiny and exactitude of social media. These days promises are recorded and remembered - or at least they should be. The truth is that most people look on the claims of the parties along partisan lines and forgive the falshoods promised by 'their side' and focus remorselessly on the failed promises of the party they oppose.
However the prospect of a hung Parliament and, therefore, a coalition government makes the manifestos meaningless anyway - and I think this is probably a welcome development for all of the parties if not for us voters who are increasingly being fed on bullshit.
In the past the Lib Dems could - and often did - promise anything, however unrealistic, in the hope of garnering more votes. But the main parties had to be able to stand behind and justify their promises during an election campaign because they might just have to make good on them. They had to have credible, costed, realistic promises even if they weren't ever going to deliver.
But now, the prospect of a coalition government means that they can all make pretty outlandish promises because if they're elected they can just claim that the coalition partner wouldn't agree to whatever measure is at issue, and move on. Ditching their promises.
What this means essentially, is that all of the parties are now able to promise the earth, safe in the knowledge that they won't ever be called to account after the election because they can say that their coalition partner vetoed the plan. It's not a good thing. It's a 'get out of jail free' card for every party.
In effect they're all Lib Dems now: They can make ever more ridiculous promises secure in the knowledge that they won't ever have to make good on them.
It saddens me that bribes are still the most effective way of securing votes. That it is still about 'what's in it for me tomorrow' rather than 'what's in it for our kids in the future'.
I find it sickening that people will vote on the basis of their personal gains next week instead of what is right for the country in the medium or long term. But that's where we are. A nation that can be governed because of short-term bribes.
And we laugh at Zimbabwe?
Thanks for reading.
Monday 27 April 2015
Sunday 26 April 2015
Ed will outlaw Islamophobia for the sake of a few votes?
Islamophobia is defined as prejudice against, hatred towards, or fear of the religion of Islam or Muslims.
And today Mr Miliband has vowed to legislate to make it an 'aggravated crime' effectively making laws that already make it a 'hate crime' even tougher if he is elected on May7th. More here.
This is of course a highly complicated and controversial, not to say 'dangerous' issue but Mr Miliband doesn't seem to understand this complexity. Actually I'm sure he does - he must - but detail is not really an issue when one is trying - nay desperate as they all are - to garner votes from one sector of our society.
Not mentioned in any of this but critical to the discussion must be the term 'justified' - or 'unjustified'. The key to this must be whether the 'phobia' at issue is either justified or unjustified. If it is justified, I fail to see how anyone can be criminalised for holding the particular view.
If the law was written to make illegal the 'unjustified' prejudice or hatred towards Islam I would wholeheartedly agree with this initiative. I abhor unjustified, tribal or racist prejudice of all kinds, but that is not what we're dealing with here is it? There are two elephants in this somewhat crowded room here. Firstly the term 'fear' and secondly the word 'justified'.
This proposed legislation seems to be suggesting that people should be prosecuted and locked up (for more than seven years) if they fear the religion of Islam. I think that is a ridiculous stance to take.
Given some of the recent crimes that have been committed (Lee Rigby, Charlie Hebdo, Canada etc) in the name of Radical Islam, I'd suggest that one would be hard-pressed to find many people who don't harbour some degree of fear of Islam. Radical Islam at least. And this might well be an area for further discussion - 'Radical' as opposed to 'ordinary' or 'moderate' Islam; but the fact is that these and many other hideous crimes have been committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. That's simply a fact.
So under Mr Miliband's new legislation if I'm asked if I'm prejudiced towards - or fearful of - Radical Muslims who cut people's heads off, I might have to say 'yes I am' and then toddle off to jail?
If I'm asked if I 'hate' the people who behead non-Muslims in the Middle East, who push Christians off boats in the Med purely because they are Christians, I would probably (while not being entirely comfortable with the term 'hate') have to nod my assent. It's a fair cop. Off I jolly well go. What's this bucket in the corner for may I ask Mr gaoler?
In this blog the term 'justified' is mine. It is not mentioned in Ed's proposed legislation but it sure as fuck should be. You can't prosecute (fairly at least) someone whose fear is entirely justified. If Islamophobia arises because of the behaviour of Islam - the actual behaviour, not some perceived, unfounded, unjustified prejudice - then making it an 'aggravated crime' punishable as Ed sets out, in an even more severe way than 'normal' hate crime, then I'd have to say that we are in deep shit.
Because what it would be doing is playing entirely into the hands of the people who are using Islam as an excuse to undermine our way of life, to harm us and to take-over our modern secular democracy. It is, in effect, enforcing our tolerance - on pain of imprisonment - towards a group of people (Radical Islamists and Radical Muslims) who have shown absolutely zero levels of tolerance towards us and our way of life.
I acknowledge that these practices are not perpetrated by all Muslims, but we are not talking about a mere handful of lone wolves, we're talking about a very widespread problem in our society. And we see very little evidence of 'moderate' Muslims standing up against these illegal practices.
It is clear - and widely acknowledged in our media and amongst the establishment (police, politicians, the judiciary etc) - that our reluctance to be accused of being Islamophobic has led to the point where Muslim child sexual grooming gangs have been allowed to carry on their hideous behaviour country-wide, unchecked for decades. That the illegal practice of female genital mutilation is rife among this group and not being prosecuted. That illegal forced marriages of 11 year old girls and polygamy is widespread in the UK. That electoral fraud has been ignored.
And all because we have been reluctant to stand up to these horrendous and illegal practices for fear of being called 'racist' or 'Islamophobic'.
And now Mr Miliband wants to make this situation even worse?
For the sake of a few votes?
Making promises that will never be delivered in order to bribe the electorate is one thing. But creating a legal situation that will further undermine our society - 'will undermine' because we absolutely know this to be true - is another thing entirely.
It is batshit crazy and it is against the interests of the law-abiding majority in our society.
Thanks for reading.
And today Mr Miliband has vowed to legislate to make it an 'aggravated crime' effectively making laws that already make it a 'hate crime' even tougher if he is elected on May7th. More here.
This is of course a highly complicated and controversial, not to say 'dangerous' issue but Mr Miliband doesn't seem to understand this complexity. Actually I'm sure he does - he must - but detail is not really an issue when one is trying - nay desperate as they all are - to garner votes from one sector of our society.
Not mentioned in any of this but critical to the discussion must be the term 'justified' - or 'unjustified'. The key to this must be whether the 'phobia' at issue is either justified or unjustified. If it is justified, I fail to see how anyone can be criminalised for holding the particular view.
If the law was written to make illegal the 'unjustified' prejudice or hatred towards Islam I would wholeheartedly agree with this initiative. I abhor unjustified, tribal or racist prejudice of all kinds, but that is not what we're dealing with here is it? There are two elephants in this somewhat crowded room here. Firstly the term 'fear' and secondly the word 'justified'.
This proposed legislation seems to be suggesting that people should be prosecuted and locked up (for more than seven years) if they fear the religion of Islam. I think that is a ridiculous stance to take.
Given some of the recent crimes that have been committed (Lee Rigby, Charlie Hebdo, Canada etc) in the name of Radical Islam, I'd suggest that one would be hard-pressed to find many people who don't harbour some degree of fear of Islam. Radical Islam at least. And this might well be an area for further discussion - 'Radical' as opposed to 'ordinary' or 'moderate' Islam; but the fact is that these and many other hideous crimes have been committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. That's simply a fact.
So under Mr Miliband's new legislation if I'm asked if I'm prejudiced towards - or fearful of - Radical Muslims who cut people's heads off, I might have to say 'yes I am' and then toddle off to jail?
If I'm asked if I 'hate' the people who behead non-Muslims in the Middle East, who push Christians off boats in the Med purely because they are Christians, I would probably (while not being entirely comfortable with the term 'hate') have to nod my assent. It's a fair cop. Off I jolly well go. What's this bucket in the corner for may I ask Mr gaoler?
In this blog the term 'justified' is mine. It is not mentioned in Ed's proposed legislation but it sure as fuck should be. You can't prosecute (fairly at least) someone whose fear is entirely justified. If Islamophobia arises because of the behaviour of Islam - the actual behaviour, not some perceived, unfounded, unjustified prejudice - then making it an 'aggravated crime' punishable as Ed sets out, in an even more severe way than 'normal' hate crime, then I'd have to say that we are in deep shit.
Because what it would be doing is playing entirely into the hands of the people who are using Islam as an excuse to undermine our way of life, to harm us and to take-over our modern secular democracy. It is, in effect, enforcing our tolerance - on pain of imprisonment - towards a group of people (Radical Islamists and Radical Muslims) who have shown absolutely zero levels of tolerance towards us and our way of life.
I acknowledge that these practices are not perpetrated by all Muslims, but we are not talking about a mere handful of lone wolves, we're talking about a very widespread problem in our society. And we see very little evidence of 'moderate' Muslims standing up against these illegal practices.
It is clear - and widely acknowledged in our media and amongst the establishment (police, politicians, the judiciary etc) - that our reluctance to be accused of being Islamophobic has led to the point where Muslim child sexual grooming gangs have been allowed to carry on their hideous behaviour country-wide, unchecked for decades. That the illegal practice of female genital mutilation is rife among this group and not being prosecuted. That illegal forced marriages of 11 year old girls and polygamy is widespread in the UK. That electoral fraud has been ignored.
And all because we have been reluctant to stand up to these horrendous and illegal practices for fear of being called 'racist' or 'Islamophobic'.
And now Mr Miliband wants to make this situation even worse?
For the sake of a few votes?
Making promises that will never be delivered in order to bribe the electorate is one thing. But creating a legal situation that will further undermine our society - 'will undermine' because we absolutely know this to be true - is another thing entirely.
It is batshit crazy and it is against the interests of the law-abiding majority in our society.
Thanks for reading.
Wednesday 22 April 2015
Random but funny
Programme here.
I'm a big fan of the BBC's Countryfile programme. Apart from Newsnight, Questiontime and some sport it's just about all I watch on the BBC these days.
Pink Floyd's 'I got 13 channels of shit on the TV to choose from' was woefully optimistic way back when. At least on the BBC one only has 4 channels of shit to choose from. I usually choose the 'off' button.
I'm a big fan because I am a 'crunchy bumpkin', love nature and wildlife, live in a rural community, have farmers for friends - I'm of the soil one might say and whilst some of the stuff they broadcast is risible, it's the only stuff on offer in many ways. They tend to be reasonably fair (it's the BBC so one has to make allowances of course) to the rural way of life, they even try to be even handed on the issues of huntin' shootin' and fishing although it obviously goes against the grain for the BBC.
But whilst last Sunday's programme on 'woodland' was excellent (I live next to ancient woodland in Rockingham Forest - a Mecca for Doormice, presumably Muslim Doormice but they haven't shown their hand yet) (that was almost a joke by the way); they had this bit (start at 45 minutes in) wherein they had various professors conducting a long-term experiment about CO2 and its effect on trees.
The learnéd professor from Birmingham University opined that the purpose of the experiment was to find out how trees will react to slightly higher levels of CO2 than are currently extant. He stated that it was about how woods respond to climate change. Fair enough, whether one believes that climate change is an issue (which it is because it has been happening forever and will go on happening forever) or whether one feels that it is just a natural phenomenon and one that we have no hope of being able to control (which is the reality).
Anyway your man said the experiment was to find out how trees will respond to known levels of CO2 in 50 or 100 year's time. 'So we can see how the woodland responds to the atmospheric conditions that we know will be around us all'. Again, fair enough. But then he said:
'The big question is where does this extra carbon dioxide go? We know that plants, woodland and trees are pulling down some of that carbon and helping us avoid some of the worst excesses of climate change, but we're not sure whether that will continue into the future.'
So trees might start eating insects or beef or lentils? Instead of CO2 which is the fundamental building block of plant life on the planet? His name is Rob Mackenzie, I'm sure he's a lovely man who derives his tax-payer funding for this experiment quite legitimately.
I can save you decades of worry Rob. The trees will flourish from having more CO2 to 'eat'. They will be more healthy, they will be greener. They will actually 'fix' more carbon from the atmosphere because it is available to them. Just as is happening across Asia where there has been a measurable 'greening' as CO2 levels have increased - at the same time as global warming has stalled. For nearly 19 years now. It's because the planet achieves equilibrium over time. More CO2 equals more plants and then less CO2 as a result. Over time this means that the planet's eco-system works and we are here to tell the tale.
We're paying an eminent scientist and his team to find out whether trees consume CO2? I kinda 'did' this at 'O' level when the Tudor dynasty was contemporary history.
I'm a big fan of the BBC's Countryfile programme. Apart from Newsnight, Questiontime and some sport it's just about all I watch on the BBC these days.
Pink Floyd's 'I got 13 channels of shit on the TV to choose from' was woefully optimistic way back when. At least on the BBC one only has 4 channels of shit to choose from. I usually choose the 'off' button.
I'm a big fan because I am a 'crunchy bumpkin', love nature and wildlife, live in a rural community, have farmers for friends - I'm of the soil one might say and whilst some of the stuff they broadcast is risible, it's the only stuff on offer in many ways. They tend to be reasonably fair (it's the BBC so one has to make allowances of course) to the rural way of life, they even try to be even handed on the issues of huntin' shootin' and fishing although it obviously goes against the grain for the BBC.
But whilst last Sunday's programme on 'woodland' was excellent (I live next to ancient woodland in Rockingham Forest - a Mecca for Doormice, presumably Muslim Doormice but they haven't shown their hand yet) (that was almost a joke by the way); they had this bit (start at 45 minutes in) wherein they had various professors conducting a long-term experiment about CO2 and its effect on trees.
The learnéd professor from Birmingham University opined that the purpose of the experiment was to find out how trees will react to slightly higher levels of CO2 than are currently extant. He stated that it was about how woods respond to climate change. Fair enough, whether one believes that climate change is an issue (which it is because it has been happening forever and will go on happening forever) or whether one feels that it is just a natural phenomenon and one that we have no hope of being able to control (which is the reality).
Anyway your man said the experiment was to find out how trees will respond to known levels of CO2 in 50 or 100 year's time. 'So we can see how the woodland responds to the atmospheric conditions that we know will be around us all'. Again, fair enough. But then he said:
'The big question is where does this extra carbon dioxide go? We know that plants, woodland and trees are pulling down some of that carbon and helping us avoid some of the worst excesses of climate change, but we're not sure whether that will continue into the future.'
So trees might start eating insects or beef or lentils? Instead of CO2 which is the fundamental building block of plant life on the planet? His name is Rob Mackenzie, I'm sure he's a lovely man who derives his tax-payer funding for this experiment quite legitimately.
I can save you decades of worry Rob. The trees will flourish from having more CO2 to 'eat'. They will be more healthy, they will be greener. They will actually 'fix' more carbon from the atmosphere because it is available to them. Just as is happening across Asia where there has been a measurable 'greening' as CO2 levels have increased - at the same time as global warming has stalled. For nearly 19 years now. It's because the planet achieves equilibrium over time. More CO2 equals more plants and then less CO2 as a result. Over time this means that the planet's eco-system works and we are here to tell the tale.
We're paying an eminent scientist and his team to find out whether trees consume CO2? I kinda 'did' this at 'O' level when the Tudor dynasty was contemporary history.
Monday 20 April 2015
Dave doesn't seem to want to win this election. I wonder why?
As the campaign days go by I'm coming to the conclusion that Dave doesn't really want to win this forthcoming election. He seems to be content to be drawn in to the endless Labour smokescreen, giving credibility to largely irrelevant issues like zero hours or Tory cuts (when Labour has signed up to making the same cuts) the NHS scare stories etc.
He's the Prime Minister but he's not setting the agenda and he's not focusing enough on his achievements in office. I've long suspected that he's not really 'up' for this job, that he got it by accident and would be personally happier to lose the election and go back to a more normal life.
Obviously he'd never publicly admit to this but he knows the numbers - the state of the economy in reality rather than the spin being put on it by all sides - and he doesn't seem to me to want to play all his aces. You'd have to wonder why this is - and it's quite a scary prospect in many ways - he's seen the books and doesn't seem to be up for the fight. Does he know what we don't? That we are still a basket case following the crash of 2008?
Despite the recovering economy and all the new jobs that have been created - jobs in the private sector rather than Labour's proliferation of public sector 'diversity officer' non-jobs - he doesn't seem to have the heart for the fight.
It's almost as if he knows that we're in for even more difficult times ahead and that he and his Tory party henchmen would rather be in opposition when they hit home.
We all know that we cannot go on borrowing forever, living beyond our means and also that there hasn't really been any real austerity yet. It seems to me that Dave has looked under the rock and discovered something there that he can't hope to fix. And that he (and his colleagues) would rather be in opposition, sniping, than trying to fix an unfixable problem.
I hope I'm wrong about this, but I'm becoming increasingly convinced that I'm not.
One thing is for sure: an increasingly left-leaning, borrow-and-spend-more Labour party will only make the problems we face more acute.
Generally speaking Labour has always created - and hidden - the fundamental problems we face as a nation in the past. And the Tories have become steadily more unpopular by trying to fix them.
It seems to me that this time, the Tories don't believe that they can fix the issues we face and that they would rather be in opposition when the shit really hits the fan.
We should have let the banks fail in 2008 and we should never have 'printed' money out of thin air. It would have been very painful, in the short term, but it would be over by now and we would now be coming out the other side of this crisis with capitalism intact. Instead we're continuing to kick the can down the road to the benefit of the corporations and the bankers instead of real people. This is not sustainable - it's the desperate ploy of an irrevocably failed - and failing - financial system. And it will come back to bite us in the end.
As I say, I hope I'm wrong. Time will tell. But I think I'm right and that there is a lot more suffering to come.
Thanks for reading.
He's the Prime Minister but he's not setting the agenda and he's not focusing enough on his achievements in office. I've long suspected that he's not really 'up' for this job, that he got it by accident and would be personally happier to lose the election and go back to a more normal life.
Obviously he'd never publicly admit to this but he knows the numbers - the state of the economy in reality rather than the spin being put on it by all sides - and he doesn't seem to me to want to play all his aces. You'd have to wonder why this is - and it's quite a scary prospect in many ways - he's seen the books and doesn't seem to be up for the fight. Does he know what we don't? That we are still a basket case following the crash of 2008?
Despite the recovering economy and all the new jobs that have been created - jobs in the private sector rather than Labour's proliferation of public sector 'diversity officer' non-jobs - he doesn't seem to have the heart for the fight.
It's almost as if he knows that we're in for even more difficult times ahead and that he and his Tory party henchmen would rather be in opposition when they hit home.
We all know that we cannot go on borrowing forever, living beyond our means and also that there hasn't really been any real austerity yet. It seems to me that Dave has looked under the rock and discovered something there that he can't hope to fix. And that he (and his colleagues) would rather be in opposition, sniping, than trying to fix an unfixable problem.
I hope I'm wrong about this, but I'm becoming increasingly convinced that I'm not.
One thing is for sure: an increasingly left-leaning, borrow-and-spend-more Labour party will only make the problems we face more acute.
Generally speaking Labour has always created - and hidden - the fundamental problems we face as a nation in the past. And the Tories have become steadily more unpopular by trying to fix them.
It seems to me that this time, the Tories don't believe that they can fix the issues we face and that they would rather be in opposition when the shit really hits the fan.
We should have let the banks fail in 2008 and we should never have 'printed' money out of thin air. It would have been very painful, in the short term, but it would be over by now and we would now be coming out the other side of this crisis with capitalism intact. Instead we're continuing to kick the can down the road to the benefit of the corporations and the bankers instead of real people. This is not sustainable - it's the desperate ploy of an irrevocably failed - and failing - financial system. And it will come back to bite us in the end.
As I say, I hope I'm wrong. Time will tell. But I think I'm right and that there is a lot more suffering to come.
Thanks for reading.
Saturday 18 April 2015
Immigration is about numbers. Nothing else.
It's about time we recognised that the immigration issue is not about racism but about numbers. I really don't think that many - if any - people are concerned about the colour or ethnic background of the people ahead of them in the queue for the doctor's appointment. Or the school place for their child.
The reason why we have difficulty in getting a doctor's appointment or a school place is not because of the ethnicity of the people who are also trying to get an appointment or a place for their kids, it is because of the numbers of people who are doing the same thing. The 'supply' of these things has fallen behind the 'demand' because we have not been able to keep pace with the numbers of people wanting and needing these things to be provided.
And the reason why this is happening is that we have no idea how many people are coming into this country so that we can plan ahead and match supply and demand. And the reason why we cannot do this is because we have no control over the numbers of people who come here. We don't know what the numbers will be and therefore we simply cannot plan to meet their needs.
And so they - incomers - suffer, and so do the rest of us as pressure increases on housing, healthcare, education etc.
It's really quite simple. If we know how many people will be coming to the UK - regardless of their background, ethnic or religious standing, we can gear up to meet their needs. If we don't we cannot.
This is not in any way a racist issue. I'm not suggesting in any way that we should stop people from coming here. But unless we know what the numbers will be - Labour said migration would be 13,000 in 2004 and in reality it was more than a million - we simply cannot hope to match supply and demand.
All of the above is what UKIP is saying. That we need a points-based system like Canada or Australia but essentially that we need to know what the numbers will be.
I'm not a UKIP supporter but I am a UKIP defender. Calling this stance 'racist' is just stupid. And completely missing the point.
Please stop taking all this establishment and media bullshit as gospel. Their agenda is to stop change; to stop anyone who threatens their cozy lifestyle. To undermine UKIP at every turn. As I say I'm not a 'kipper, but I will defend their logic where it stacks up. Labour and the Tories are now falling over themselves to impose punitive benefits policies that will deter immigration. Policies that are, if anything, more draconian than anything UKIP is suggesting. But still calling UKIP 'racist'?
Think about this and wake up to the reality. UKIP is the only party advocating control and understanding the numbers. So that we might be able to solve the problem. I'm not saying vote for them. I am saying stop calling them racist, because it's simply not true.
Thanks for reading.
The reason why we have difficulty in getting a doctor's appointment or a school place is not because of the ethnicity of the people who are also trying to get an appointment or a place for their kids, it is because of the numbers of people who are doing the same thing. The 'supply' of these things has fallen behind the 'demand' because we have not been able to keep pace with the numbers of people wanting and needing these things to be provided.
And the reason why this is happening is that we have no idea how many people are coming into this country so that we can plan ahead and match supply and demand. And the reason why we cannot do this is because we have no control over the numbers of people who come here. We don't know what the numbers will be and therefore we simply cannot plan to meet their needs.
And so they - incomers - suffer, and so do the rest of us as pressure increases on housing, healthcare, education etc.
It's really quite simple. If we know how many people will be coming to the UK - regardless of their background, ethnic or religious standing, we can gear up to meet their needs. If we don't we cannot.
This is not in any way a racist issue. I'm not suggesting in any way that we should stop people from coming here. But unless we know what the numbers will be - Labour said migration would be 13,000 in 2004 and in reality it was more than a million - we simply cannot hope to match supply and demand.
All of the above is what UKIP is saying. That we need a points-based system like Canada or Australia but essentially that we need to know what the numbers will be.
I'm not a UKIP supporter but I am a UKIP defender. Calling this stance 'racist' is just stupid. And completely missing the point.
Please stop taking all this establishment and media bullshit as gospel. Their agenda is to stop change; to stop anyone who threatens their cozy lifestyle. To undermine UKIP at every turn. As I say I'm not a 'kipper, but I will defend their logic where it stacks up. Labour and the Tories are now falling over themselves to impose punitive benefits policies that will deter immigration. Policies that are, if anything, more draconian than anything UKIP is suggesting. But still calling UKIP 'racist'?
Think about this and wake up to the reality. UKIP is the only party advocating control and understanding the numbers. So that we might be able to solve the problem. I'm not saying vote for them. I am saying stop calling them racist, because it's simply not true.
Thanks for reading.
Tuesday 14 April 2015
Food banks
I must say it's a bit galling that generous people who have a bit to spare and are therefore trying to help people who need more food by donating food to those people, via a Food Bank, are now being castigated as part of the problem in 21st Century Britain.
Their generosity is being flung back in their faces by the left who see the fact that we have food banks at all as a measure of Tory failure.
We have poor people in the UK because the Labour party created them - and has always created them. Labour was the architect of the 2007 crash which left millions out of work and whose policies during 13 years in government left millions not just without work but not prepared to go to work because it simply wasn't worth it to them.
Some Food Bank users are in genuine need of food for their families and we should - and do - provide for them. Anyone who is out of work and within the system legally, should not be short of food unless they're spending their money on other stuff. Taking the piss in other words. I think many are doing this.
We should close down the food banks, provide carefully controlled support for people who really need it and tell the people who are using the existence of food banks as a stick with which to beat generous Tories who provide this food, to fuck off.
We do not have a problem with malnutrition in this country. We have a problem with obesity.
And there rests the case for the defence M'Lord.
Thanks for reading.
Their generosity is being flung back in their faces by the left who see the fact that we have food banks at all as a measure of Tory failure.
We have poor people in the UK because the Labour party created them - and has always created them. Labour was the architect of the 2007 crash which left millions out of work and whose policies during 13 years in government left millions not just without work but not prepared to go to work because it simply wasn't worth it to them.
Some Food Bank users are in genuine need of food for their families and we should - and do - provide for them. Anyone who is out of work and within the system legally, should not be short of food unless they're spending their money on other stuff. Taking the piss in other words. I think many are doing this.
We should close down the food banks, provide carefully controlled support for people who really need it and tell the people who are using the existence of food banks as a stick with which to beat generous Tories who provide this food, to fuck off.
We do not have a problem with malnutrition in this country. We have a problem with obesity.
And there rests the case for the defence M'Lord.
Thanks for reading.
Inheritance Tax
Why do you work hard?
I'd say it's because you have been programmed so to do - it's what makes the world work after all, but from a personal perspective it's so that you can live in a degree of comfort, provide for your family, feed them so that they can survive and prosper.
But in the 21st Century it's not just that is it - we don't generally speaking have a daily need to go out into the forest and kill something to bring back to the tribe to eat. We've moved on a little from that. Mostly at any rate.
So the reason that you work hard is to provide for your family and to a lesser extent your wider community, not just in terms of shelter and sustenance, but in terms of their future well being, which means education and helping to provide the best possible start in life for your kids. It's not rocket science. It's fact, pure and simple. And along the way you will help others either voluntarily or via a mutually agreed system in which you give some of your hard-earned money to a central body - let's call it 'government' - which then uses that money to help people who are not so well off and takes care of things that you haven't the time - or can't be arsed - to do yourself.
All good so far?
So you work hard, pay your taxes, build or buy your home for your family, give them the best possible early life that you can afford and the best possible future prospects - skills and financial help if you can. It's just what you do if you're a responsible parent.
It is usually quite hard to buy your home; it's expensive especially after you have paid the taxes you (sort of) agreed to, but nonetheless you manage somehow. Sometimes when times are hard you resent paying taxes to other people who don't seem to be trying or working as hard as you are, but you recognise the common good, tighten your belt for a few weeks and you get by.
And after many years of working hard, paying your taxes, helping other people, helping your own family and hopefully having quite a good life yourself, you die, having done your bit, but having left your family as secure as you possibly could have done. You can rest in peace, safe in the knowledge that you paid your taxes and paid for your home, provided for your family and left them something to build upon for the future and for their kids.
And then the government steps in and demands that your family gives half of your assets to itself, to the 'state'. To help other people who you have been helping all your life. Disadvantaged people perhaps. But also people who didn't bother to work hard and provide for their own families. So your hard-won gains which were made whilst paying your taxes are to be taxed again.
If you buy a 'thing' a television, or a car, which you buy after paying tax to help the less fortunate, it's yours. You can do with it what you will. But if you buy a house, invest in stuff, outwith the tax you pay as a matter of course, it can be taxed again? And by 40%? So it's not really your property to dispose of how you wish. And trying to help your kids was actually a sham because it didn't really help because your help will be taken away, even though you played by the rules and did your best not only for your family but also via your taxes for those less well off...
Why did you bother?
If you hadn't your family would be marginally worse off. But not much. If you'd stayed in bed you'd still be OK. Why did you bother?
Just because this happens and you might have got used to it, doesn't mean it's right or fair. It's a threat to everyone. It's a fundamental abuse of the 'human rights' that these fuckers are so strong on. It's a scam, and just because people who have amassed nothing to hand on to their families like it because it satisfies their envy of people who did the right thing, does not make it right.
Inheritance tax (on stuff one has bought and paid for whilst also paying tax along the way) is so wrong. Such a fundamental breech of freedom and the power of the individual, such a disincentive to anyone who wants to do the right thing by their family that those who propose it should hang their heads in shame. It is not their money or their asset. It is the person who has grafted to pay for it, over a lifetime of endeavour and hard work.
And Labour wants to extend this ridiculously unfair tax to people who have been fortunate enough to have paid for a property that is worth more than £2million. So what? Why not £1 million? Why not £100k? Well partly because of envy, but also partly to establish the principle of taxing people on their biggest asset - their home. Because as night follows day, this hideous and unfair tax will be levied upon all of us who own property before long.
It will become the norm.
Mark my words. We're sleepwalking into total dependency on the state - they will take what we own and give it to those who didn't bother, in the name of progress. In the name of equality. In the name of envy.
In the name, ultimately, of failure.
Because when this happens, more and more people will wake up to the fact that there's really no need to bother or to aspire to something because it will not make any difference in the end. So they'll stay in bed and the hard-working people - probably of China - will take over the world and employ us - if we're lucky - as slaves.
I somehow doubt that they'll be as understanding of our government-imposed preference for staying in bed. If we're interested in eating regularly that is.
Thanks for reading.
I'd say it's because you have been programmed so to do - it's what makes the world work after all, but from a personal perspective it's so that you can live in a degree of comfort, provide for your family, feed them so that they can survive and prosper.
But in the 21st Century it's not just that is it - we don't generally speaking have a daily need to go out into the forest and kill something to bring back to the tribe to eat. We've moved on a little from that. Mostly at any rate.
So the reason that you work hard is to provide for your family and to a lesser extent your wider community, not just in terms of shelter and sustenance, but in terms of their future well being, which means education and helping to provide the best possible start in life for your kids. It's not rocket science. It's fact, pure and simple. And along the way you will help others either voluntarily or via a mutually agreed system in which you give some of your hard-earned money to a central body - let's call it 'government' - which then uses that money to help people who are not so well off and takes care of things that you haven't the time - or can't be arsed - to do yourself.
All good so far?
So you work hard, pay your taxes, build or buy your home for your family, give them the best possible early life that you can afford and the best possible future prospects - skills and financial help if you can. It's just what you do if you're a responsible parent.
It is usually quite hard to buy your home; it's expensive especially after you have paid the taxes you (sort of) agreed to, but nonetheless you manage somehow. Sometimes when times are hard you resent paying taxes to other people who don't seem to be trying or working as hard as you are, but you recognise the common good, tighten your belt for a few weeks and you get by.
And after many years of working hard, paying your taxes, helping other people, helping your own family and hopefully having quite a good life yourself, you die, having done your bit, but having left your family as secure as you possibly could have done. You can rest in peace, safe in the knowledge that you paid your taxes and paid for your home, provided for your family and left them something to build upon for the future and for their kids.
And then the government steps in and demands that your family gives half of your assets to itself, to the 'state'. To help other people who you have been helping all your life. Disadvantaged people perhaps. But also people who didn't bother to work hard and provide for their own families. So your hard-won gains which were made whilst paying your taxes are to be taxed again.
If you buy a 'thing' a television, or a car, which you buy after paying tax to help the less fortunate, it's yours. You can do with it what you will. But if you buy a house, invest in stuff, outwith the tax you pay as a matter of course, it can be taxed again? And by 40%? So it's not really your property to dispose of how you wish. And trying to help your kids was actually a sham because it didn't really help because your help will be taken away, even though you played by the rules and did your best not only for your family but also via your taxes for those less well off...
Why did you bother?
If you hadn't your family would be marginally worse off. But not much. If you'd stayed in bed you'd still be OK. Why did you bother?
Just because this happens and you might have got used to it, doesn't mean it's right or fair. It's a threat to everyone. It's a fundamental abuse of the 'human rights' that these fuckers are so strong on. It's a scam, and just because people who have amassed nothing to hand on to their families like it because it satisfies their envy of people who did the right thing, does not make it right.
Inheritance tax (on stuff one has bought and paid for whilst also paying tax along the way) is so wrong. Such a fundamental breech of freedom and the power of the individual, such a disincentive to anyone who wants to do the right thing by their family that those who propose it should hang their heads in shame. It is not their money or their asset. It is the person who has grafted to pay for it, over a lifetime of endeavour and hard work.
And Labour wants to extend this ridiculously unfair tax to people who have been fortunate enough to have paid for a property that is worth more than £2million. So what? Why not £1 million? Why not £100k? Well partly because of envy, but also partly to establish the principle of taxing people on their biggest asset - their home. Because as night follows day, this hideous and unfair tax will be levied upon all of us who own property before long.
It will become the norm.
Mark my words. We're sleepwalking into total dependency on the state - they will take what we own and give it to those who didn't bother, in the name of progress. In the name of equality. In the name of envy.
In the name, ultimately, of failure.
Because when this happens, more and more people will wake up to the fact that there's really no need to bother or to aspire to something because it will not make any difference in the end. So they'll stay in bed and the hard-working people - probably of China - will take over the world and employ us - if we're lucky - as slaves.
I somehow doubt that they'll be as understanding of our government-imposed preference for staying in bed. If we're interested in eating regularly that is.
Thanks for reading.
Tuesday 7 April 2015
Dave says we need EU reform. He could secure these reforms if he really wanted to. So why won't he?
OK let's get the basics out of the way: The EU is on a publicly stated journey to establish a federal Europe: One in which national governments are subservient to the centralised EU machinery of governance. Exactly like the state legislature in America is subservient to the national government. Individual states can make local laws on minor local issues but the national government holds sway on major issues like taxation, defence, foreign policy, the fundamental laws of the land, welfare, education, healthcare, major investment in infrastructure etc etc.
Clearly the US had a major advantage when these policies were enacted - a single common language, currency and (largely) history after the unpleasantness of 1861. And they have a democratic system that most Americans believe in, with issues like free speech constitutionally enshrined. It's not perfect but it has worked for a couple of hundred years. And has delivered prosperity.
The EU is trying to get to this situation - essentially by making the whole of Europe Germany. You may laugh at that contention, but it is essentially true: Germanic in terms of taxation, employment and retirement laws, working practices, the standardisation of everything.
So we lose the quirkiness of southern Europe. The culture of Spain, Italy, Greece etc. How's that going by the way?
They signed up so that's their problem in some ways, but I'm not a 'little Englander' and I love Europe and its people. I'll come back to this anon.
The thing is that if we remain part of the EU we will be taken on this journey to federalism. We will not have our own army or foreign policy or ability to make trade agreements on our own behalf with the outside world. We will have to do everything within the machinery of the EU. We'll be forced to have an EU flag and anthem - small beer perhaps, but massively important symbolically. Because it will mean that we are no longer a nation state, able to defend itself or to set out its own policies for the future. Or to control who comes in to our country. Immigration is a big issue at the moment, but trust me, it's paltry compared to the other issues that being part of the EU will really mean to our lives.
And the raison d'étre of the EU was originally to make wars in Europe impossible. And to promote trade which brings prosperity. History tells us these things and history should be more widely studied and accepted in my view. If we studied history we would never have gone in to Afghanistan for example.
But, while we signed up to the founding principles of the EU in 1974 after the last unpleasantness (1938-45) we never signed up to a federal Europe. And certainly not to an unelected, undemocratic one, which is what we're looking at now. Where a failed (proven to be corrupt) MP from Luxembourg (Luxembourg for fuck sake) can make laws that effect us all in our daily lives.
And who wants to take more powers over our lives on an inexorable day-by-day basis. Without our democratic consent.
Here's the 'thing'. I always have some kind of 'thing' in my blogs. It tends to ensure that I don't write utter shit with no point or just state the fucking obvious all the time.
We are the 5th biggest economy on the planet. We are the second biggest net contributor to the EU. We are paying for this shit. And because, in spite of all this EU bollocks, we are making a success of our economy, we have to pay more in and we have become a magnet for economic migrants whose own governments are fucking up their own economies so they have nowhere else to go. We are also the Eurozone's biggest customer - there is a trade deficit (in favour of the EU) of £45 billion a year.
So we're important to the EU. That's like saying the heart pumping blood and oxygen to the brain is important to the person. Without it the person dies. And that is where we are. Without its second biggest contributor and single biggest customer the Eurozone dies. It doesn't 'soldier on' it dies, and quickly. And yet the Eurocrats sneer at us from their ivory towers?
So what if we were to leave? The Eurozone cannot afford not to trade with us. We're its biggest customer. They simply cannot afford to impose trade sanctions against us because we'd reciprocate and they'd be (technical term) fucked. So there would be no loss of UK jobs if we left the EU. None - except perhaps a few EU specific non-jobs. A handful of over-paid Eurocrats - forgive my indifference.
If we were to leave, the EU would be entirely fucked. Look at the crisis that the possibility of net recipient Greece's potential departure has caused in recent weeks. If we were to go the EU would be toast and very quickly.
Imagine if we were serious and threatened to leave. And the Eurocrats who have sold out their own countries, for years, in order to keep their ridiculously over-paid jobs were faced with the consequences.
I think they might stop sneering at us don't you? I think they might say: 'Actually Dave, if you really want to control your own borders we might be able to come up with some ideas. If you want to be able to do trade deals with the rest of the world we could look at that, if you want to deport people without having to go through the endless processes of the ECHR we might be sympathetic, if you want to make your own laws, have your own currency, have your own army, be like a proper country, we could do something.
Dave has all of this in his hands. He holds all of the aces in the pack. And if he did have the bollocks to do this - he wouldn't have to do anything just be credible in his threat - he could not only secure the reforms that he says the UK needs, he could also win the election at a canter. And most young people in Southern Europe would celebrate with us, because they would have a shot at a successful, prosperous future.
The question is, why won't he?
Thanks for reading.
Clearly the US had a major advantage when these policies were enacted - a single common language, currency and (largely) history after the unpleasantness of 1861. And they have a democratic system that most Americans believe in, with issues like free speech constitutionally enshrined. It's not perfect but it has worked for a couple of hundred years. And has delivered prosperity.
The EU is trying to get to this situation - essentially by making the whole of Europe Germany. You may laugh at that contention, but it is essentially true: Germanic in terms of taxation, employment and retirement laws, working practices, the standardisation of everything.
So we lose the quirkiness of southern Europe. The culture of Spain, Italy, Greece etc. How's that going by the way?
They signed up so that's their problem in some ways, but I'm not a 'little Englander' and I love Europe and its people. I'll come back to this anon.
The thing is that if we remain part of the EU we will be taken on this journey to federalism. We will not have our own army or foreign policy or ability to make trade agreements on our own behalf with the outside world. We will have to do everything within the machinery of the EU. We'll be forced to have an EU flag and anthem - small beer perhaps, but massively important symbolically. Because it will mean that we are no longer a nation state, able to defend itself or to set out its own policies for the future. Or to control who comes in to our country. Immigration is a big issue at the moment, but trust me, it's paltry compared to the other issues that being part of the EU will really mean to our lives.
And the raison d'étre of the EU was originally to make wars in Europe impossible. And to promote trade which brings prosperity. History tells us these things and history should be more widely studied and accepted in my view. If we studied history we would never have gone in to Afghanistan for example.
But, while we signed up to the founding principles of the EU in 1974 after the last unpleasantness (1938-45) we never signed up to a federal Europe. And certainly not to an unelected, undemocratic one, which is what we're looking at now. Where a failed (proven to be corrupt) MP from Luxembourg (Luxembourg for fuck sake) can make laws that effect us all in our daily lives.
And who wants to take more powers over our lives on an inexorable day-by-day basis. Without our democratic consent.
Here's the 'thing'. I always have some kind of 'thing' in my blogs. It tends to ensure that I don't write utter shit with no point or just state the fucking obvious all the time.
We are the 5th biggest economy on the planet. We are the second biggest net contributor to the EU. We are paying for this shit. And because, in spite of all this EU bollocks, we are making a success of our economy, we have to pay more in and we have become a magnet for economic migrants whose own governments are fucking up their own economies so they have nowhere else to go. We are also the Eurozone's biggest customer - there is a trade deficit (in favour of the EU) of £45 billion a year.
So we're important to the EU. That's like saying the heart pumping blood and oxygen to the brain is important to the person. Without it the person dies. And that is where we are. Without its second biggest contributor and single biggest customer the Eurozone dies. It doesn't 'soldier on' it dies, and quickly. And yet the Eurocrats sneer at us from their ivory towers?
So what if we were to leave? The Eurozone cannot afford not to trade with us. We're its biggest customer. They simply cannot afford to impose trade sanctions against us because we'd reciprocate and they'd be (technical term) fucked. So there would be no loss of UK jobs if we left the EU. None - except perhaps a few EU specific non-jobs. A handful of over-paid Eurocrats - forgive my indifference.
If we were to leave, the EU would be entirely fucked. Look at the crisis that the possibility of net recipient Greece's potential departure has caused in recent weeks. If we were to go the EU would be toast and very quickly.
Imagine if we were serious and threatened to leave. And the Eurocrats who have sold out their own countries, for years, in order to keep their ridiculously over-paid jobs were faced with the consequences.
I think they might stop sneering at us don't you? I think they might say: 'Actually Dave, if you really want to control your own borders we might be able to come up with some ideas. If you want to be able to do trade deals with the rest of the world we could look at that, if you want to deport people without having to go through the endless processes of the ECHR we might be sympathetic, if you want to make your own laws, have your own currency, have your own army, be like a proper country, we could do something.
Dave has all of this in his hands. He holds all of the aces in the pack. And if he did have the bollocks to do this - he wouldn't have to do anything just be credible in his threat - he could not only secure the reforms that he says the UK needs, he could also win the election at a canter. And most young people in Southern Europe would celebrate with us, because they would have a shot at a successful, prosperous future.
The question is, why won't he?
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)