There were some leaked details of Tory plans for making further cuts to welfare spending - benefits cuts effectively - at the weekend. IDS was forced to come out and state that no decisions had yet been taken.
Dave has said that the Tories will not increase VAT and will tend toward reducing the tax take - indeed they have taken significant numbers of low earners out of tax altogether during this parliament. The Tories have also said that they will reduce the deficit further if re-elected through more - and significant - cuts obviously.
Labour has said that it won't raise taxes other than the introduction of the Mansion tax and the reintroduction of the 50p top rate which they brought in for about 6 weeks at the end of the last parliament and which actually resulted in a reduction in tax revenue. They have also said that they will not raise National Insurance contributions.
Labour have also said that they will balance the books during the next parliament - so effectively Labour will have to make even deeper cuts than the Tories plan to and for which they are currently being castigated. Indeed Ed Miliband alluded to this during his interview with Paxo last week, but was not picked up on it.
When pressed by Andrew Neil yesterday, Labour's Work and Pensions spokesperson Rachel Reeves admitted that they would have to undertake some 'investment borrowing' to meet requirements. That's 'borrowing' in order to reduce our debts. Good luck with that Rachel.
But like the Tories Labour will not put any detail on their plans for delivering cuts and savings that will see the UK coming back into financial health following the disaster visited on us - by Labour - during the 2000s.
Both parties will benefit from a growing economy and consequent increased tax revenues (although one has to wonder how long it would be a growing economy if Labour gets in).
But neither party is prepared to put any detail on their plans for cuts before the election. And these cuts will be amongst the biggest planks of the UK's economic policy going forward. They will be the main 'weapon' used in reducing the deficit. But neither party will tell us what they plan to do before the election?
Because they're both terrified of losing votes.
Sorry but this is simply not good enough. How can people be expected to vote for parties that will not tell us what they'll do if we elect them?
How far away do we have to get from the concept of our politicians working for us; that they enact plans and policies that we agree with based on our vote, before we start to wake up to what is becoming a complete sham?
I often use the phrase 'if only' in an ironic way, but not this time. If only there were some way in which we - the voters - could say to the parties 'We will not take part in a vote on May 7th unless you have spelled out exactly what you will do in government.'
What both parties are saying now is: 'We won't tell you what we'll be doing to make the massive cuts the country needs until after the election (when you will have no influence over our decisions)'. This is nowhere near good enough in a democracy.
And if you're happy with this state of affairs you're mad. Or, given that they clearly have most to lose from being transparent, a Labour supporter. I'm finding that it's sometimes difficult to differentiate between the two things, but on this issue the Tories are just as worthy of criticism.
Thanks for reading.
Tuesday, 31 March 2015
Maybe it isn't the economy stupid?
I heard on the BBC today that Immigration and the NHS are currently higher on the list of people's most important issues for the coming election than 'the Economy'.
I'd be horrified by this statistic were I part of the Tory election team - and am pretty horrified as just a humble voter.
Why?
Because whilst we remain in the EU there's effectively nothing any party can do to take any kind of serious national control over immigration - so the campaign will all be about meaningless rhetoric rather than policies that will make any real difference. A smokescreen of an issue that neither of the major parties will be able to address - and neither of them will admit to the simple fact that we cannot control movement of people within the EU. And, by the way, people from outside the EU only have to get to Italy, Spain or other southern European countries in order to effectively be inside the EU and then be able to avail themselves of free movement.
Our borders are now effectively as strong as Italy's - which means that when refugees are rescued from floating death traps in the Med and allowed just to 'melt away' when they get to southern Italian towns, they might as well be in Piccadilly Circus.
And on the NHS it has become clear under successive Governments that just throwing money at it will not solve the problems it faces; but neither side dares to go public with plans for the serious reforms that are required in order to improve outcomes for patients, because it has become just too divisive an issue - has been very effectively 'weaponised'.
So the two biggest issues of this election are essentially ones that cannot be controlled or resolved by ether party and it will, therefore be about spin; claim and counter-claim rather than anything that takes the country forward in any meaningful way.
Of course one could put forward an argument to say that Government does not drive or control the economy either but it does, in my opinion, create the environment in terms of taxes, incentives, infrastructure and national credibility which can have a positive or negative impact on business, investment and economic activity.
And whilst neither party can point to any credible track record on immigration or the NHS, there is certainly a massive differential between Conservative and Labour governments of the past ten years or so (and indeed stretching back to the early 1970s too) on economic performance.
This then ought to be the major issue upon which most voters make their choice on May 7th, but it seems it will not be. Labour must be delighted about this and I have to say that Dave has failed so far to position the economy as 'front and centre' in the coming campaign.
Instead he's becoming mired in the smokescreen of other things and submerged under Labour entirely fatuous 'cost of living crisis' bollocks.
This 'cost of living crisis' issue is not a crisis but it has become the accepted term as Labour has been allowed to set the agenda, just as they did on the so-called 'bedroom tax'. The cost of living is based on a comparison between average earnings and inflation - if your pay is not increasing faster than inflation then you will be worse off. Marginally. Very marginally. But the low cost of living relatively, in recent years with very low mortgage costs and now falling fuel prices means that most people who are in a job will actually feel quite well off.
It's only when you don't have a job that you really experience a 'cost of living crisis' - and that was something that Labour massively increased while the Tories have brought down to the tune of 600,000 new jobs since 2010.
Labour created the cost of living crisis by presiding over a failing economy and delivering massive levels of unemployment. The actual differential between wage rises and inflation is now happily going the other way, negating Labour's argument, but the reality of addressing the cost of living crisis is about creating jobs. Which the Tories are doing.
Dave doesn't seem to be able to get this message across. He needs to soon.
Thanks for reading
I'd be horrified by this statistic were I part of the Tory election team - and am pretty horrified as just a humble voter.
Why?
Because whilst we remain in the EU there's effectively nothing any party can do to take any kind of serious national control over immigration - so the campaign will all be about meaningless rhetoric rather than policies that will make any real difference. A smokescreen of an issue that neither of the major parties will be able to address - and neither of them will admit to the simple fact that we cannot control movement of people within the EU. And, by the way, people from outside the EU only have to get to Italy, Spain or other southern European countries in order to effectively be inside the EU and then be able to avail themselves of free movement.
Our borders are now effectively as strong as Italy's - which means that when refugees are rescued from floating death traps in the Med and allowed just to 'melt away' when they get to southern Italian towns, they might as well be in Piccadilly Circus.
And on the NHS it has become clear under successive Governments that just throwing money at it will not solve the problems it faces; but neither side dares to go public with plans for the serious reforms that are required in order to improve outcomes for patients, because it has become just too divisive an issue - has been very effectively 'weaponised'.
So the two biggest issues of this election are essentially ones that cannot be controlled or resolved by ether party and it will, therefore be about spin; claim and counter-claim rather than anything that takes the country forward in any meaningful way.
Of course one could put forward an argument to say that Government does not drive or control the economy either but it does, in my opinion, create the environment in terms of taxes, incentives, infrastructure and national credibility which can have a positive or negative impact on business, investment and economic activity.
And whilst neither party can point to any credible track record on immigration or the NHS, there is certainly a massive differential between Conservative and Labour governments of the past ten years or so (and indeed stretching back to the early 1970s too) on economic performance.
This then ought to be the major issue upon which most voters make their choice on May 7th, but it seems it will not be. Labour must be delighted about this and I have to say that Dave has failed so far to position the economy as 'front and centre' in the coming campaign.
Instead he's becoming mired in the smokescreen of other things and submerged under Labour entirely fatuous 'cost of living crisis' bollocks.
This 'cost of living crisis' issue is not a crisis but it has become the accepted term as Labour has been allowed to set the agenda, just as they did on the so-called 'bedroom tax'. The cost of living is based on a comparison between average earnings and inflation - if your pay is not increasing faster than inflation then you will be worse off. Marginally. Very marginally. But the low cost of living relatively, in recent years with very low mortgage costs and now falling fuel prices means that most people who are in a job will actually feel quite well off.
It's only when you don't have a job that you really experience a 'cost of living crisis' - and that was something that Labour massively increased while the Tories have brought down to the tune of 600,000 new jobs since 2010.
Labour created the cost of living crisis by presiding over a failing economy and delivering massive levels of unemployment. The actual differential between wage rises and inflation is now happily going the other way, negating Labour's argument, but the reality of addressing the cost of living crisis is about creating jobs. Which the Tories are doing.
Dave doesn't seem to be able to get this message across. He needs to soon.
Thanks for reading
Saturday, 28 March 2015
Media training and the leaders' debates - oh and food banks
Paxo's first question to call-me-Dave on Thursday night was about food banks. Along the lines of: 'Do you know how many food banks there now are in the UK compared to 2010 when you came into office?'
It was a great question and one could see in Dave's eyes, that he'd been wounded by the first thrust of what was going to be a long evening for him - and for Ed too of course. This is not an anti Dave blog, but an objective one, critical of him yes, but also of Ed and of the media training 'experts' who have no doubt made a lot of money out of this whole process from both sides.
The proliferation of food banks in the UK in recent years is not a 'good look' for the UK economy. A country as wealthy as ours where significant and increasing numbers of people are reduced to taking hand-outs of free food in order to 'feed their kids' is never going to play well for an incumbent government. It suggests failure quite starkly, irrespective of the positive achievements that it can claim. It should (indeed 'must') have been on the media trainer's list of 'what's the worst question that you can be asked?' Dave seemed un-prepared for it though.
Or at least, if it had been properly raised as a potential banana-skin during the preparation process, theses highly paid 'experts' (media trainers) had not properly 'bottomed out' the issue in order to turn the answer into a positive or at the very least 'neutral' response: 'You're going to take a kicking on this issue, the best we can hope for is that the questioning will move on, emphasise the positives on the economy and employment and you'll be OK'.
If I were paying these media training experts, that would not be good enough. Because (putting myself in Dave's position) I am working 24/7 to bring benefit to the country, to turn around a basket case economy, to bring hope and jobs and a future to real people. And yet you're telling me that I have to take a kicking on this issue?
The principle of media training - or at least the training that dictates one's response to difficult questions - is essentially (I'm using short-hand here using a rugby analogy which many of these people do) 'catch the ball (answer the question quickly) and then move it back in the right/positive direction by delivering positive messages as part of your answer.'
For example: 'Yes we cut off the wrong leg, but his other leg is getting better now - and the man in the next bed wants to buy his slippers'. I exaggerate but you get the picture?
My point here is that you cannot move the ball in the right direction if you cannot catch it properly and cleanly. And Dave didn't. He needed a credible - and positive - answer to the original question about food banks. And he didn't have one. And it set the tone and meant that he was always playing 'catch-up' rather than setting the agenda - difficult to do with Paxo at the best of times - but it was not a good start and it did undoubtedly wound Dave. And yes it was only a TV debate, probably dismissed by most people as kick-about telly, but it was widely watched. And seems to have had an impact in the polls if tomorrow's You Gov Sunday Times figures are anything to go by.
By contrast Ed, tackled on immigration and Labour's woefully inaccurate projections of numbers coming in to the UK from 2004 onwards, said 'We got it wrong'.
And thereby nullified Paxo's follow-up questions forcing him into moving on. 'We got it wrong, but we'll do 'this' next time...
So we essentially had Dave, who has grasped the problems, addressed the most difficult issues and, by the way, made a pretty good fist of turning the economy around from a lamentable starting point, on the defensive, and Ed, who was undoubtedly an integral part of creating the problems that are now starting to be solved, on the front foot.
The guy who created the mess is on a positive trajectory while the one who is sorting it out is seen as negative. Media trainers eh?
Ten grand a day?
Dave did admit to failing on immigration (he could hardly do otherwise) and came back quite well overall. And in my opinion Ed did pretty well too; and given that Ed is way behind the curve on popularity and being an asset to the party, whatever the polls said afterwards, I'd say that he benefited most from the event.
Without actually winning.
OK so let's cut to the chase - if you're still reading well done. What should Dave have done differently?
It's about the question of food banks really isn't it? Not the election, that would be far too small minded, but it's about his initial answer as far as this blog is concerned.
The question was (ish): 'Do you know how many food banks there now are in the UK compared to 2010 when you came into office?'
And the answer should have been:
'Yes I do Jeremy. It is a major concern for this government. In 2010 there were (made up figures it doesn't really matter for this illustration) ten and now there are a million. That suggests that there are hundreds of thousands of our people reliant on free food hand-outs - in our wealthy, first-world economy. I agree that it doesn't look good. I'd like to pay tribute to the many people who donate to food banks out of their generosity and care for other people. We have a welfare system in place that provides a safety net for people: that provides quite a generous level of welfare to ensure that people who are unemployed can live in decent housing and have their bills paid. And can feed themselves and their families. If some people - and it seems that there are significant numbers - cannot gain access to our generous welfare system we need to look at that carefully and in a way that solves the problem. And we will.'
And move on.
The underlying messages that he would not of course say are these:
If you're not in the system that generously provides for you, (and you're here legally), you should be and we'll help. If you are in the system and still reliant on food banks you're taking the piss. You're taking benefits and pissing them up the wall and then claiming free food on top of that. And if so we should not be helping you at all. Not a popular message, but I think it's probably true, even though Dave couldn't possibly say it.
Paxo may well have persisted with: 'But you've been in Government for five years and still the numbers are rising. Why haven't you addressed this before now?'
DC: 'Are you suggesting that we should close food banks Jeremy? On the basis that while it would cause more suffering it might stop us being criticised on the issue? We are not in the business of hiding problems for PR purposes - as has certainly been done in the past where serious issues at Mid-Staffs Hospital, for example, were hidden rather than sorted out. We will look at the food banks issue and find out why the numbers are increasing. There simply should not be this many people needing free food in order to 'get by' when welfare provision is relatively generous.
'It is perhaps an unpopular thing to say, but if one offers people who don't have much spare cash free food, they might avail themselves of it in order to be able to spend their money on other things. It may well be a symptom of a welfare system which, under Labour, actually encouraged people not to work as a perfectly comfortable lifestyle choice because work didn't pay them enough to justify the effort. We have made great strides in addressing this situation during this parliament and I think food banks may be another symptom of that failing system that Labour brought in.
'As I say we will look closely at this issue - we don't have people starving on the streets of Britain in 2015 - if anything we have a much bigger problem with obesity so something clearly doesn't stack up here. On the other hand we have created 1,000 jobs a day...blh blah'.
The point I'm making here is that you have to address the question being asked, properly and credibly, before you can move on to the positives and Dave didn't really do that effectively. Instead he tried to divert the subject which was never going to work.
The other big issue of the debates was immigration - which is undoubtedly having an impact on quality of life, wage levels, NHS performance, housing and education provision and probably food bank as well. Neither Dave nor Ed can actually exert any control over immigration while we remain in the EU, which makes it impossible for either of them to make any credible claim to be able to address the issue - because they both want us to stay 'in'.
Yes they both talk about 'a reformed EU' but both know that there is no chance of securing any meaningful reforms - particularly on the free movement of people within Europe - unless we threaten credibly and seriously to leave, or actually do leave. Paxo should have pressed Dave further on this issue but it is clearly not one that the establishment or the MSM really wants to highlight, now or indeed ever. He didn't need to press Ed on the issue since he will effectively hand over the keys to Brussels given half a chance.
Final comment, I thought Paxo went too far pressing Ed on his personal stuff. One question would have been enough. He should, imo, have gone much further on Labour policies and, in particular how they will fund their plans - neither of which have any credibility at the moment. At one point Ed did say he'd make bigger savings than the Tories plan to do ('Bingo' I thought) but Paxo didn't follow up on this, sadly.
Anyway..
Thanks for reading
It was a great question and one could see in Dave's eyes, that he'd been wounded by the first thrust of what was going to be a long evening for him - and for Ed too of course. This is not an anti Dave blog, but an objective one, critical of him yes, but also of Ed and of the media training 'experts' who have no doubt made a lot of money out of this whole process from both sides.
The proliferation of food banks in the UK in recent years is not a 'good look' for the UK economy. A country as wealthy as ours where significant and increasing numbers of people are reduced to taking hand-outs of free food in order to 'feed their kids' is never going to play well for an incumbent government. It suggests failure quite starkly, irrespective of the positive achievements that it can claim. It should (indeed 'must') have been on the media trainer's list of 'what's the worst question that you can be asked?' Dave seemed un-prepared for it though.
Or at least, if it had been properly raised as a potential banana-skin during the preparation process, theses highly paid 'experts' (media trainers) had not properly 'bottomed out' the issue in order to turn the answer into a positive or at the very least 'neutral' response: 'You're going to take a kicking on this issue, the best we can hope for is that the questioning will move on, emphasise the positives on the economy and employment and you'll be OK'.
If I were paying these media training experts, that would not be good enough. Because (putting myself in Dave's position) I am working 24/7 to bring benefit to the country, to turn around a basket case economy, to bring hope and jobs and a future to real people. And yet you're telling me that I have to take a kicking on this issue?
The principle of media training - or at least the training that dictates one's response to difficult questions - is essentially (I'm using short-hand here using a rugby analogy which many of these people do) 'catch the ball (answer the question quickly) and then move it back in the right/positive direction by delivering positive messages as part of your answer.'
For example: 'Yes we cut off the wrong leg, but his other leg is getting better now - and the man in the next bed wants to buy his slippers'. I exaggerate but you get the picture?
My point here is that you cannot move the ball in the right direction if you cannot catch it properly and cleanly. And Dave didn't. He needed a credible - and positive - answer to the original question about food banks. And he didn't have one. And it set the tone and meant that he was always playing 'catch-up' rather than setting the agenda - difficult to do with Paxo at the best of times - but it was not a good start and it did undoubtedly wound Dave. And yes it was only a TV debate, probably dismissed by most people as kick-about telly, but it was widely watched. And seems to have had an impact in the polls if tomorrow's You Gov Sunday Times figures are anything to go by.
By contrast Ed, tackled on immigration and Labour's woefully inaccurate projections of numbers coming in to the UK from 2004 onwards, said 'We got it wrong'.
And thereby nullified Paxo's follow-up questions forcing him into moving on. 'We got it wrong, but we'll do 'this' next time...
So we essentially had Dave, who has grasped the problems, addressed the most difficult issues and, by the way, made a pretty good fist of turning the economy around from a lamentable starting point, on the defensive, and Ed, who was undoubtedly an integral part of creating the problems that are now starting to be solved, on the front foot.
The guy who created the mess is on a positive trajectory while the one who is sorting it out is seen as negative. Media trainers eh?
Ten grand a day?
Dave did admit to failing on immigration (he could hardly do otherwise) and came back quite well overall. And in my opinion Ed did pretty well too; and given that Ed is way behind the curve on popularity and being an asset to the party, whatever the polls said afterwards, I'd say that he benefited most from the event.
Without actually winning.
OK so let's cut to the chase - if you're still reading well done. What should Dave have done differently?
It's about the question of food banks really isn't it? Not the election, that would be far too small minded, but it's about his initial answer as far as this blog is concerned.
The question was (ish): 'Do you know how many food banks there now are in the UK compared to 2010 when you came into office?'
And the answer should have been:
'Yes I do Jeremy. It is a major concern for this government. In 2010 there were (made up figures it doesn't really matter for this illustration) ten and now there are a million. That suggests that there are hundreds of thousands of our people reliant on free food hand-outs - in our wealthy, first-world economy. I agree that it doesn't look good. I'd like to pay tribute to the many people who donate to food banks out of their generosity and care for other people. We have a welfare system in place that provides a safety net for people: that provides quite a generous level of welfare to ensure that people who are unemployed can live in decent housing and have their bills paid. And can feed themselves and their families. If some people - and it seems that there are significant numbers - cannot gain access to our generous welfare system we need to look at that carefully and in a way that solves the problem. And we will.'
And move on.
The underlying messages that he would not of course say are these:
If you're not in the system that generously provides for you, (and you're here legally), you should be and we'll help. If you are in the system and still reliant on food banks you're taking the piss. You're taking benefits and pissing them up the wall and then claiming free food on top of that. And if so we should not be helping you at all. Not a popular message, but I think it's probably true, even though Dave couldn't possibly say it.
Paxo may well have persisted with: 'But you've been in Government for five years and still the numbers are rising. Why haven't you addressed this before now?'
DC: 'Are you suggesting that we should close food banks Jeremy? On the basis that while it would cause more suffering it might stop us being criticised on the issue? We are not in the business of hiding problems for PR purposes - as has certainly been done in the past where serious issues at Mid-Staffs Hospital, for example, were hidden rather than sorted out. We will look at the food banks issue and find out why the numbers are increasing. There simply should not be this many people needing free food in order to 'get by' when welfare provision is relatively generous.
'It is perhaps an unpopular thing to say, but if one offers people who don't have much spare cash free food, they might avail themselves of it in order to be able to spend their money on other things. It may well be a symptom of a welfare system which, under Labour, actually encouraged people not to work as a perfectly comfortable lifestyle choice because work didn't pay them enough to justify the effort. We have made great strides in addressing this situation during this parliament and I think food banks may be another symptom of that failing system that Labour brought in.
'As I say we will look closely at this issue - we don't have people starving on the streets of Britain in 2015 - if anything we have a much bigger problem with obesity so something clearly doesn't stack up here. On the other hand we have created 1,000 jobs a day...blh blah'.
The point I'm making here is that you have to address the question being asked, properly and credibly, before you can move on to the positives and Dave didn't really do that effectively. Instead he tried to divert the subject which was never going to work.
The other big issue of the debates was immigration - which is undoubtedly having an impact on quality of life, wage levels, NHS performance, housing and education provision and probably food bank as well. Neither Dave nor Ed can actually exert any control over immigration while we remain in the EU, which makes it impossible for either of them to make any credible claim to be able to address the issue - because they both want us to stay 'in'.
Yes they both talk about 'a reformed EU' but both know that there is no chance of securing any meaningful reforms - particularly on the free movement of people within Europe - unless we threaten credibly and seriously to leave, or actually do leave. Paxo should have pressed Dave further on this issue but it is clearly not one that the establishment or the MSM really wants to highlight, now or indeed ever. He didn't need to press Ed on the issue since he will effectively hand over the keys to Brussels given half a chance.
Final comment, I thought Paxo went too far pressing Ed on his personal stuff. One question would have been enough. He should, imo, have gone much further on Labour policies and, in particular how they will fund their plans - neither of which have any credibility at the moment. At one point Ed did say he'd make bigger savings than the Tories plan to do ('Bingo' I thought) but Paxo didn't follow up on this, sadly.
Anyway..
Thanks for reading
Friday, 27 March 2015
Is Newsnight really on the side of Radical Islam?
I thought Ayan Hirsi Ali was pretty shoddily treated on BBC Newsnight last night.
You can watch it here - starts at 26 minutes and 40 seconds. I have transcribed it below because, sometimes, I think reading the words - which are very carefully chosen, distinct, measured and powerful - gives you a clearer picture.
Yes she's flogging a book, but she's also being extremely brave in what she is trying to get across in my opinion. And it's a 'proposal' that could be exactly what we need to get to in order to address the massive threat we all face from Radical Islam. She is suggesting that Islam needs some sort of 'reformation' if it is to come successfully into the modern world for the good of its moderate, modern believers and non-believers alike.
And remembering that Islam is 700 years younger than Christianity - and that Christianity was pretty barbaric in the defence of its 'God-given' power and control over people 700 years ago; it makes sense to me that Islam is in need of modernising reform and equally, therefore, I understand why those Radicals who derive their power over people - especially women - are so against such reform.
What Hirsi Ali is suggesting seems to me to be exactly the sort of reform that might give us all hope for a peaceful future for the planet - particularly those Muslims who abhor what is currently being done in the name of Islam by Radicals, yet Emily Mails and Newsnight seemed more interested in sniping and trying to undermine what she was saying than exploring what are clearly much-needed new ideas.
And what Hirsi Ali was essentially saying, by the way, is backed (she says) by significant numbers of modern Muslims who are, it seems, under the current 'regime', being endlessly bullied into accepting or even supporting a barbarous violent 'religion-justified war of terror on its own people and non-Muslims around the globe.
The interview on one of the major problems facing the world today took up 5 minutes after 26 minutes in which the programme dealt with the Jeremy Clarkson affair and interviewed a Tory and Labour MP about who knew about their parties' PMQs pledges on tax and when did they know it. Important issues no doubt, but there seemed to me to be a hint of down-playing this area of the programme.
Maitls introduced the piece thus:
EM: '"I passionately believe in the world-changing power of Blasphemy" writes Ayan Hirsi Ali in her latest book 'Heretic'
'She calls for a fundamental reformation of Islam and recognition that it is not a religion of peace, if it wants to avoid eventual collapse.
'Is she right? Or is she stirring up trouble by suggesting it's a problem affecting an entire faith and not a tiny proportion who pervert it? We'll ask her in a moment.
'First here's Sikunda Kiarmani' (spell?) (mood setter report)
SK: 'Ever since 911 there's been an intensified debate within the Muslim community and beyond around whether the religion is in need of reform or whether the causes of extremism are linked more to politics and economics than theology. After all the majority of victims of terrorism are Muslims themselves.
'And if the religion is to be reformed, given Sunni Islam lacks central religious authority, who can do that and how? Without leaving the foundations of a religion based on a book believed to be the word of God.
'Ayan Hirsi Ali A has been one of the most outspoken critics of Islam. The Somali-born writer and survivor of female genital mutilation says she was once a strict Muslim before becoming disenchanted' -
(cut to Cameron speaking: 'We face a poisonous and fanatical ideology that wants to pervert one of the world's major religions Islam....')
SK: 'We're used to hearing messages from leaders, Muslim and non-Muslim after terrorist attacks emphasising that extremism is a perversion of the religion. (background leaders after Charlie Hebdo.. Obama '...Al Quada are desperate...')
SK 'Hirsi Ali disagrees: In her latest book 'Heritic' she states her view clearly: - Islam is not a religion of peace. It's a hugely controversial and to many offensive view. She says she's been denounced by Muslims and by what she describes as western Multiculturalists who have accused her of Islamophobia.
'Her new book lays out how she thinks Islam needs reforming. But what credibility will those calls have within the Muslim world given she once reportedly said the Prophet Muhammad would be considered a perverse man and tyrant by western standards?'
EM: 'SK there and Ayan Hirsi Ali joins us now from New York:
'President Obama said we're not at war with Islam. Do you think we are?'
AHA: 'Islam is at war with us - Islam unreformed. And in the book I distinguish, I say there is one Islam but there are three sets of Muslims. and what gives me hope is the fact that today there are Muslims who actually want reform as opposed to say ten years ago. There were probably Muslims who wanted reform but they were not audible.
'I'll give you an example, a man I debated three years ago Majid Nowaz a British citizen, three years ago he was arguing Islam is a religion of Peace..today he's arguing alongside with me that Islam needs a reformation...'
...gap AHA 'Have I lost you?..'
EM: 'No I'm reflecting on that. I know I've spoken to highly educated Muslims today who believe that you're incredibly offensive in what you're putting forth. That you're not working within Islam you're writing this or announcing this almost as an atheist looking in from the outside. Is that how you feel?'
AHA: 'The people like this gentlemen you have spoken to who say that they're offended by pleas for a reformation and for a transformation of Islam that takes young people away from being lured into the Islamic state and into the Jihadi narrative, they're the ones who don't want change and what I find hopeful is that again there are more and more Muslims because Jihad is in Sharia Law; radical Islam is killing Muslims more than anyone else, that there is a group that is standing up today and we need to stand with them. Those individuals, Osama Hussan a cleric and also another British citizen doesn't agree with everything I say but he agrees with the assertion that today Islam is prime for a reformation - the only way it can get out of the crisis in which it is'
EM: 'It's so interesting that but when you describe Islam in it's true form as one that is practised in the way that ISIS describe it, so a very literalist interpretation, it seems to put you and Isis on the same page and leave out most people in the middle who manage to work within and around Islam.'
AHA: 'Here's a challenge to British society. There are three young girls, straight A students of Bethnal Green and they sneak out, they sneak away from their parents' home. They are loved, they're popular, they're intelligent. And they sneak out to be a part of the Islamic State and so are many more, British citizens, French citizens, Danish citizens, American citizens.
'Listen that is a crisis. We can carry on with the drone attacks with the military means with the counter surveillance but there comes a point and more and more Muslims agree with me now, that we need a counter-narrative and that counter narrative is one of a radical transformation. That is what I'm pleading for; it's a peaceful, optimistic message.'
EM: 'But but explain what that counter narrative is? Are you asking them to believe in something different to what they understand as Islam?'
AHA: 'I think that within Islam as a narrative it is possible to review it and I identify 5 key precepts that if you change, you can still keep the five main pillars of Islam; you can get rid of Sharia law you can get rid of Jihad you can get rid of command and criteria on forbidding home, (??) you can invest in life before death and you don't have to follow the example of the Prophet Muhammad literally, but you can as a Muslim still maintain the other five pillars; you can pray, you can fast you can pay charity you can visit Mecca as much as you like and you can confess to the fact that you are a Muslim.
'So it is possible to persuade Muslims that if they changed some of these key precepts that are keeping them in a vicious cycle of violence, that it's possible to still retain their religion. And you know what Islamic state people doing and what Jihadis are doing? They're scaring Muslims into saying if you question the Prophet Muhammad's morality or the Quran you're giving up Islam and that is not true and the way to challenge it is not only through drones and military means I think it is through persuasion and I think you just can't drum bad ideas out of people's heads.'
EM 'Ayan Hirsi Ali great to talk to you thank you very much indeed.'
Just if you are interested in this subject. I thought it was worth reproducing the above in full. I also think she's entirely right as I have blogged in the past.
Thanks for reading.
You can watch it here - starts at 26 minutes and 40 seconds. I have transcribed it below because, sometimes, I think reading the words - which are very carefully chosen, distinct, measured and powerful - gives you a clearer picture.
Yes she's flogging a book, but she's also being extremely brave in what she is trying to get across in my opinion. And it's a 'proposal' that could be exactly what we need to get to in order to address the massive threat we all face from Radical Islam. She is suggesting that Islam needs some sort of 'reformation' if it is to come successfully into the modern world for the good of its moderate, modern believers and non-believers alike.
What Hirsi Ali is suggesting seems to me to be exactly the sort of reform that might give us all hope for a peaceful future for the planet - particularly those Muslims who abhor what is currently being done in the name of Islam by Radicals, yet Emily Mails and Newsnight seemed more interested in sniping and trying to undermine what she was saying than exploring what are clearly much-needed new ideas.
And what Hirsi Ali was essentially saying, by the way, is backed (she says) by significant numbers of modern Muslims who are, it seems, under the current 'regime', being endlessly bullied into accepting or even supporting a barbarous violent 'religion-justified war of terror on its own people and non-Muslims around the globe.
The interview on one of the major problems facing the world today took up 5 minutes after 26 minutes in which the programme dealt with the Jeremy Clarkson affair and interviewed a Tory and Labour MP about who knew about their parties' PMQs pledges on tax and when did they know it. Important issues no doubt, but there seemed to me to be a hint of down-playing this area of the programme.
Maitls introduced the piece thus:
EM: '"I passionately believe in the world-changing power of Blasphemy" writes Ayan Hirsi Ali in her latest book 'Heretic'
'She calls for a fundamental reformation of Islam and recognition that it is not a religion of peace, if it wants to avoid eventual collapse.
'Is she right? Or is she stirring up trouble by suggesting it's a problem affecting an entire faith and not a tiny proportion who pervert it? We'll ask her in a moment.
'First here's Sikunda Kiarmani' (spell?) (mood setter report)
SK: 'Ever since 911 there's been an intensified debate within the Muslim community and beyond around whether the religion is in need of reform or whether the causes of extremism are linked more to politics and economics than theology. After all the majority of victims of terrorism are Muslims themselves.
'And if the religion is to be reformed, given Sunni Islam lacks central religious authority, who can do that and how? Without leaving the foundations of a religion based on a book believed to be the word of God.
'Ayan Hirsi Ali A has been one of the most outspoken critics of Islam. The Somali-born writer and survivor of female genital mutilation says she was once a strict Muslim before becoming disenchanted' -
(cut to Cameron speaking: 'We face a poisonous and fanatical ideology that wants to pervert one of the world's major religions Islam....')
SK: 'We're used to hearing messages from leaders, Muslim and non-Muslim after terrorist attacks emphasising that extremism is a perversion of the religion. (background leaders after Charlie Hebdo.. Obama '...Al Quada are desperate...')
SK 'Hirsi Ali disagrees: In her latest book 'Heritic' she states her view clearly: - Islam is not a religion of peace. It's a hugely controversial and to many offensive view. She says she's been denounced by Muslims and by what she describes as western Multiculturalists who have accused her of Islamophobia.
'Her new book lays out how she thinks Islam needs reforming. But what credibility will those calls have within the Muslim world given she once reportedly said the Prophet Muhammad would be considered a perverse man and tyrant by western standards?'
EM: 'SK there and Ayan Hirsi Ali joins us now from New York:
'President Obama said we're not at war with Islam. Do you think we are?'
AHA: 'Islam is at war with us - Islam unreformed. And in the book I distinguish, I say there is one Islam but there are three sets of Muslims. and what gives me hope is the fact that today there are Muslims who actually want reform as opposed to say ten years ago. There were probably Muslims who wanted reform but they were not audible.
'I'll give you an example, a man I debated three years ago Majid Nowaz a British citizen, three years ago he was arguing Islam is a religion of Peace..today he's arguing alongside with me that Islam needs a reformation...'
...gap AHA 'Have I lost you?..'
EM: 'No I'm reflecting on that. I know I've spoken to highly educated Muslims today who believe that you're incredibly offensive in what you're putting forth. That you're not working within Islam you're writing this or announcing this almost as an atheist looking in from the outside. Is that how you feel?'
AHA: 'The people like this gentlemen you have spoken to who say that they're offended by pleas for a reformation and for a transformation of Islam that takes young people away from being lured into the Islamic state and into the Jihadi narrative, they're the ones who don't want change and what I find hopeful is that again there are more and more Muslims because Jihad is in Sharia Law; radical Islam is killing Muslims more than anyone else, that there is a group that is standing up today and we need to stand with them. Those individuals, Osama Hussan a cleric and also another British citizen doesn't agree with everything I say but he agrees with the assertion that today Islam is prime for a reformation - the only way it can get out of the crisis in which it is'
EM: 'It's so interesting that but when you describe Islam in it's true form as one that is practised in the way that ISIS describe it, so a very literalist interpretation, it seems to put you and Isis on the same page and leave out most people in the middle who manage to work within and around Islam.'
AHA: 'Here's a challenge to British society. There are three young girls, straight A students of Bethnal Green and they sneak out, they sneak away from their parents' home. They are loved, they're popular, they're intelligent. And they sneak out to be a part of the Islamic State and so are many more, British citizens, French citizens, Danish citizens, American citizens.
'Listen that is a crisis. We can carry on with the drone attacks with the military means with the counter surveillance but there comes a point and more and more Muslims agree with me now, that we need a counter-narrative and that counter narrative is one of a radical transformation. That is what I'm pleading for; it's a peaceful, optimistic message.'
EM: 'But but explain what that counter narrative is? Are you asking them to believe in something different to what they understand as Islam?'
AHA: 'I think that within Islam as a narrative it is possible to review it and I identify 5 key precepts that if you change, you can still keep the five main pillars of Islam; you can get rid of Sharia law you can get rid of Jihad you can get rid of command and criteria on forbidding home, (??) you can invest in life before death and you don't have to follow the example of the Prophet Muhammad literally, but you can as a Muslim still maintain the other five pillars; you can pray, you can fast you can pay charity you can visit Mecca as much as you like and you can confess to the fact that you are a Muslim.
'So it is possible to persuade Muslims that if they changed some of these key precepts that are keeping them in a vicious cycle of violence, that it's possible to still retain their religion. And you know what Islamic state people doing and what Jihadis are doing? They're scaring Muslims into saying if you question the Prophet Muhammad's morality or the Quran you're giving up Islam and that is not true and the way to challenge it is not only through drones and military means I think it is through persuasion and I think you just can't drum bad ideas out of people's heads.'
EM 'Ayan Hirsi Ali great to talk to you thank you very much indeed.'
Just if you are interested in this subject. I thought it was worth reproducing the above in full. I also think she's entirely right as I have blogged in the past.
Thanks for reading.
Sunday, 22 March 2015
Climate change. It's complex. But it's not that complex.
Graphs, statistics. Anyone with a brain can put forward a seemingly convincing point of view.
Here's the key fact. The NOAA, NASA, the IPCC and especially the BBC all admit that the world has not been warming for the past 18 years. And these organisations are the drivers of 'warmism' - it's not CO2 it's these organisations who either derive their funding from promoting an issue that has no basis in scientific fact, or who are deliberately misleading us for reasons of personal gain, control over people, or the enabling of higher taxation on us all.
They have since 1997 said that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to catastrophic global warming, sea level rises, the extinction of polar bears, an increased frequency of extreme weather events.
None of these things have happened. None. Not one. And yet they said, with 95% certainty that they would. And by the way levels of CO2 have been rising in that time to the point where they are now around 400 ppm (parts per million). And as a result there has been a measurable 'greening' of the planet - CO2 is 'plant food' after all - as the planet achieves equilibrium over time, as it always has. You need proof of this? We're here. That's irrevocable proof.
No wonder they want to shut down any form of rational scientific debate. Don't you ever wonder why this is the case? If they are so certain of their 'science', why are they silencing people who take a different view? They're simply not looking for 'truth' inconvenient or otherwise, they're designing computer models that produce results that fit their narrative but which, sadly for them, are not borne out by reality in any way at all. In 1974 many of these same 'scientists' were predicting a new ice-age.
Do you ever wonder why they've now dropped the term CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) and now just call it 'climate change'? It's because the climate is changing, always has, always will. But it's no longer warming, not catastrophic and not man-made. The area of contention is whether what we do drives the climate and whether we can control the climate. Even in the 'densely populated' UK we have built on less than 6% of the land. To assume that we can control the climate is Cnut-esque in the extreme. We simply do not know, but instead of trying to find out, the AGW industry is pressing on saying that 'the science is settled'.
An objective view of what we do know (based on the IPCC's own evidence to date) would strongly suggest that we cannot control the climate and that to try to do so is entirely futile. Of course we should not pollute our world. We should protect it and respect life on the planet. But to suggest that we can control the climate is just stupid. Oh and by the way, a few degrees of warming of the planet would be entirely a good thing for most of life on earth.
We do have limited resources; we will eventually need to develop new energy technologies and we will eventually need to have a sustainable energy solution. But we should be moving in this direction not with an Al Gore-shaped gun to our heads but with a science-driven (that's real science not some funding opportunity-driven science) plan, and we should not be leaving our energy assets in the ground or under the sea in the meantime. Green energy defined here.
We should certainly not be doing so in the name of the creation of a single world government that we haven't been consulted on, where 'climate change' is being used as a tool to gain control over our lives. That's just mad. More here.
How many times - and for how long - will we be conned by these people before we wake up?
So what drives temperatures here on earth? Is it CO2 at 400ppm - 'a ping-pong ball in the Albert Hall' - or something else perhaps?
Thanks for reading.
So, who do you vote for in May?
The manifestos aren't even out yet so how can one choose who to vote for in May?
That's assuming, of course that what's in the party manifestos will make any difference to how you'll vote. Chances are it won't.
You know how you're going to vote already. You have done for some time and very little will shake your convictions.
I'm always amazed by the pre-election bribes offered up by the incumbents - a penny off beer for example - which they think will change the way people will vote. The regularity of this tactic suggests that it works, which I find very sad. It suggests that we are so shallow and have such an ignorant view of the world that we can be bribed by such meaningless crap.
Are there really people in our midst who will vote for one party or another on the basis of a penny off a pint of beer? As opposed to voting for one party or the other on the basis of how they run the country when in office? Whether we're better off individually and as a country or worse off?
You'd have to be seriously selfish and small-minded if a penny off a pint of beer swayed your voting intentions. I think you might agree with that contention?
So let's broaden this out a little. You're not so stupid as to fall for the penny off a pint of beer bollocks, so what would you fall for? What could a party offer that would change the way you vote?
There is only one thing that would change the way you vote. It's if the other party promised, credibly, that you would personally - and meaningfully - be better off if you voted for them. 'Credibly' is the key word here: In a way which you believe to be true. In a way which would actually make you better off.
Your vote is essentially based on that conundrum. Because of course they all say that voting for them will make you better off. The question is who do you believe. And a sub-question is of course what do you mean by better off - better off now personally or better off as the country in which our kids will live?
Let's 'park' the sub question - because although it's the most important issue it is not what most voters think about in our media-driven, have it all now, get rich quick society. Sad but true.
So the question becomes: who is offering the most credibility? Who will make your life better in the short term?
Well we don't know do we? That's in the future and we do not and cannot know what the future holds.
Perhaps one of the parties will find a way to achieve universal happiness and prosperity and at a single stroke will deliver what we all want - a peaceful, safe, interesting, meaningful and comfortable life for everyone.
Possible in our dreams but unlikely in reality if we're honest.
So how do we choose if this utopia is in the future and therefore unknowable? Do we vote Labour on the basis that we have done so for 50-odd years and we're still poor? Do we vote on the basis that under the Tories rich people are getting richer and leaving us behind? Do we vote for the Lib Dems who don't have any principles but just want to be in government? The Greens who want us all to live in caves and never go anywhere? UKIP who quite rightly want to get us out of the EU but who are, if we believe what the MSM tell us, peopled by nutters?
You have to look at track records. It's the only thing you can go on as a pointer to future performance. Who has, in government, made the UK a better place in which to live, and who has made things worse.
Who has fixed often difficult problems and who has created, ignored or hidden them?
And if you can bring yourself to consider what's best for our future as a nation as opposed to what you'll get next week, the argument becomes overwhelming. It really does.
If you seriously consider voting for the very same people who almost killed our nation between 1997 and 2010 you're either stupid or selfish beyond belief. I don't think you're either. I think you know, in your heart of hearts, what the right thing to do is.
Do I think, therefore that you'll do it? No not really. What's that old chestnut about madness? 'Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result'?
Of course the Tories are not perfect: they have not balanced the books, they have reduced the deficit but not eliminated it. How big a crime is that given the absolutely disastrous mess they started with? Labour criticising the Tories for not balancing the books when they actually created the biggest peace-time deficit in our history is just laughable. Look at the economy, employment rates, job creation, the growth of small businesses and manufacturing, the reform of welfare which is not more generous than it was under Labour because it is not meant to be a lifestyle choice but a safety net. It certainly is much fairer and more equitable now than it was in 2010.
Of course the Tories and the country have a long way to go until we (as a country) balance the books and stop being hamstrung by having to pay-down Labour's debts. We have a long way to go to unpick a welfare system which sees many if not most 'hard-working people' working full-time and still needing hand-outs in order to live decently.
A long way to go to mend Labour's 'education, education, education' system which lowered the bar and saw us plummeting down international league tables for educational standards.
A long way to go to sort out the NHS. But perleese don't give me this 'Tories will privatise the NHS' bullshit. Labour 'outsourced' more than 4% of the NHS in its last term, a process that has continued to the tune of 2% this time. And the outsourcing is dome to help achieve batter outcomes for patients. If it's free at the point of delivery (which it is and will remain) what's wrong with bringing in other providers to meet the health needs of the population? Would you really rather people die for a want of healthcare (whoever provides it) in order to suit your ideological stance? We both know that's mad and is born of sheer envy, like much of what Labour's 'pull' is based upon.
I give Dave plenty of stick on twitter - on immigration and foreign aid and his utter weakness on the EU (we need out and so do most European countries - because if we left the whole inept undemocratic, failing monstrosity would soon collapse to the benefit of most Europeans, not just those of us in the UK). And if Dave really threatened Juncker et al with the prospect of our leaving he'd get whatever reforms he wanted, but he won't.
But the fact is if you look at the reality of where we are now - fastest growing economy in the G7, rising employment and prosperity - and where we've been in the past (track record), there is really only one positive choice in terms of how you cast your vote. I'm actually amazed that so many of us feel the need to point this out, it's so obvious. The very same people who we kicked out in 2010 for their utter incompetence, are the ones trying to make us believe that it will be different this time. And if you still hold on to the quaint belief that Labour is the party of the 'worker' in Britain, you are completely deluded. They may have been at one time but certainly not now.
There are as many 'toffs' on the Labour front benches as the Tories'. They don't represent and fight for you (the worker) you're just their support group which enables them to keep their lucrative jobs. The difference between the two sets of 'toffs' is that the Tories' toffs want to grow their wealth in a strong economy which, as a by-product delivers opportunity for everyone, while the Labour toffs don't care about that stuff, so long as they keep their cushy jobs. Indeed the difference is even more acute than that:- the Labour toffs want to keep you poor so that you keep voting for them for ever more.
It's up to you of course. I'll be voting Tory. Not because it's what I've always done, but because it's right for me and for my kids, even if they don't yet agree (largely because of the 'left leaning - was there ever a more inadequate description of our modern education system particularly at University level than this one?). But they will eventually agree once reality sinks in, because the alternative is about promises that are never delivered and an ideology of lowest common denominator, envy and the sharing of misery equally.
The question, on May 7th is about what's best for this country. If you look at the facts and the Parties' track records over the last 50 years, it shouldn't be a difficult decision. If you're intelligent and honest about it.
Your call.
Thanks for reading
That's assuming, of course that what's in the party manifestos will make any difference to how you'll vote. Chances are it won't.
You know how you're going to vote already. You have done for some time and very little will shake your convictions.
I'm always amazed by the pre-election bribes offered up by the incumbents - a penny off beer for example - which they think will change the way people will vote. The regularity of this tactic suggests that it works, which I find very sad. It suggests that we are so shallow and have such an ignorant view of the world that we can be bribed by such meaningless crap.
Are there really people in our midst who will vote for one party or another on the basis of a penny off a pint of beer? As opposed to voting for one party or the other on the basis of how they run the country when in office? Whether we're better off individually and as a country or worse off?
You'd have to be seriously selfish and small-minded if a penny off a pint of beer swayed your voting intentions. I think you might agree with that contention?
So let's broaden this out a little. You're not so stupid as to fall for the penny off a pint of beer bollocks, so what would you fall for? What could a party offer that would change the way you vote?
There is only one thing that would change the way you vote. It's if the other party promised, credibly, that you would personally - and meaningfully - be better off if you voted for them. 'Credibly' is the key word here: In a way which you believe to be true. In a way which would actually make you better off.
Your vote is essentially based on that conundrum. Because of course they all say that voting for them will make you better off. The question is who do you believe. And a sub-question is of course what do you mean by better off - better off now personally or better off as the country in which our kids will live?
Let's 'park' the sub question - because although it's the most important issue it is not what most voters think about in our media-driven, have it all now, get rich quick society. Sad but true.
So the question becomes: who is offering the most credibility? Who will make your life better in the short term?
Well we don't know do we? That's in the future and we do not and cannot know what the future holds.
Perhaps one of the parties will find a way to achieve universal happiness and prosperity and at a single stroke will deliver what we all want - a peaceful, safe, interesting, meaningful and comfortable life for everyone.
Possible in our dreams but unlikely in reality if we're honest.
So how do we choose if this utopia is in the future and therefore unknowable? Do we vote Labour on the basis that we have done so for 50-odd years and we're still poor? Do we vote on the basis that under the Tories rich people are getting richer and leaving us behind? Do we vote for the Lib Dems who don't have any principles but just want to be in government? The Greens who want us all to live in caves and never go anywhere? UKIP who quite rightly want to get us out of the EU but who are, if we believe what the MSM tell us, peopled by nutters?
You have to look at track records. It's the only thing you can go on as a pointer to future performance. Who has, in government, made the UK a better place in which to live, and who has made things worse.
Who has fixed often difficult problems and who has created, ignored or hidden them?
And if you can bring yourself to consider what's best for our future as a nation as opposed to what you'll get next week, the argument becomes overwhelming. It really does.
If you seriously consider voting for the very same people who almost killed our nation between 1997 and 2010 you're either stupid or selfish beyond belief. I don't think you're either. I think you know, in your heart of hearts, what the right thing to do is.
Do I think, therefore that you'll do it? No not really. What's that old chestnut about madness? 'Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result'?
Of course the Tories are not perfect: they have not balanced the books, they have reduced the deficit but not eliminated it. How big a crime is that given the absolutely disastrous mess they started with? Labour criticising the Tories for not balancing the books when they actually created the biggest peace-time deficit in our history is just laughable. Look at the economy, employment rates, job creation, the growth of small businesses and manufacturing, the reform of welfare which is not more generous than it was under Labour because it is not meant to be a lifestyle choice but a safety net. It certainly is much fairer and more equitable now than it was in 2010.
Of course the Tories and the country have a long way to go until we (as a country) balance the books and stop being hamstrung by having to pay-down Labour's debts. We have a long way to go to unpick a welfare system which sees many if not most 'hard-working people' working full-time and still needing hand-outs in order to live decently.
A long way to go to mend Labour's 'education, education, education' system which lowered the bar and saw us plummeting down international league tables for educational standards.
A long way to go to sort out the NHS. But perleese don't give me this 'Tories will privatise the NHS' bullshit. Labour 'outsourced' more than 4% of the NHS in its last term, a process that has continued to the tune of 2% this time. And the outsourcing is dome to help achieve batter outcomes for patients. If it's free at the point of delivery (which it is and will remain) what's wrong with bringing in other providers to meet the health needs of the population? Would you really rather people die for a want of healthcare (whoever provides it) in order to suit your ideological stance? We both know that's mad and is born of sheer envy, like much of what Labour's 'pull' is based upon.
I give Dave plenty of stick on twitter - on immigration and foreign aid and his utter weakness on the EU (we need out and so do most European countries - because if we left the whole inept undemocratic, failing monstrosity would soon collapse to the benefit of most Europeans, not just those of us in the UK). And if Dave really threatened Juncker et al with the prospect of our leaving he'd get whatever reforms he wanted, but he won't.
But the fact is if you look at the reality of where we are now - fastest growing economy in the G7, rising employment and prosperity - and where we've been in the past (track record), there is really only one positive choice in terms of how you cast your vote. I'm actually amazed that so many of us feel the need to point this out, it's so obvious. The very same people who we kicked out in 2010 for their utter incompetence, are the ones trying to make us believe that it will be different this time. And if you still hold on to the quaint belief that Labour is the party of the 'worker' in Britain, you are completely deluded. They may have been at one time but certainly not now.
There are as many 'toffs' on the Labour front benches as the Tories'. They don't represent and fight for you (the worker) you're just their support group which enables them to keep their lucrative jobs. The difference between the two sets of 'toffs' is that the Tories' toffs want to grow their wealth in a strong economy which, as a by-product delivers opportunity for everyone, while the Labour toffs don't care about that stuff, so long as they keep their cushy jobs. Indeed the difference is even more acute than that:- the Labour toffs want to keep you poor so that you keep voting for them for ever more.
It's up to you of course. I'll be voting Tory. Not because it's what I've always done, but because it's right for me and for my kids, even if they don't yet agree (largely because of the 'left leaning - was there ever a more inadequate description of our modern education system particularly at University level than this one?). But they will eventually agree once reality sinks in, because the alternative is about promises that are never delivered and an ideology of lowest common denominator, envy and the sharing of misery equally.
The question, on May 7th is about what's best for this country. If you look at the facts and the Parties' track records over the last 50 years, it shouldn't be a difficult decision. If you're intelligent and honest about it.
Your call.
Thanks for reading
Sunday, 15 March 2015
I'm not sure that coffee mornings will defeat beheadings
I'm not particularly religious. In some ways I'm anti-religion given that, in my view, religion is a man-made means of controlling people and of raising funds based on scare tactics: 'pay up now or you won't go to paradise in the hereafter'.
And yet, further down the chain of command, I have met some extremely good people in my life - people who have done some very good and selfless things and whose company is inspiring and uplifting and all in the name of religion. My kids went to a church school and to Sunday school on the basis, in my mind, of getting some 'independent' help on learning the values of right and wrong which I was of course trying to teach them in any case.
But if one thinks about it, kids are hard-wired to know what's right and fair. They don't have to be taught, they know instinctively. And by degrees we then teach them to exploit and take advantage of, and to lie and cheat themselves into a position of success whereupon they become successful and 'comfortable' enough to start telling everyone else how they should be fair to each other.
Politics. There you have it. You're welcome.
The Christian faith has not always been about coffee mornings with the vicar. It has been about crusades (money) and power and influence (money) and burning witches to keep the faithful in order (money) and having a monopoly on weddings and christenings and land ownership (money) and about the Pope raising money from people beyond his geographical area of influence and then paying kings to invade other countries to expand its money-gathering territory.
Cynical? Moi?
But that's almost OK, given that if it wasn't God doing this it would be governments and we'd still be pawns in the process. And we still are today of course. Except that God's business has declined a bit and His competitors (Governments, the EU, the UN etc) have grown and become more successful. Indeed they have grown in part by using their competitor's mantra, just diverting the money into their own coffers.
Not much we can do about it - it's not even worth trying in my opinion. It's just the way 'things' are.
But. (You knew this was coming didn't you?). There is a big difference between a relatively benign body fleecing us for its own ends and another different, competitive, body killing us to achieve the same result.
And it is the same result. It's about money, power and influence. And it is in that order.
Islam is not about belief, or 'peace', it's about domination and control and money. Just as Christianity once was. What happened with Christianity was that it grew up and a groundswell of people used its 'love thy neighbour' mantra to nullify it. To take away the control of it's senior people. You can't advocate tolerance and equality while maintaining the brutal suppression of people when those people are educated, informed and 'free'. It just won't work. It's self defeating.
So where are we with Islam? Where we are is that it hasn't yet grown up (it's 700 years younger than Christianity - think where we were 700 years ago, burning witches etc) and its followers are not. generally speaking, as educated, informed and free as Christians have been in order to drag their faith into modern times. I'm not saying their followers are stupid, just that they are controlled, denied education, brainwashed into believing a medieval doctrine - and that's why we are where we are today.
In the face of this 'movement' we cannot afford to wait 700 years for them to 'grow up'. We need to help them of course, but from a position of strength. We need to educate them in the ways of the modern world and to make it clear that the behaviour of 'radical Islam' is not acceptable in our modern world.
And this may well mean the use of force to short-circuit the 'growing up' process. Otherwise we'll be dragged back into the middle ages in terms of our governance and belief systems.
Don't know about you, but I don't think that coffee mornings will defeat beheadings as a tactic anytime soon.
So it's time we stood up to this barbarity once and for all. For the good not just of our modern way of life, but also for the good of Muslims whose lives are being destroyed buy this evil, medieval, terrifying nonsense.
Thanks for reading.
And yet, further down the chain of command, I have met some extremely good people in my life - people who have done some very good and selfless things and whose company is inspiring and uplifting and all in the name of religion. My kids went to a church school and to Sunday school on the basis, in my mind, of getting some 'independent' help on learning the values of right and wrong which I was of course trying to teach them in any case.
But if one thinks about it, kids are hard-wired to know what's right and fair. They don't have to be taught, they know instinctively. And by degrees we then teach them to exploit and take advantage of, and to lie and cheat themselves into a position of success whereupon they become successful and 'comfortable' enough to start telling everyone else how they should be fair to each other.
Politics. There you have it. You're welcome.
The Christian faith has not always been about coffee mornings with the vicar. It has been about crusades (money) and power and influence (money) and burning witches to keep the faithful in order (money) and having a monopoly on weddings and christenings and land ownership (money) and about the Pope raising money from people beyond his geographical area of influence and then paying kings to invade other countries to expand its money-gathering territory.
Cynical? Moi?
But that's almost OK, given that if it wasn't God doing this it would be governments and we'd still be pawns in the process. And we still are today of course. Except that God's business has declined a bit and His competitors (Governments, the EU, the UN etc) have grown and become more successful. Indeed they have grown in part by using their competitor's mantra, just diverting the money into their own coffers.
Not much we can do about it - it's not even worth trying in my opinion. It's just the way 'things' are.
But. (You knew this was coming didn't you?). There is a big difference between a relatively benign body fleecing us for its own ends and another different, competitive, body killing us to achieve the same result.
And it is the same result. It's about money, power and influence. And it is in that order.
Islam is not about belief, or 'peace', it's about domination and control and money. Just as Christianity once was. What happened with Christianity was that it grew up and a groundswell of people used its 'love thy neighbour' mantra to nullify it. To take away the control of it's senior people. You can't advocate tolerance and equality while maintaining the brutal suppression of people when those people are educated, informed and 'free'. It just won't work. It's self defeating.
So where are we with Islam? Where we are is that it hasn't yet grown up (it's 700 years younger than Christianity - think where we were 700 years ago, burning witches etc) and its followers are not. generally speaking, as educated, informed and free as Christians have been in order to drag their faith into modern times. I'm not saying their followers are stupid, just that they are controlled, denied education, brainwashed into believing a medieval doctrine - and that's why we are where we are today.
In the face of this 'movement' we cannot afford to wait 700 years for them to 'grow up'. We need to help them of course, but from a position of strength. We need to educate them in the ways of the modern world and to make it clear that the behaviour of 'radical Islam' is not acceptable in our modern world.
And this may well mean the use of force to short-circuit the 'growing up' process. Otherwise we'll be dragged back into the middle ages in terms of our governance and belief systems.
Don't know about you, but I don't think that coffee mornings will defeat beheadings as a tactic anytime soon.
So it's time we stood up to this barbarity once and for all. For the good not just of our modern way of life, but also for the good of Muslims whose lives are being destroyed buy this evil, medieval, terrifying nonsense.
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)