MichaelCD - The Blog.

Articles

2007-08-22T17:25:00.000Z

Benefit claims by Eastern Europeans have almost trebled in the past year, official figures show.

The cost of the payouts - to almost 112,000 migrants - is put at £125million a year.
The Home Office figures mean that one in six of an estimated 683,000 Eastern European incomers is living off the state to some extent.

A year ago, only 42,620 were claiming benefits.
Critics say that the welfare bill will rise further because 700 more migrants arrive every day from former Soviet Bloc states.

So, one sixth of East Europeans are on benefits. And it means that another central tenet in the 'economic-benefit' argument for mass immigration from Eastern Europe, falls apart.

Secondly, from the Telegraph:

New Labour has presided over the creation of a quango superstate that spends nearly £170 billion a year - more than five times the budget of the Ministry of Defence.

The figure has been revealed by an investigation into the accounts of nearly 900 agencies, advisory bodies, monitoring boards and other public bodies that are all termed "quangos".

The study also shows massive pay rises over the past decade for those running a slew of agencies, including the Coal Authority, the British Waterways Board and British Nuclear Fuels.

Last year, Ken Boston, the head of the Qualification and Curriculum Authority, received £273,000 in annual pay and benefits in kind.

In 1998, his predecessor received £43,563. Trevor Beaumont, head of The Tote, was paid £369,000 last year. In 1998, an official received £115,000 to do the same job.

Two years before Labour came to power, Gordon Brown spoke publicly of the need for a "bonfire of the quangos". His party's 1997 General Election manifesto sharply criticised the Tories for allowing their number and cost to soar.

A suggestion, then, for Dave: follow through Gordon's excellent idea for a bonfire of quangos, and you could go into the next election promising to balance the books, increase spending on the health service and cut taxes.

Panic Over?

2007-08-13T16:36:00.000Z

It looks like the great panic is over, for now. The markets were in the green today after heavy losses last week, including a disastrous trading session on Friday. Being the Stock Market we can't say for certain whether this is the bottom, although I would imagine we are fairly close to it. What it has revealed, and will reveal further if there are any more heavy losses, however, is the knife-edge that the whole debt-based financial system lives on.

To a short-term bull and long-term bear like myself, it doesn’t really look like things have actually changed that much. Corporate profits are still good and they should be the main marker for the performance of stocks and shares. Moreover, that elusive recession seems to be somewhere on the horizon but is certainly not close enough to really worry about. So in all reality this is solely about debt, and central banks who give platitudes about Adam Smith and liberal markets but to whom John Maynard Keynes is still the role model. That is why I am calm about the near future; central banks will simply not allow the debt-based economy to collapse. At the first sight of any signs that the economy may be in difficulty, liquidity will be flooded in and interest rates slashed.

What about inflation, I hear people say, haven't the central banks said they are going to fight it? Well, yes, the central banks have talked about inflationary concerns over the last couple of years, and interest rates have been raised accordingly. But, in all reality, faced between the choice of the whole debt edifice collapsing around their heads and inflation being set loose, I think they will choose the easy option. Ergo, inflation will be set loose, and we all know what I believe is the remedy for this.

My Broadband Has Been Resurrected

2007-08-12T09:26:00.000Z

Technology, hey? It looks so easy to use on the box; just set it up and go. Unfortunately, the reality is usually one of devices unable to talk to each other and of long phone calls to tech support in Bangalore.

Anyway, things look like they are back to normal now, so blogging will return soon.

The Tribes of Britain

2007-08-04T17:36:00.000Z

I have just finished reading David Miles' book on the Tribes of Britain. Whilst the first part of the book ticks all the boxes that I was expecting from Miles, a former Chief Archaeologist with English Heritage, in that it contained a mix of demographics, archaeological anecdotes and genetics, the second part certainly does not. In fact, the best description of the latter chapters is as a love letter to mass immigration.

Now the first question that springs to my mind is why on earth would Miles write a book on the British people when they seem to constantly be presented as nasty racists? And if you are going to talk about events you may as well get your facts right. For instance, Stephen Lawrence was murdered in 1993 not 1988 as Miles states.

Also, Miles correctly states that 'in 2003 new British citizens from Africa far outnumbered the combined total from the West Indies, Canada, Australia and America', with most of these coming from Somalia. He then says that this has gone unnoticed because 'they do not present too much of a problem' as they are 'mostly young, healthy, Anglophone and well educated'. Now I know that he wrote the book before two 'young, healthy' Somalians tried to blow-up Central London, but even so it proves his enthusiasm for immigration seriously clouds his judgement. And it is seems even more so when you consider that on the previous page he had exalted the 'Britishness' of a Caribbean island he had recently visited. Now although this is a little trite, it does at least have some truth to it: immigrants from places with similar cultures are obviously more likely to be able to integrate. Yet despite trying, I think, to make that point, a page later he seems to think it is wonderful that we now have mass immigration from Somalia!

All in all, it's a bit of a shame really, because if this book had ended at the chapter covering the 18th century I would have been enthusiastically endorsing it. Now, however, I must say that I won't be reading anything by Miles in the future. And as for English Heritage, an organisation of which I am a member, you do wonder about the sort of political bias that exists within it.

An Unlikely Civil War

2007-07-27T17:52:00.001Z

The blogger Mr Smith has pointed out a number of posts from Paul Weston, who he describes as a 'social commentator'. What caught my eye most was the two posts entitled 'Is European Civil War Inevitable by 2025?' The article, in reality, is ruminations by Weston on demographics and the ubiquity of violence in states with large Muslims populations.

Obviously, I am well aware of the arguments about demographics; I have read Pat Buchanan’s Death of the West and I used to lap up plenty of Mark Steyn’s doom-laden columns, in years gone by. And I certainly can see the validity of the argument - inward Islamic immigration continues unabated, whilst 'white flight' is a well documented phenomenon.

However, I think that extrapolating short term trends over a long period of time, is risky territory. Weston seems to believe that there will be a violent reaction to one terrorist attack too many. Is that realistic? I can forsee more and more people angered by terrorism, certainly, but their likely reaction will be to agitate for strict Islamic immigration restrictions and against the building of 'Mega Mosques', both policies that would postpone, or even stop, 'Islamification'.

There are also a couple of other tenuous arguments within the article.

Even if we agree with Weston's demographic argument, the 5 to 1 ratio is over the whole of Europe. Yet, this is likely to mean that in a country like France the ratio will be high, in many other countries in Europe the ratio will be low. Will the hopelessly outnumbered Muslim populations in these countries rise up in support of Sharia too? They will need to, if the thesis is correct, because it will require a massive sectarian conflict, like that in Iraq, to really render the Police and Army useless. Again, this all seems highly unlikely to myself.

There is, however, a killer section in the article, which I will reproduce here:

In France the politicians promise more money for the banlieus, within which Sharia law operates and no white European dare set foot. In Spain they gathered in squares after the Madrid train bombing and held candle-lit peace vigils, before voting out their Government and replacing it with one more in tune to the Islamists demands. In Holland, the Dutch justice minister, Piet Hein Donner has no objection to Sharia law being imposed, providing it is done democratically, and in Sweden, integration minister Jens Orback declared: “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.”

After the London tube bombings, the government’s immediate response was to worry not about the English, but about the terrible oppression the perpetrators must have suffered from in order to commit such a crime. Much to our rulers dismay, the “fabulous four” were educated and middle class; their drive was Islam, not oppression.

Weston has it on the submissive aspects of the governments of Western Europe, and the simple fact is that it far easier for Muslims to work within the current policial framework, extracting concessions, if they desire an Islam dominated future. In short, the obsession with minority interests, which dominates British politics, offers a richer ground for Islamists than engaging in a mass war.

Now I will engage in my little bit of fantasy: it's 2011, a charismatic Muslim leader emerges, styled as a moderate, who attempts to combat 'Islamophobia' and the 'extremists' within his community, he is feted by the Guardian, the Coexistence Trust and the BBC. Affable, presentable and a model of 'integration success', he is more Barak Obama than George Galloway. His party, helped by the 'ethnic voting' that those from the Indian Subcontient routinely engage in, win a good number of seats in the General Election.

The government court him, wanting to bring back the voters that they have lost back into the fold, and aim to concede to whatever he desires. And then the dam will have burst: Islamic schools, Mega Mosques, Islamic courts, will quickly become a daily reality of life in Britain. Perhaps, similar movements will arise in France, Sweden and Holland, too.

Britain will continue to exist, but will have become hollowed out and divided. And if, like Weston, you're looking for a Hadrianople or an Alaric outside the gates, you will not see the destruction right in front of your eyes.

Hitchens on the EU

2007-07-22T16:00:00.000Z

Hat-tip The Devils Kitchen

Ouch!!

2007-07-16T18:15:00.000Z

July 16 (Bloomberg) -- Brent crude-oil futures traded above $78 a barrel in London for the first time since Aug. 9 as maintenance shutdowns limited North Sea supplies and violence in Nigeria curbed its oil exports.

The August Brent contract rose as high as $78.02 a barrel and was trading at $78 a barrel, up 43 cents, at 8:38 a.m. on London's ICE Futures exchange. Brent has averaged $64.56 so far this year for contracts closest to delivery, after averaging $66.11 last year, $55.25 in 2005 and $38.04 in 2004.

Brent set a record on Aug. 7, when crude futures closest to delivery reached an intra-day high of $78.64 a barrel.

Dealing With Terrorism

2007-07-13T18:00:00.000Z

Stella Rimington, former head of MI5, has elucidated her remedy for dealing with terrorism:

The former head of MI5 today calls for stricter border controls to combat a terrorism threat to Britain which will last for a 'generation'.
In an exclusive Daily Mail interview, Dame Stella Rimington says the Government must resist the introduction of increasingly 'draconian' terror laws, such as detention without trial.
But she argues that 'if you have people who would kill you there have got to be a lot more checks' of those trying to enter the UK.

There you go, Gordon, it's simple. You do not need to trample on civil liberties, and you certainly do not need to spend massive amounts on implementing ID cards. If you want to fight terrorism, the first place to start is our porous border.

Oil Fundamentals - Update

2007-07-11T18:09:00.000Z

The fundamentals of oil have returned to the news this week. The IEA has predicted a coming supply crunch:

Crude-oil supplies will be tighter in coming years, with a "supply crunch" after 2010 as OPEC's spare production capacity evaporates, the International Energy Agency predicted Monday.

Supplies will tighten because economic growth will drive up demand and offset significant increases in oil-refining capacity, the IEA said, according to media reports citing the agency's annual medium-term forecast.

The IEA, which monitors energy markets for the world's 26 most-advanced economies, doesn't forecast oil prices, but its conclusions imply consumers should expect continued upward pressure on energy costs, The Wall Street Journal reported in its online edition.

"Oil and gas price pressures look set to remain in the coming years," the IEA reported, according to the Journal. "Slower-than-expected (gross-domestic-product) growth may provide a breathing space, but it is abundantly clear that if the path of demand doesn't change on its own, it may well be driven to change by higher prices.".

Clearly, the problems here are more of a refinery nature than Peak Oil related. Nonetheless, they are related to the unbelievable explosion in demand of the last few years emanating from non-OECD countries, which has lead to the pressure on refinery capacity.

And when you add stagnating reserves, refinery problems and massive demand together it shows that we are headed one way: directly towards what Peter Terzakian calls an 'energy breakpoint'.

Broken Society

2007-07-08T11:04:00.000Z

David Cameron is aiming to 'mend' society:

Tory leader David Cameron has said mending Britain's "broken society" is the biggest challenge facing the UK.
Citing high crime rates, drug abuse and teenage pregnancies, he said there was something "deeply wrong" and "long-term generational change" was needed.
Mr Cameron was speaking to the BBC's Sunday AM show ahead of a report by the party's Social Justice Policy Group.

All very laudable. However, it is not just a 'long-term generational change' that is needed. The fact is that it is not just problems with the so-called underclass of British society that have created the feeling that our society is broken. Their is a deep pervasive current of nihilism, self-loathing. consumerism and selfishness that runs through all rungs of society.

One of the saddest, and also most graphic, manifestations of this has been the response of some to the widespread misery caused by the floods in the North-East of England. Here are three examples:

National Flood Forum co-ordinator Mary Dhonau warned cowboy builders could arrive at people's doors "wearing spurs and yelling yee-haa".

She advised flood victims to use recommended workmen "even if it means you are displaced for longer".

"There aren't enough builders in the area for the homes who need one,"
she said.

"People will go to the area and nobody knows who they are. They have got to check their credentials."

She said damage done by dodgy workmen could end up being more stressful than the flooding itself.

It could lead to the need for people to move out of their homes again, she said.

And:

Meanwhile, Katrina Whincup has faced the prospect of profiteering.

Mrs Whincup, 36, was forced to flee her house in Ilchester Close, Bransholme, with her three children Adam, Abbie and Emily on June 25 after it became flooded.

She tried to secure a property in Mill Lane, Beverley, to rent through a private landlord, after seeing an advertisement in the Mail.

But she claims the price was increased by £120 to £900 per month at the last minute, a cost too high to be covered by her insurers.

Since then Mrs Whincup has lost out on three other properties in Hull because of the high demand.

The owner of the house in Mill Lane, Beverley, did not wish to be named and declined to comment.

Finally, in this sordid trio we have this:

Four people have been arrested on suspicion of looting from flooded properties in West Yorkshire, police have said.
The arrests for theft were made in the Brigg area of Wakefield, where a number of homes were hit by flooding.
A spokeswoman for West Yorkshire Police said the four people had been released on bail pending further inquiries.
Ch. Inspector Mark Truelove said: "We warn people engaging in such activity they will be dealt with robustly."

Perhaps these are merely isolated incidents, but you really do have to wonder about the mentality of those involved here. They are a symptom of the broken society, but unlike the underclass it cannot be claimed that they are 'poor'. Therefore, it is beyond the ability of the left, with their Marxist obsession with money and poverty, to solve the malaise in society. So what is now needed is a revolution. A revolution, to be more precise, in the morals and spirit of the nation.

Gordon's Weakness

2007-07-04T17:56:00.000Z

There has been much said about Gordon Brown’s accession to Prime Minister.Most of it seems to revolve around how he has surprised the Tories, by not causing a massive poll slump after taking the keys to Number 10. Quite why anyone would have thought that Brown’s accession would have caused such a down-surge in popularity I do not know.

Image, one of the areas where people said Brown would err, has not got the same hold over the public that it did in 1997. The ‘Cool Britannia’ hysteria of that era has dissipated, to be replaced by a more image-weary media and public. And, in any case, all media appearances can be heavily managed and choreographed, interviewers can be handpicked and speeches carefully constructed; leaving little chance of the voters seeing the real personality of Brown shining through.

The other hope, I suppose, was that Brown would quickly be seen as a 1970s dinosaur, whose socialism would send the voters of the ‘middle’ ground back into the arms of the Conservatives. It should have been fairly obvious by now, however, that Brown does understand that you need wealth creation and lower-than-1970s direct taxation to make an economy tick.

In saying all that Brown does have some severe weaknesses. The economy has performed well in a number of ways, but it is certainly not the ‘miracle’ economy that Brown and his media Toadies like to paint out. Most damning of all is the question of who has benefited from Brown’s policies, who has lost out and what effects will they have on our country in the future.

The City has been full of praise for Brown, and why shouldn’t they be? He has kept direct taxation reasonably low, and resisted the temptation to clamp down on record bonuses. Furthermore, there is non-domicile tax status in which foreigners (many of whom hold British passports) pay about 25% tax rather than the 40% top rate. That is great for them, and many would argue that this has lead to top foreign talent descending on the City making it the powerhouse (or, indeed, the only working engine at all) of the British economy.

This windfall has allowed Brown to throw the money at the people he regards as either too important too annoy votes-wise, or as ‘worthy’ of government help. So we now have a protected public sector retirement age of 60; whilst those of my generation have been told that they must work till 68 before retiring. Then there are those who are technically called ‘economically inactive’, including all those who live off welfare, the black economy and crime. Many of these people are classed as ‘poor’ by the government and the likes of Polly Toynbee, but are, if they have plenty of children, more than likely far more cash-rich than those who work on low to middle incomes.

Brown’s recent machinations in which the income tax starting rate of 10% has been scrapped, is yet another kick in the teeth for these people. Indeed, the marginal tax rate for the poorest members of society who try to better themselves through work, is now 90%. True, many of these people have ‘benefited’ from House Price inflation over the last ten years, but nowhere near as much as the upper-echelons of society.

The effects of this are obvious: by subsidising the unproductive you breed more and more of these types of people, often alienated from general society and shorn of the civilizing nature which the act of working brings to a person. More than likely, you’ll also force those who are on the bread line to drop out of work and maybe even split-up relationships, to benefit from the Prime Minister’s beloved tax credits. This policy is, therefore, undermining the moral fabric of the country.

It is true that these policies will have pernicious economic effects too, but due to the strength of the City and the global economy, these problems will only manifest themselves of the long term. So what needs to be attacked now is the immoral aspect of Gordon Brown’s economic policies, not his financial policies. The degenerative aspects of this should be obvious to any conservative; why then does it seem that only a Member of Parliament for Labour, understands that?

Family Values

2007-07-01T10:10:00.000Z

When social conservatives attack immigration, they are regularly told that they are actually engaging in a collective nose cutting. Immigrants, we are told, actually bring 'family values' to this country, and are, therefore, of great benefit to our society and social cohesion.

Let's leave aside the question of what sort of 'family values' these immigrants bring for now. Instead, what does the statistical evidence say? Does it really back up these claims? Firstly America:

President Bush and others argue that one of the benefits of immigration is that immigrants have a stronger commitment to traditional family values than native-born Americans.

However, a new analysis of birth records by the Center for Immigration Studies shows that out of wedlock births have grown dramatically for both groups, and rates are now about the same for immigrant and native mothers. Children born to unmarried parents are at higher risk for a host of social problems. This may be especially true for the children of immigrants, because they need strong families to adjust to life in America.

Then there was this report from Britain:

The number of marriages in England and Wales has slumped to the lowest level on record, it was announced today.
The 10% cent fall reversed three years in which an increased number of people had tied the knot. Provisional figures from the Office for National Statistics showed there just were just 244,710 weddings in 2005.
In London the decrease was even more marked, with marriages falling by 35%

London, of course, has received masses of immigration over the last decade. There does not seem, in conclusion, to be much evidence for the claims of immigrant 'family values' on either side of the Atlantic. So whilst I do want to re-establish family values and laud any attempts to further that goal, I think we can safely say that importing millions of immigrants isn't the answer.

Return

2007-06-30T10:32:00.000Z

My brief hiatus is over.

Perhaps it's that good old Vitamin D, but I must say I do feel that the break in Italy has done me the world of good. The beach was beautiful and litter free, as were all the streets. Our travel representative mentioned that there was very little crime - a fact which was also borne out by our experiences. Most of all it was possible for all age group to be out late in the evening, strolling, drinking quietly and even eating ice cream at 12:30 in the morning. What a difference between that and our evening streets.

Sometimes, however, when you spend more and more time in a place, and when you have a better grasp of the language, your views of a country become more rounded. So, although all the things I love about Italy were there once again, I did become more than a little irritated with the nature of some of the Italians. Still, these irritations are minor, and do not diminish my own Italophilia.

Well, that's enough of my own ramblings which have filled this blog over the last few months. Now we have a new Prime Minister, oil is riding fairly high and the summer terrorism season has reared its ugly head. That should have my fingers tapping those keys...

As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.

2007-06-01T17:30:00.000Z

I've been very quiet blogging wise over the past month. This is unlikely to change soon, as I am seriously fatigued with work, and have a close friend and colleague who is losing his battle against that dreadful disease. So at this moment in time I really have no appetite whatsoever for blogging, and little knowledge of what is going on in the world.

Thankfully, I'll be holidaying in Italy later in the month, and will hopefully return refreshed and enthusiastic; but until then it's very unlikely that I will be blogging. So before I go on my hiatus, I just wanted to say thank-you to everybody who has read this humble blog.

Dear Ministers...

2007-05-23T17:08:00.000Z

Thank you for listening to my worries about road pricing.......and then deciding to totally ignore them. That's good old Representative Democracy I suppose.

And hey, it's not like fitting cars with an electronic tag which monitors every mile travelled is detrimental to civil liberties. No siree. Providing accurate figures about immigration, however, well that's just being the living emobodiment of Big Brother!

MPs' Day of Shame

2007-05-19T11:18:00.000Z

Ian Dale has a list of the MPs who voted for the 'opt-out' to the Freedom of Information Act. Most of them were Labour MPs, some of them even government Ministers. That is quite amazing considering that the Labour government stated a couple of years ago:

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 reflects a national policy shift in public administration from a culture of confidentiality to a one of openness.
The Act allows anyone the right of access generally to all types of recorded information held by a public authority, subject to certain limited exemption. The right of access to information is far wider than that currently enjoyed under any Code of Openness.

But, hey, as soon as their own expenses were opened-up to the lumpenproletariat, they've suddenly lost interest in 'a culture of openess'.

The source of the bill was the Conservative Party's David Maclean. He is quoted in the Daily Mail - and this is not a joke - as saying:

Mr Maclean claims the move would prevent correspondance from falling into the hands of "criminals or the BNP".

Ahh yes, the nasty, bogeyman BNP once again. If you have no idea how to dfend your scandalous attempts to deny the public information on your overblown expense claims, bring up 'racists'. I wonder, Mr Maclean, how exactly will the BNP use the FOI act? And, in what way would their usage of the act be construed as being 'wrong'? Perhaps Mr Maclean could furnish us proles with an explanation, but given his lack of love for openess, I'm not holding my breath.

The Earth's Plentiful (?) Bounty

2007-05-13T10:06:00.000Z

I'm not a fan of the crass headline, but I am pleased to see that the Daily Mail is interested in tackling the subject of oil reserve depletion:

According to David Strahan, a respected business journalist and author of the new book, the early warnings of an oil crisis were correct in every respect, save their timing.
In the next couple of decades or so, he argues, our civilisation will have crossed a point where the peak of oil discovery and production has been reached.
From then on, the story will be of dwindling supplies and rising prices.
Is he right? Well, he marshals some impressive arguments. The rate at which we discover oil has indeed been falling for 40 years.
In the Sixties, geologists found some 55 billion barrels a year. Today, the figure is down to just 9 billion barrels.
Most worryingly, we now consume three barrels for every new one discovered, and out of the 98 oilproducing nations, 60 (including the UK) are now in terminal decline.
Tax revenues here are dropping as North Sea oil production declines.
Indeed, Britain will become a permanent net importer of oil next year - according to The Oil Depletion Analysis Centre - and then our balance of payments and energy security will begin to deteriorate.
Strahan says: "It's the end of a gravy train for Britain."

Indeed. Our trade deficit is already dire and we haven't begun to the feel the pinch of being a net oil importer.

Let's remember that although it is difficult to fix a peak in the production of oil, - Strahan has predicited 2020 by the way - it doesn't change the basic fact that easy oil just isn't being discovered anymore. Tar sands may be numerous, but are far more difficult and expensive to extract than sweet light crude. And then there is demand, which shows no sign of abating. This all points towards oil trending higher and higher, at the very moment Britain is becoming a net oil importer.

So, all in all, I'm thinking Tony got his timing just right. As for you Gordon...oh dear.

Something I Missed

2007-05-06T09:56:00.000Z

I am not sure how I missed this from a couple of weeks ago. At least it gives me the opportunity to re-state:

The only pillar of the nation state which has not yet been attacked by multiculturalism, is the law. Well, so I thought. Then I came across an article on the BBC website, it turns out that the laws of this land, rooted in anglo-saxon common law, are not accepted by some British citizens.

This path in which we are sleepwalking down, is the one which leads us all the way upto the end of our nation as a united whole.

Britannia Fragmented

2007-05-02T18:00:00.000Z

This week’s elections north of the Border may be one of the most important in the history of this island. If, and it is by no means certain, the Labour hegemony of Scotland is over, the SNP stand to take control of Holyrood. It is widely believed that the consequence of this victory will be that the Scottish people will get a chance to vote on independence, thus leading to the break-up of this nation, Great Britain.

What is surprising about these turn of events is not that the SNP, under the wily but slippery Alex Salmond, are set for victory, but that there is so little interest south of the border. Worse still, the only people who are interested are ones who are rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of a divorce between England and Scotland. And, even more dismayingly, many of these people are within the conservative and right-wing movement; spending their time berating the Conservative Party for still supporting the union, when its break-up would deal a massive blow to Labour's chances of gaining power again.

Well, there are a lot of things I'd berate the Cameron Conservatives about, but a policy where they are attempting to conserve this nation state is certainly not one of them! They recognise, as all to few of us seem to, that defending the nation as it is - a whole greater than the sum of its country parts - is of the utmost importance. It transcends debates about North Sea Oil revenues; it transcends debates about what constituency Gordon Brown will represent; it transcends petty political point-scoring; and it involves the very soul of our nation.

Hopefully after Thursday, more people will come to realise that. Let's just hope it will not be too late.

Iran

2007-05-02T17:37:00.000Z

A quote from the Hitch's travel diary:

Of course, Iran is not a proper free country and you can get into serious trouble if you oppose its regime. But that regime is weakening, not least because it is failing to deliver prosperity and jobs to the young. Its grip on their loyalty weakens by the day. A war with us would give it back its legitimacy, just as the attack by Saddam Hussein did in the 1980s.

Somebody should tell Douglas Murray.........

Crazy World of Politics

2007-04-28T09:46:00.000Z

I've always thought that the political 'bubble' leads to the trumping up of differences between politicians. So, although most politicians agree about the major questions, the things they dispute are made out to be of the most grave importance. The public, however, do not agree about the relative importance of these things, which has caused the apathy we see all around us.

Yesterday there was another example of such trumping up of a minor difference. Darren Millar, a Conservative candidate for North Wales, commented on homosexuality:

He said Mr Millar was asked if he thought homosexuality was a sin. Mr Millar replied that "he was against all forms of discrimination on the grounds of sexuality", however, "there are certain religious texts which think homosexuality is a sin."

And the responses to that, were some of the most ludicrous, and frankly embarrassing, I have ever heard:

Plaid Cymru MP Elfyn Llwyd said: “These comments are not acceptable in a modern society and we would expect Cameron and Bourne to distance themselves from such comments.”
Clwyd West’s Labour AM Alun Pugh said: “There was a sharp intake of breath around the hall as Mr Miller made his statements. [...]
Welsh Secretary Peter Hain said the Conservatives should drop Mr Millar as a candidate.
In a letter to Mr Cameron, Mr Hain said: "If you want people to believe that the Conservative Party has really changed, it is essential that you take immediate action against him."

He said, simply, that some religions 'think' homosexuality is a sin. In fact, they say homosexuality is a sin, so Mr Millar is actually incorrect in his statement, but what about the rest of it? All he has done is express that he agrees with the one-party state line against 'discrimination', and mention the truth that some religions view it as a sin.

To make such an innocuous statement out to be a big deal, politicians show their pathetic point-scoring side, and it isn't exactly likely to motivate the public to go and vote at the ballot boxes next week.

The Nation of Immigrants?

2007-04-23T17:38:00.000Z

Laban pointed out this article from the Telegraph, which talks about a new publication from CIVITAS, demolishing the 'nation of immigrants' argument:

Between 1066 and 1945 Britain actually had very few waves of immigration. By far the largest was the Irish during the 19th century and, technically, they were not immigrants, since Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, Irish "immigrants" never amounted to more than 3 per cent of the British population.
Numerically, the next largest group is the Jews. Official statistics record that 155,811 Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe arrived over 25 years from 1880. Their contribution to the intellectual, political and economic life of Britain has of course been enormous. But even adding the 70,000 who fled to Britain from Nazi Germany, the number of Jewish arrivals was, compared to the 50 million Britons already resident here, minute. They are certainly not enough to make Britain "a nation of immigrants".

Almost all immigrant groups never managed to reach 1 per cent of the population. The Normans, though they seized land and power, were a tiny elite. The Dutch who arrived in the 16th century were, in proportion to the whole population, a much smaller group. Even the 50,000 Huguenots from France only ever amounted to a hundredth of Britain's total population. And they arrived over a period of 50 years.

It's obvious that this myth has been propagated for one reason alone: to assuage fears about the comparatively massive scale of modern immigration. After all, what better way to answer people like myself who claim that assimilation takes considerable time and will always involve pain on both sides, than to point out the past successes. The truth, laid bare here by Conway, is that there is no numerical precedent for the modern waves of immigration.

I cannot help thinking that those who are implementing such a policy concurrent with the weakening of the sovereign nation state, are the authors of an experiment that is likely to lead us into a fragmented abyss. One day, they'll be seen as the traitors they truly are.

Gloomy thoughts aside - I'd like to wish a Happy St George's day to all.

That Escaped Rabbit

2007-04-19T17:31:00.000Z

So, the result of mild weather has directly led to oil prices falling to a two-year low, stuck in the $50-55 barrel range. Natural Gas has suffered, too, with lower use of central heating.

But what goes around comes around. What the weather has given with one hand it has taken away with the other. Because of scorching drought in Australia, the grain harvest was severely affected. That has sent the grain price soaring, which will feed through into higher prices for all staple produces.

That is from post on this blog, in January of this year.

Let me turn to the reasons for the rise in CPI inflation to 3.1 % from 1.8% a year ago. As discussed in our February inflation report, part of that rise reflects an unexpectedly sharp increase in domestic energy prices during the second half of last year, more than offsetting a fall in petrol prices. Part reflects a rise in food prices cause by a weather-induced global reduction in supply.

That was Mervyn King's letter to Gordon Brown, explaining the reasons for the CPI surpassing 3% despite the recent interest rate rises. Glad to see he's caught up.

So, whilst we are on the subject, where will inflation go next? Well, I am not as easily convinced as many analysts that the bank are on top of the problem, and that we will see a reduction coming through very soon. The high energy prices from last year will fall out of the system, which will undoubtedly have some sort of an effect in reducing it. That's hoping, of course, that oil prices stay at their current level all summer. To achieve that we need to buck the trend for oil increasing during the summer months, and we would need to avoid anything which could lead to oil prices hitting $70+. So, no wars, Hurricanes, supply problems or sweltering heatwaves. Do you feel lucky, Mervyn?

Then there is dear old Gordon's taxes. Even if the oil price doesn't reach $77 dollars a barrel, and even with the fact that oil is cheaper for us now that the Pound is so 'strong' (actually it's the Dollar that is so weak), there is a very strong chance petrol will hit £1.00-a-litre.

I can see, therefore, inflation hanging around the upper 2% range, for the near future. Coupled with the UK's rising trade deficit and with unemployment rising again, the economic future is not looking particularly bright.

The French Elections

2007-04-12T18:55:00.000Z

The official campaign for the Presidency of France, commenced on the 9th of April. Over the last month numerous articles have been published about the prospective candidates. Quite a number of these have been very complimentary about Nicholas Sarkozy, the main right-wing candidate.

The Daily Telegraph, was first in, describing Sarkozy's impessive 'tough love' proposals and ideas:

On Thursday he presented his 16-page manifesto, eight million copies of which are being prepared for distribution to French voters.
He has moderated his previous commitment to tax cuts, promising merely to "do his best" to lower them. But he reaffirmed his determination to create a ministry of immigration and national identity.
"If I'm elected I will never stop declaring our pride in being French," he said, announcing that he would introduce annual "immigration quotas".

The promises sound good; although they do seem a little familiar. Perhaps David Cameron has lent him the manifesto he wrote for Michael Howard's failed general election campaign. But this article, also from the Telegraph, provides an even better reason for the French to vote for Sarko: he scares the French 'youths', witless.

Then there is Pat Buchanan, who focused his column on Sarkosy's patriotic credentials, impressing Pat immensly:

Sarkozy sounds like a Hamiltonian. He believes in markets. He understands markets. But the country comes first. Decisions that affect the sovereignty and economic independence of the nation are not to be left to the invisible hand of a market that promises only the most efficient result, now, and not necessarily what is best for the nation.

If all this promise turns out to be true, then I sincerely hope that the French do vote for Sarkosy. Unlike some, I cannot see any good coming from France falling into disarray, and if Sarkosy came through on his promises he could be the medicine it desperately needs.

However, there is an element of 'everybody's man', about Sarkosy. Indeed,Theodore Dalrymple's recent Spectator Column takes a slightly critical view of Sarkozy:

Is Sarko the man to deal with all this? Certainly, he can talk tough; but when the Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, took the first very timid steps to reduce the inflexibility in the labour market that keeps unemployment so high in the townships, Sarko lost no time in trying to reap personal political advantage by failing to support him. The one and only correct political prediction I have ever made in my life was to foresee that if the government tried to alleviate the situation in the townships, there would be rioting on the Boulevard St Germain; and when there was such rioting, Sarko voted for surrender. It remains to be seen whether he is made of sterner stuff when he has no rival (as the Prime Minister then was) to outflank or betray.

Dalrymple does come out as supporting Sarkosy in his column, but only as the 'least worse' option, compared to the left-winger Ségolène Royal and centrist François Bayrou. Not exactly a ringing endorsement!

It is probably the way things will pan out, however. I can see Sarkosy winning handsomely. But, to me, he will simply be a new Chirac. Anti-immigration, when it's popular; economically nationalist, socialist or liberal, depending on the way the tide is turning; pro-European sometimes, anti-European the rest of the time. Exactly the sort of politician France doesn't need.

For what it's worth, if I were a Frenchman my vote wouldn't go to Sarkosy, Bayrou or Royal. It certainly wouldn't go to Le Pen, who thinks 9/11 was a mere 'incident', and morally equivocal to the bombing of Dresden. In other words he is an idiot. Instead, I would vote for Philippe de Villiers, the traditional conservative candidate. He is riding at his highest level of popularity ever, but is still unlikely to make the final run-off. Still, a good showing from de Villiers may have an effect on Sarkosy; showing him that the popular answer to France's problems is good old-fashioned conservatism.

Tagged

2007-04-09T08:43:00.000Z

A little while ago I was tagged by the Fulham Reactionary. I must, therefore, in the traditions of tagging, supply six weird things about myself:

People who get tagged need to write a blog entry of their own 6 weird things as well as stating this rule clearly! Three people need to be tagged and their names listed. Finally a comment needs to be left on each tagged person's blog...

So, here goes!

Heights are probably my biggest phobia. I don’t get vertigo; it doesn’t even make me feel particularly queasy. But I do experience some very strange shooting-pain sensations in my feet. I usually feel a lot lighter than my twelve-and-a-bit stones, too, which makes something to grip on to a must.
This is rather bizarre, considering my favourite place in Cheshire is Beeston Castle. This is a castle famous for being stuck on top of a rocky crag, with views of eight different counties.
For the second thing, I think my obsession with genealogy, is worth mentioning. It’s meant that I have spent large amounts of money on allsorts of genealogy and census websites. I have subscriptions with Ancestry.co.uk and Genesreunited, and have managed to find a lot of distant relatives. A very satisfying thing, when you belong to a small family like me.
I have also spent a lot of time, physically finding things. I have looked through the St Catherine’s index in Sale library, many-a-time. But, most of all, there have been numerous visits to cemeteries dotted throughout Wales and the bordering English counties, where my ancestors came from. I can think of nothing more satisfying than finding the grave of a long-lost ancestor, and placing a single flower on it, which says to anyone who may see it that ‘this person hasn’t been forgotten’.
I have a massive football programme collection, which has meant that I have been to allsorts of matches and grounds in a bid to collect more. That's taken me from tiny no-facility grounds like Accrington Stanley and Hyde United, to Premiership teams like Tottenham Hotspur and Blackburn Rovers.
I think I mentioned before that I love the Ray Mears/Bear Grylls type of wilderness survival show.
I would love to see if I could make a go of living in a survival situation, but this is probably me being rather delusional. It is very easy watching such programs from the comfort of a centrally-heated house, with a fridge stocked to the rafters, and getting carried away about being an SAS soldier. But, that said, it's fun to dream of eating boiled nettles and drinking pine-needle tea, whilst sat around a campfire!
I drink ludicrous amounts of coffee, sometimes. It's not unknown for me to have about seven mugs-worth whilst I am in work.
Finally, it's bizarre to think that I am so obsessed with learning languages now, when I was so useless at them whilst I was at school.
We were streamed into two sets in German, and, based on peformances in French, I was put in the higher class. Sadly, I was truly woeful and finished bottom of the class.
Then, when we had to choose options in the third year, I wanted to - and believed I was good enough to - take French. The French teacher was, however, distinctly underwhelmed, and tried to put me off taking it. When that failed, she put me in the no-hopers group, and boy were they no-hopers! Sadly, this meant that I had only a slim chance of achieving a 'C' grade, and ended up with a 'D'.
These memories drive me on, in my quest for fluency in Italian.

Okay, well that's it. Now I have to nominate three people to tag, and I hope that they do not get offended by my doing so. So, I will tag the New Zealand Conservative, Sam Tarran and the Mild Colonial Boy.

The Falkland Islands Belong to.......

2007-04-08T09:55:00.000Z

From time to time, the issues of the Falkland Islands are raised. It never ceases to amaze me how many people, especially those of a left-wing or anti-British bent, continue to parrot the views of the Argentine government. Essentially, that they are 'occupied' lands, illegitmiately held by British 'oppressers'.

A commenter on the Unelightened Commentary blog, called 'United Irelander', spewed out the same tiresome rhetoric:

(T)he Argentinian dictatorship sought to reclaim what was, unquestionably, Argentinian land.

Unquestionably? Really! Well I certainly question the legitmacy of their claims.

First of all, the Falkland Islands had never, prior to 1982, been officially under Argentine sovereignty. The claim of sovereignty comes mainly from the Spanish, who had sovereignty of the Islands from 1774, and ruled them as part of their Argentine colony. To achieve sovereignty, the Spanish had removed disputed French and British colonies from the islands.

When the Spanish government abandoned the islands in 1811, sovereignty of the islands was up in the air. After independence from Spain, in 1816, the new Argentina established a small fishing port and penal colony on the islands, and claimed sovereignty over them. Their claim was half-hearted, and never officially recognised by foreign govenments.

In 1833 Britain returned to the islands, this time determined to make a go of colonising them. The Argentine colony was expelled, and the British government encouraged settlement of the islands by 'selling' them as a pleasant land, brimming with life. The truth, alas, was somewhat less appealing, with the islands being windswept and barren.

Whilst the claim of sovereignty is complicated and open to dispute, many see the geographical element as cut-and-dried. After all, look at the proximity between Argentina and the Falklands. Yet, as we have seen, Argentina's claim comes almost entirely from Spanish sovereignty of the Falklands.

Furthermore, the original Argentina was based around the old Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata, from Spanish colonial times. The Rio Plate is obviously much closer to the Falklands than Britian or Spain, but is still thousands of miles away. Modern Argentina is, indeed, very close to the Falklands, but that's only thanks to its bloodstained annexation of native Indian territories.

So, yes, there are legitimate aspects of the Argentine claims, but to say that the islands are certainly Argentine is nonsense. But I suppose it's just what you expect from anti-British bigots.

Boris and Jeff

2007-04-04T15:27:00.000Z

It is time for another edition of Boris Johnson offends. This time it's Portsmouth turn.

Okay, Boris has again used gross generalisations, that don't really hold up when put under scrutiny. My memories of Portsmouth are of the Mary Rose being contstantly sprayed with water, and of the HMS Victory, resplendent in the August sunshine. And it is also as much of a Liberal Democrat area, as a Labour one.

However, despite Boris' opinions being somewhat off target, the reaction is another tiresome leftist over-reaction.

Jeff Hopkins' comments, insulting the people of Llanelli in the Sun yesterday, were far, far worse:

Jeff added: “It’s like dropping people from the moon. Polish kids are sent to the schools not being able to understand English.

“And Polish nurses are tearing their hair out at the state of the health service.”

And what of the local unemployed?

Jeff said: “The poor working class here have no skills and have been left behind. Many end up on drink or drugs.

“The Poles who come here are better educated. I don’t think many of the local unemployed are resentful — some just don’t want to get out of bed in the morning.”

So, according to Jeff, unlike those super hardworking, ultra-intelligent Poles, the unemployed of Llanelli are workshy, drug-addicted, drink-soaked thickos.

Jeff is entitled to his view, of course, even if it is insulting and idiotic. I just wonder why we in Britian expect politicians to hold their tongues and their opinions in check, and then proceed to moan at their blandness and similarities. And, heaven forbid if Jeff Hopkins wore a blue rosette and had made those comments, he'd have already been strung from the nearest tree...

Most Moronic comment of the Week

2007-03-28T17:41:00.000Z

I think the Harry Hill-esque award was just begging to be created when I read the following, on the Daily Mail online:

The fact that he acts like any young lad of his age is one of the most endearing things about him

That was a comment relating to a the scene below.

Yes, that is a Prince of the United Kingdom falling over drunk, after brawling with a Paparazzo.

Now, let's get a couple of things straight. The third in line to the throne of this Kingdom, is certainly not an 'ordinary guy'. Obviously the Royals are human beings, and like all humans they err from time to time. Nonetheless, a position of such responsibility requires a certain level of decorum; a concept which seems alien to Prince Harry.

Secondly, is this really the way 'any' young lad would behave? Actually, it's the sort of behaviour which gets blamed by politicians for creating 'no-go areas', in our cities. The only difference is that one situation involves working-class youngsters, the other a Hooray Henry.

Finally, it's certainly plausible that Harry could be King one day, even if it is a little unlikely. And I, for one, do not wish this Kingdom to be ruled by someone who has regularly behaved like a drunken moron. Am I really asking for too much?

Some Late Thoughts on Budget

2007-03-23T18:13:00.000Z

The annual Budget was delivered on Wednesday.

Reading the Newspapers after the event, I'm firmly of the opnion that the Conservatives and their supporters, are going down the wrong path in attempting to paint Gordon as an unreformed old-Labour socialist. If they are going down that path they will have to explain to the public how a supposed socialist reduced income tax twice, and has now reduced corporation tax.

Now, don’t get me wrong, the budget is all smoke and mirrors. The tax reductions were measly, and will be more than cancelled out by the other increases, especially the National Insurance increment. But this was classic New Labour: panem et circem, headline-grabbing, single-mum sponsoring and, most of all, a lot of hot air which will make little difference to the overall fiscal picture. The problem is, they have been doing this, succesfully, for ten years. The media, especially the Sun, are still lapping it up, as their front page focused extensively on the 'cuts', whilst ignoring the rises.

If the Conservatives want to beat Gordon Brown's New Labour they need to paint Brown as a hammerer of the non-pensioner, non single-mother poor. Surely, by painting him as an old style socialist, the Conservatives give him the chance to play the ‘man-of-the-people’ card, when, in fact, that's something he is definitely not.

As for the rest of the budget, well, the logic of it confused me somewhat. For instance, why was corporation tax reduced, whilst small businesses have seen a tax rise to 22%? Surely, the ‘enterprise culture’ Brown desires relies on the very same small businesses prospering. And, we’re in a situation where many large corporations have recorded record profits – which makes the need to help them hardly pressing.

Green and cigarette taxes are politically a winner. But I’d imagine that a lot of the Mums who have gained with the child-benefit increase, will be the big losers if they’ve recently purchased a gas-guzzling vehicle. If that isn’t the definition of giving with one hand and taking with the other, then I don’t know what is!

Then there’s the crux of the matter: how does this budget affect me? Well, I am, as a single childless-man earning less than £19,000 a year, in effect worse off. The Lib Dems said that people like myself will be ‘subsidising the rich’, more than likely, however, it will be child-benefit and tax credit receiving single-mothers, who will be the ones who gain from my pain. How I can - despite having that thought in my mind and after working a 45-hour week - contain myself from foaming at the mouth with anger, I’ll never know.

Finally, we have a 2p petrol increase, although it will be frozen for six months. So, to say that he has tried to keep ‘inflation and interest rates under control’ seems ludicrous. The price of oil is volatile, and if it increased to the mid-60s or even early-70s in the summer, coupled with this Increase would set the inflationary cat, already on the verge of escaping, free. If that happens then it wouldn’t just be the likes of me who are worse-off, because everyone feels the pain of stagflation.

Propping-up Fundamentals

2007-03-17T10:33:00.000Z

What was it Tony Blair said about marriage and single parentage? Do I look bovvered? No, that's not it, although it does show that Tony missed his true vocation in life. It was, in fact, said to be a 'good thing', but we shouldn't see it as a 'marriage versus lone parentage', contest.

Well, Tony, your Chancellor does see it as a contest, and he comes down hard on the side of single-parents:

Parents who earn less than £50,000 a year would be better off splitting up, it was claimed.
Benefits and taxes are weighed so heavily in favour of lone-parent families that couples need to bring in twice the national average income before staying together has a financial advantage, a report said.
Research by Patricia Morgan for the Institute of Economic Affairs think-tank, has provided more evidence that large numbers are either living apart or hiding the fact they are a couple just so they can hold on to tax credits and benefits.

Brown's motivation is an interesting question. I'd suggest that the housing market may be one of his main concerns, and with the twin policies of mass-immigration and encouragement of living alone, the current government has created a demand for 250,000 new houses per year. Like I've said before, the fundamentals are probably the most important part of the housing market's increase, although I still believe that speculation is also a main cause for the boom, so to shore them up probably seems like a good idea. And, the recent havoc created by the American market's decline, probably strengthened this belief.

The social consequences, however, will far outweigh any temporary benefits derived from this easy-money non wealth-creating situation. So, we now know where to look for the where and when of our society's further descent into the abyss.

Mass Migration Accelerating

2007-03-12T17:55:00.000Z

The Sunday Telegraph reported some breathaking figures on immigration:

More than a million foreigners have been allowed to come to work in Britain in just three years - and given the right to remain indefinitely.
The numbers of migrants, who are also entitled to bring their families and settle, have been revealed in new figures released to MPs by the Home Office. They reveal for the first time the full impact that officially sanctioned immigration is having on the UK work force.
They show that the issuing of work permits to people from non-European Union countries continued to accelerate even after the expansion of the EU in 2004, which has already brought an unprecedented number of eastern European workers to Britain.

Between 2004 and last year, a record 309,000 non-EU citizens were granted long-term work permits carrying potential entitlement to settle.

So, at a time when we have had a deluge of immigrants from newly accessioned EU countries, we have had a similar number from non-EU countries, via the back door. To think that the Prime Minister had the temerity to write to me last month, exclamining:

This petition was posted shortly before we published the Eddington Study, an independent review of Britain's transport network. This study set out long-term challenges and options for our transport network. It made clear that congestion is a major problem to which there is no easy answer.

One answer, Tony, is not to add millions of people to the population in the space of a few years. Oh, and your government's claim that the reduction in asylum applications is a 'great achievement', rings particulary hollow when we can see how the numbers have been juggled around.

A Worthy Protest March

2007-03-09T21:23:00.000Z

The Gates of Vienna has news (Hat Tip: Fulham Reactionary) of a protest march scheduled for the 11th of September 2007, in Brussels. The march will end with a demonstration outside the European Parliament.

It's organised by a group calling itself Stop the Islamification of Europe, which states that it aims to:

(C)ombat legally the overt and covert expansion of Islam in Europe.

Now, some of the rhetoric is overly obesessed with saving 'democracy' instead of Western Civilisation, but I must say that it's been a while since I've been to Brussels and the prospect of a spot of sightseeing married with a protest against the spineless leaders of Europe, is a very tempting proposition.

Criminal Justice - An Example of Wilful Negligence?

2007-03-06T19:48:00.000Z

Being a small ‘c’ conservative in the modern climate can be tough. Sometimes it feels like swimming against a tide, with iron weights attached to your feet. It feels even more so when some within the conservative movement have all but given up on some of its most important principles.

But, there is no subject in modern life that is more at ease for a conservative, than the subject of crime. Whilst liberalism has infected the area thoroughly, especially in areas like sentencing and policing, it has not fully captured the hearts of the public in the way that government nanny-statism and loosining of morals have. Sure, liberals do preach about rehabilitation and criminals as ‘victims’, but those in government realise that they must do so concomitant with a ‘crackdown’ of some sort. I’m thinking specifically here of Tony Blair’s mantra of ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’.

Interestingly, as if to illuminate the point, the Liberal Democrats have sent through their local election literature this week. Their national policies, of course, include giving the vote to prisoners. However, the leaflet striking a decidedly ‘tough on crime’ stance, demanded more policeman on the beat.

A question arises from all this - do politicians believe that being tough on crime really works? If so, why are they always sending out mixed messages? It was with these questions in mind, and because I am simply fascinated by the workings of the criminal justice system, that I originally decided to read books on the subject of crime. Recently, I have read the most brilliant and damning of them, which has finally answered most of the things puzzling me was David Fraser’s Magnus Opus: A land Fit For Criminals.

Opening the book, immediately gives you an insight into the thinking behind it:

We do not need psychologists to tell us the simple truth that if you reward bad behaviour you will get more of it…We should not be surprised that we are now engulfed in crime. The offenders have taken their cue from us.

The book looks at the post-war view towards criminal justice, and is fairly similar to Peter Hitchens’ book, the Abolition of Liberty. Unlike Hitchens, however, David Fraser is an insider; he spent 26 years working at what is now National Probation Service. So, he has a clear advantage over Hitchens in terms of technical and insider knowledge.

These facts may lead people to conclude that this is a dry academic prose, written for other professors, and lacking in Hitchens brilliant ability to tear into the dark under-belly of liberalism. But such a view is mistaken, as Fraser makes clear in his introduction that this is not ‘a calm, dispassionate review of this subject’, it is in fact ‘a passionate cry for the public to be aware of the gross deceptions that are worked on them’.

The book examines the post-1950s period of crime, which corresponds with the post-1960 crime explosion. Crime has, however, started to fall since 1990 (in official statistics). John Reid even claimed that the government had reduced crime by ‘a third’, since 1997. What he is probably referring to is the British (actually it only covers England & Wales) Crime Survey, which reported a fall from 18million-recorded crimes in the late 1990s, to 12million in July 2004.

Fraser’s response to those official ‘figures’ was short and sharp: nonsense! He cites a little known home office report which showed the true figure was nearer 60 million, and that their own separate reconviction figures, have not shown any decrease over the same period. If crime really has reduced by a third, there would have to be some sort of statistical reduction in these figures, so its claim that crime has reduced is very dubious.

I sense that most people don’t believe government figures anyway, but it’s always edifying to see them savaged in print. Whilst figures can be spun and distorted, the individual’s experiences of crime are what really matter. Big differences exist between the statistics and the reality, and this allows 'progressives' to attempt to subvert and divert debate on crime.

That's what make this book such an invaluable source. For instance, there is a dubious claim from certain quarters who claim that high crime-rates are due to police detection rates increasing. Therefore, it's only public perception that crime is increasing. Fraser exposes this as at best a fallacy, and at worse a downright lie. I turns out that the rates are no different now than in 1979, and twenty years earlier, as there was less crime, it is more than likely that there the rates were even better.

So, why has the establishment decided that liberal policies are the answer to crime, especially given that such policies have never gained full public support? Fraser talks of a ‘criminal justice elite’, spell-bound by political correctness. He shows the way they have intimidated magistrates who oppose their views. And, for a view of just how influential these people are, PragueTory had a post a while ago showing the Howard Reform League’s closeness to the Prime Minister’s wife.

Their motivation bears the classic hallmark of the culture war, waged and won by the left using the universities. With the growth of pseudo-scientific subjects like the social sciences, the bureaucrats who have the levers of government at their hands have been indoctrinated in ‘crime is primarily society's fault’, type theories. And, therefore, the anti-prison doctrines within this fraternity are regarded as set-in-stone, and can never be challenged even if evidence points to the contrary. This is Fraser’s main bugbear in the book, as you suspect that for years he has tried to counter this propaganda in meetings, but has been dismissed out-of-hand.

That’s not mentioning the role of successive governments within the criminal justice debacle of the last half-century. Almost always, the view that the financial costs of prison are too much has been the motivating factor behind their decisions. The propaganda presented by liberal civil servants has just played into the hands of this argument.

The award for the worst government must go to the Labour government in the 1960s/early 70s, but the Tories in the 1980s and early 90s were not far behind in the rankings. Both Hitchens and Fraser mention Roy Jenkins’ tinkering with the police whilst he was Home Secretary, as a seminal part of the new order created.

Jenkins was in thrall to ‘unit beat policing’, based on the style of policing used in the big American cities like Chicago. This was nothing more than the dismantling of the Peel police force. Instead of whistles, radios became ubiquitous; instead of a bobby walking the beat, ‘Panda’ cars were introduced; finally, local police stations were closed down in large numbers, to be replaced by remote ‘headquarters’. This was a response to rising crime and to ‘manpower shortages’, which Hitchens doesn’t believe is borne out by the figures. But what it did was to encourage the police to 'consider themselves as a special body set above the rest of the citizenry, and 'it has also nurtured the idea that the police are mainly a detective and record-keeping organization, rather than an active preventative force.'

Jenkins’ other passion was for amalgamating the smaller forces into large organisations, which were supposedly better at fighting crime. Again, this was modernisation for its own sake. And there was no evidence that larger police forces were any more efficient at fighting crime, especially the low-level crime that bedevils the lives of ordinary people. But the clamour for modernisation led to this being adopted almost un-opposed.

The regional super-forces, with a chief constable who had little or no links to the local community, were the beginning of the modern ‘career’ chief constable. This is the sort of character who values his sociology degree above fighting crime, and attempts to influence government policy via the ACPO.

As for the Tory mistakes, well Hitchens fingers the Police and Criminal Evidence act, from 1984, as the tombstone of the old Peel-type police force. The bureaucracy that is so prevalent nowadays was born from this act, as was the police complaints authority. The effects were dramatic:

The constable was already a radio-controlled automaton sent to crime scenes after the event, robbed of his initiative and of his main function, the enforcement of the public will. Now, bound by the Act and threatened with the career-ruining procedures of the Police Complaints Authority, the police officer is almost powerless to act even when an arrest could be made. Officially, he is not trusted to do the job for which he is paid.

It doesn’t stop there, however. The 1982 Criminal Justice Act placed severe restrictions on the use of imprisonment for young offenders. The consequence of this, has been a huge rise in the number of street robberies, a crime predominately caused by those aged 15-20.

Then there was the Crown Prosecution Service, set up in 1986, was described by Fraser in scathing terms: “No organisation could have done more to make the lives of criminals easier, safer and more rewarding”.

The 1991 Criminal Justice Act, introduced by the Major government, started the early release of prisoners. Those serving four years and over could be considered for release on parole at the half way stage, but, otherwise, would be automatically released at the two-thirds point of the sentence. Taken together with the 1990 liberalisation of abortion laws, the 1992 Maastricht treaty, the sex-scandals and in-fighting, the only conclusion is that that un-conservative government was almost, if not equally, as bad as our current incumbents. Only Michael Howard can come out with any praise from its misrule.

Conclusion

If you are, like me, totally bewildered by the current state of British justice, reading A Land Fit For Criminals is essential. It shows the way that the police have become burnt-out; how the judiciary have wilfully let the public suffer at the hand of career-criminals; the pseudo-intellectual propaganda that has led to criminals being painted as victims; and the political lies that have no connection to reality.

After you have put the book down, you’ll feel anger and, probably, despair. It looks very much like we are headed to a world where officials will trumpet their success at fighting crime, whilst people are more scared than they have ever been. In the future, it’s easy to see public anger turning to vigilantism. And yet, it doesn’t have to be that way.

Labour does acknowledge, whatever they say with their silly statistics, that there is a crime problem. Unfortunately, the only way they believe they can deal with it is through illiberal measures such as a DNA database and an ID Card scheme. Fraser shows this to be totally unnecessary, and that the solutions to the problems are simple: more proper police (not CSOs), and more prisons. In both Singapore and New York, these simple measures have proved deadly efficient.

The Abolition of Liberty shows that traditional police methods were junked in favour of modernisation for its own sake. All it will take is someone with the foresight to learn that traditional police methods, sending offenders to prison and zero-tolerance, are all that is needed to make our streets safe again. And, most importantly, what is needed is the will to implement these against a hostile ‘criminal justice elite’. Let’s hope we do not have to wait too much longer for that will to manifest…

The Abolition of Liberty on Amazon

A Land Fit For Criminals on Amazon

Prison Works website

Our Future Elite - Be Very, Very Afraid

2007-03-03T12:25:00.000Z

Leading academics yesterday defended an eminent Oxford professor against a students' call for him to be sacked for his links to an immigration think-tank.
Oxford Student Action for Refugees has circulated a petition seeking the removal of Professor David Coleman, a leading expert in demographics, because of his connections with MigrationWatch.
The students believe that because MigrationWatch warns about the negative effects of present and future immigration, it is inherently racist.
But Professor Coleman condemned what he called a "shameful attack on academic independence and freedom of speech".
He questioned whether the students involved should be allowed to stay at the university themselves.
Among his defenders was Professor John Salt, director of the Migration Research Unit at University College London.

So, even talking about migration in a negative way, is racist now!

One of the students behind the petition, Kieran Hutchinson Dean, 19, said the aim was to invite debate.
He said: "We are not expecting the professor to be sacked straight away. But we ask that he refrains from using his academic status when promoting his own views.
"If he does not refrain he is representing the university as a whole and many of us do not agree with his views.
"Professor Coleman cofounded MigrationWatch which continues to spew out anti-immigration tirades that fuel the far-Right BNP.
"He gives MigrationWatch a credibility and credence it does not deserve."

Why does Migration Watch not deserve credence and credibility? Is it simply because they express opinions to the contrary of your own? Oh, and what are these tirades you are referring to? All I can see on Migration Watch's website is well presented arguments about the costs, both social and financial, of migration. The fact that the BNP, a legal political-party, may cite the arguments on their literature and websites, does not detract from the validity of the evidence presented.

What's most worrying is the sort of people involved in this disgraceful hounding. These are supposed to be the cream of the crop, the students who will go on to inhabit the upper-echelons of the legal, political and civil service worlds. And from what we can see here, they are, in fact, totalitarian scum, who wish for the public to be kept from data deemed 'too sensitive' for their consumption.

If you think that New Labour are bad, wait until the class of '07 come into fruition. Free speech and academic freedom will not just be on life support as they are now, but ashes scattered over this once great Island.

Source

Dydd Dewi Sant

2007-03-01T16:55:00.000Z

Profile

Blood Alcohol Level

2007-02-27T19:34:00.000Z

The comments found on this story in the Daily Mail, show the uninformed nature of many 'pressure groups'. Despite the fact that the current level has only been in operation for a few years, and that for many years the level of drink driving has decreased, Labour's review of road safety proposes reducing the level from 80mg per 100, to 50mg per 100.

Clearly, the fact that the drink-driving levels were reducing for many years, shows that the current level does act as a deterrent. What must have changed in recent years is that the belief that the consequences of flouting the law are not severe, has grown. Thus, more people are taking risks. The solution, therefore, is simply to increase penalties, not to attempt to criminalise more law-abiding people.

What is more annoying than this government tinkering, however, is the comments from 'road safety' campaigners:

Road-safety campaigners welcomed the move but called for the ministers to reduce the limit to zero. [...]

Elizabeth Davidson, whose 26-year-old daughter Margaret, a doctor, was killed by a dangerous driver last year, said: "This is a step in the right direction but the limit should really be zero.

To all intents and purposes, 50mg is zero. To reduce it any further, especially to Zero mg per 100, is completely barmy. As this website says, the body naturally produces alcohol:

The human body produces its own supply of alcohol naturally on a continuous basis, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It’s called endogenous ethanol production. Therefore, we always have alcohol in our bodies and in some cases people produce enough to become legally intoxicated and arrested for DUI.

You would have thought people who campaign in the area would have been aware of such an obvious flaw in their argument. Clearly not.

Another Pointless Crusade

2007-02-23T17:58:00.000Z

Doncaster Central MP and Labour minister for 'Health Services', Rosie Winterton, is quoted on a mental health website calling for "rapid improvement in the way mental health services respond to the needs of BME patients". BME, to the uninitiated, means black and minority ethnic, and she is referring to the fact that ethnic groups are more likely to be diagnosed with mental health problems. In fact, Afro-Caribbean's are 3 to 5 times more likely to be diagnosed and admitted to hospital for schizophrenia than any other group.

When differences exist between racial groups, the iron law of race-relations says that hand-wringing must ensue, then large amounts of money in 'tackling' the problem, and, finally, if all else has failed, mention the r-word. Winterton is at the 'tackling' stage, she explains:

One in five people treated in hospital for a mental health problem comes from a black and minority ethnic background. Although some of the reasons for this - such as social exclusion - cannot be tackled by the NHS in isolation, we still have a moral and legal duty to do more.
Some communities view mental health services with mistrust and are dissatisfied with their care.
Our DRE action plan sets out very clearly what positive steps services need to take to address this situation. We have also backed this up with resources, such as funding to recruit 500 community development workers. Now, with the help of this new guidance, front-line professionals can play their part.

Blink, however, just comes out and uses the r-word:

There is no justification whatsoever for Black people to be disproportionately sectioned, detained, over-medicated or restrained. The only explanation is racism and stereotyping within the health system.

So, poverty, social exclusion, racism, under-funding - all are quoted. But are we really sure that this could be cause the of all the mental health ills for minorities? Clearly, the likes of Blink are always going to cry 'racism', but they also are rather coy about the fact that people of Chinese descent do not have anywhere near the same rate of mental health problems. It cannot be true that 'racism' within the health service is only directed against Asians and Blacks, and not against Chinese.

So, could there actually be another, more plausible explanation for the differing rates of mental health problems in minorities and the White population? I think the answer is a resounding yes. Dennis Mangan has produced many posts on the subject of vitamin D. In this one, he cites an article by M. J. Dealberto, which makes the link between deficiency in the vitamin, and mental health rates:

Hmmm, dark skin, northern climes, could it be? Yes, vitamin D:

This article proposes two biological hypotheses related to changes in sun exposure, changes in diet, and stress associated with immigration, which would explain the increased risk for psychosis associated with immigrant status. (1) Vitamin D insufficiency has been proposed as a risk factor for schizophrenia. The main source of vitamin D is through photosynthesis by sun exposure, and dark skins need more sun exposure to maintain adequate blood levels. Vitamin D insufficiency in adulthood could explain why dark-skinned immigrants develop psychosis when moving to high latitude countries, and its insufficiency during pregnancy could explain why the observed risk is higher in the second generation.

Therefore, if this conclusion is correct, and it seems fairly logical to me, Rosie Winterton's attempts to stamp out differences between mental health rates, will be futile. But, I suppose such a conclusion would not be particularly popular with politicians; the solution to it doesn't involve hand-wringing or using words like 'exclusion', and, worst of all, points out differences between racial groups - something we all know cannot be said to exist.

Camera in a Cat's Eye

2007-02-21T18:35:00.000Z

There may be a logical explanation for why there is a camera in one of these. Nonetheless, it's very difficult not to feel a tad disturbed when such things are added to the already ubiquitous surveillance state.

From: The Car Party's Homepage.

Population

2007-02-17T19:29:00.000Z

In an otherwise excellent interview on the Conservative Home site, David Davis repeats a common falsehood:

Tired and Emotional: Does Mr. Davis believe that the demographic trends this county is experiencing - along with old Europe - are irreversible and how might a Tory government attempt to reverse or mitigate such changes without recourse to mass immigration?
If you mean the trend for all Western countries to get older as lifespans increase and birthrates decline, yes it is hard to see how they would reverse. By the same measure, people are staying healthier for longer, which I guess is one reason people do not object to the extension of working life.

Can immigration stop this trend? No, because immigrants age too, and quickly match the demographic profile of the indigenous population. The actuarial arithmetic to stop the trend requires massive and geometrically growing numbers (many millions!), far greater than even the current government would countenance and massively greater than our housing and public services could cope with.

There are a range of answers to all the issues arising from this, ranging from a much more successful pensions policy right through to policies designed to encourage stable families.

We will be publishing some ideas on population policy in the next year.

I am consistently amazed about the high number of conservatives who say we need to worry about demographics. To a man they talk about the free-market, and how it efficiently deals with peaks and troughs, yet they seem to believe that government intervention in population is needed. There are three different factors which I think they should remember:

Productivity gains will cause demographic pains to reduce.
If, financially speaking, it is worth the effort to have more children, people will.
That the population may have reacehd a natural celing, and will remain stable from now on.

To say that it's hard to see the current trend changing ever, is simply wrong. The natural equilibrium will be found eventually. By disturbing all attempts to reach that equilibrium, mass immigration, in an attempt to reverse demographic decline, is shuffling the deckchairs on The Titanic.

The Belief That's Now Unmentionable

2007-02-16T18:45:00.000Z

Reading this article in the Mail this week, I was struck by the way that those who do not agree with abortion now seem to be scared of voicing that belief to the world. Which ever way they wish to dress it up with quotes about 'leading-edge medicine', the very act of banning it suggests that there are moralistic reasons behind this decision.

But, I will not be too harsh on Ms Czernin. I can understand why simply coming out and saying that you do not agree with abortion would be a problem. For they probably realise that such an admission would set themselves in opposition to the pro-abortion lobby. A lobby composed of death-threatening, maniacal feminists.

The end of the article also has some quotes from a pro-abortion bint, named Anne Quesney:

Forty years after abortion was legalised in Britain, women's rights continue to be under threat from those who oppose abortion and want to impose their personal beliefs across the country

No, actually, they want to stop abortions within their own clinic – how is that ‘imposing their personal beliefs across the country’? It is you, in fact, who is imposing your beliefs on people, and when they disagree with you it’s your lobby that is the one that seeks resort to violence in attempt to silence opposition.

As for myself, I have said before that my view is that the less abortions there are in this country, the better. There's nothing unreasonable in that! And, considering that I do accept that there is always going to be a demand for abortions so a ban would not be in feasible, I would regard my views as moderate and sensible. How airing of such views is threatining 'women's rights', I do not know.

Ultimately, it’s Anne Quesney’s world that we live in, not mine. Britain’s abortion laws are not ‘under threat’, but have recently been given a massive vote of confidence by the Liberal Democrats and Labour. Instead of making it harder for women to have abortions, we are as liberal as just about anywhere in the world. The result has been increasing abortions year after year.

This is where we are at, morally. We have what seem like the vestigial remains of Christianity - with some aspects completely disregarded - surviving in the sort of Secular Religion that I talked about a few weeks ago. Where we believe that abortions should be as ubiquitous as appendix operations, but when it comes to the remains of Tasmanians, taken in the name of science, we regard it as immoral. We sneer at Polygamous Mormons, and retain a prohibition on polygamy, yet are desperate to welcome in ‘civil partnerships’ and gay adoption. This is a fundamentally illogical stand to take, after all aren’t they also ‘loving’ relationships, which take place behind closed doors?

It all feels like a great contradiction. And that is the point: this is an experiment that has no logic, doctrine or stability, and is, therefore, doomed to failure sooner rather than later.

A Couple of Articles

2007-02-13T20:00:00.000Z

Unfortunately, as I explained last month, work is heavy at the moment. That's shame, because I have found many things I wanted to comment on. Nonetheless, with the small amount of time I do have, I thought I would point out a couple of articles, on which I will comment on more in the future.

When the findings of a study was released saying that Churchgoers lived longer, I wasn't surprised. Now there is more:

Some people live and breathe their religion. Turns out going to church might actually help them breathe easier. Researchers measured the breathing of 1,189 people aged 70 to 79. Those who attend church regularly scored better on a test that measures pulmonary flow rate.
The findings could not be explained by differences in smoking or physical activity, the scientists said. "Pulmonary function is an important indicator of respiratory and overall health, yet little is known about the psychosocial factors that might predict pulmonary function," said Temple University’s Joanna Maselko. "At the same time, religious activity is emerging as a potential health promoting factor, especially among the elderly. We wanted to determine whether there was a connection between the two."
A study earlier this year found that churchgoers live longer, too. Church could benefit health in several ways, Maselko and her colleagues speculate. It provides social contact and emotional support, reducing the isolation many older people experience and boosting psychological well-being.

So, I will add that to the growing body of evidence that proves that going to Church is good for you. And that's without being able to find a link to a report I saw that stated that HIV suffers who have a belief in God were healthier than atheists.

Modern Britain - We've Never Had It So..........

2007-02-06T18:39:00.000Z

The state of modern Britain excites wildly different opinions in public discourse. One person says we have never has it so good, another will say we're poorer. One, probably a New Labour supporter, will say that crime is very low, the other will say that is political spin. And so on.

Recently, the Economist's leader waded into the debate, emphatically stating that we have never had it so good:

Yet in a way it is odd that Britain's spirits should be low. The place is enjoying a period of extraordinary prosperity. Fourteen years of stable growth have kept unemployment down. There have been social gains as well as economic ones: fewer children and pensioners live in poverty than ten years ago. Crime is broadly lower. And with prosperity has come renewed political clout. Britain has helped to shape aid for Africa, the debate on climate change, European enlargement and, last week, negotiations to restart world trade talks.

All this is especially remarkable in contrast with the recent past. A quarter-century ago, the home of the industrial revolution was closing factories and mines. The class war raged as unions took on the government and business. In the South Atlantic a weird little war palely recalled Britain's glory days. Comparison with mainland Europe is also gratifying. After the humiliation of il sorpasso, Britain's GDP per head has once more overtaken not just Italy's, but also France's and Germany's. Although Britons are too good-natured to indulge in anything as Teutonic as Schadenfreude, they might be forgiven for a small smirk at the troubles of their old rivals.

That the Economist is cheerleading modern Britain shouldn't come as a surprise. After all, they believe that globalisation is an unmitigated good. The thing is, the worries of the British people are not as irrational as the Economist would have us believe.

Peter Hitchens' new blog post contains an extraordinary quote from a Russian journalist, that sheds some light on why it isn't that odd that the British people's "spirits should be low":

Under its corrupt government, which is widely believed to sell seats in the upper house of parliament in return for contributions to ruling party funds, the once-free nation of Britain is rapidly turning into a police state. Pre-trial detention, once limited to 72 hours, is being repeatedly extended to far longer periods. Old rules about the accused being innocent until proved guilty are being cast aside. The right to silence has been abolished and so has the law which prevented anyone being tried twice for the same offence. The police increasingly take action against individuals for expressing opinions which defy 'political correctness', the official orthodoxy of the British state. The major Churches claim that new laws discriminate against their freedom of conscience. The streets are under perpetual surveillance by closed -circuit TV cameras recording every action. The citizens are shortly to be issued with internal passports similar to Russian ones, and will be compelled to provide their fingerprints to their authorities. Schoolchildren are already being fingerprinted on such pretexts as allowing library access. The police increasingly use arrests - not followed by charges - to harass those they wish to pursue - and anyone arrested - whether convicted or not - is now compelled to give a DNA sample. As a result, Britain now has the most comprehensive DNA records of its population, anywhere in the world. Many state bodies now have the power to search people's homes, and the old maxim that 'An Englishman's Home is His Castle' is now so untrue as to be laughable. Elections are still held, but are a sham in which all the parties have more or less the same policies. The main political movements, which have lost much of their popular support, are kept going by state subsidies and contributions from millionaire businessmen. The main state-owned broadcasting system is slavishly loyal to the government and keeps minority viewpoints off the air, or treats them with contempt and derision, while the other channels mostly purvey low-grade pornographic entertainment, so-called 'reality' shows of stunning banality, old movies and sport. Meanwhile, actual crime is out of control, though citizens are legally prevented from many actions of self-defence and a government minister recently advised Britons to 'jump up and down' if they saw an old woman being attacked in the street, in the hope of distracting the attacker. This is the country which lectures Russia about 'civil society' and 'human rights'.

The fact is that whatever 'prosperity gains' globalisation's champions claim it has provided, there are at many, many drawbacks to life in modern Britain. And what they also fail to understand is that economic prosperity can be transient, but once traditional liberties and moralities are lost they are gone forever. So when you see this in action, the cry of 'never had it so good' seems extremely hollow.

More on Equality Law

2007-01-31T18:01:00.000Z

In today’s Daily Mail, Melanie Phillips points out the fundamental illiberalism of New Labour’s new ‘Equality’ law:

For with this decision, the country that first invented the concept of liberalism — the land of John Locke and John Stuart Mill, who fashioned the model of a free and tolerant society for the world — is now set to destroy the concept at its very heart.

That concept is freedom of conscience, the right of religious bodies to organise their own affairs in accordance with their own religious and moral precepts. For that is the real issue at the heart of the gay adoption row.

My views on the adoption row have been widely disseminated, and are fairly similar to Melanie's – I also believe it’s an attack on freedom of conscience. And like me, Melanie has also likened the behaviour of modern 'secular moralists' to the behaviour of Medieval Inquisitors.

The other issue involved in this debate, which I did touch on in my post but only briefly, was the refusal by some landlords to accept homosexual couples to share a room in their B&Bs. Now this is to be outlawed, and is plainly viewed as discrimination, not just to leftists, but also liberals and so-called conservatives. Yes Matthew Parris, I am talking about you.

The argument about this has tended to be brought out by supporters of the bill when they’re losing the argument over the adoption row. As soon as the illiberal nature of it is pointed out to its supporters, the cry comes up “well what about the B&B’s? Surely by supporting the exemption for adoption, you believe that there should be an exemption for them, too”. This is an attempt to lead into "well then, you would probably agree with discrimination on a racial basis as well".

The thing is, to call this discrimination is outrageously disingenuous. Because, quite simply, the individual cases are not about withdrawing services based on sexual preference, it’s about the acts involved within the landlords own premise. The landlords have no problem with the people involved staying at their premises, therefore they are not discrimining, but they do not wish to condone homosexual sex under their roof. That is why Tom Forrest disallowed homosexuals from sharing a bed together.

The crux of the matter then, is not whether you believe gay adoption is right, but whether you believe that everybody should be forced to condone your beliefs by threat of law. And, the same thing stands for the landlords of B&B’s; they are not discriminating against the individual or barring them from staying, but are unwilling to allow homosexuals to have sexual intercourse on their premises. If you believe that the person has no right to their own beliefs in this matter, then fine, go ahead and support this act. Just don’t use the word ‘liberal’, in the classical sense, for you are not a social democrat wearing liberal clothes.

All social democrats hate morals and ideas opposed to their own form of secular morality. Inevitably, they attempt to crush these rival ideas in the same way that most totalitarian states do: by state coercion. This is the point we have crossed over into, we’ve become another ‘one-idea state’. So, before British people take the moral high ground about dictators of the world, they should remember that one-idea states are, in their methods, at least as totalitarian and authoritarian as those we regularly accuse of being ‘undemocratic’.

Something for Osama Saeed..............

2007-01-29T22:33:00.000Z

Osama Saeed has managed to get himself quoted in the Times today, decrying David Cameron's use of the word 'Crusade'. Osama, doing his best Winston Smith impression, wants the word consigned to the 'dustbin' forever.

I came across this website recently. Perhaps Winston, sorry Osama, should have a read of it, learn some history, and drop the ridiculous rhetoric about the Crusades being some sort of mass proto-colonial Holocaust:

1. Some authors contend the Crusades were wars of aggression against a peaceful Muslim world. What is your position in this matter?

It is difficult to see how anyone familiar with the sources could make such a claim. The original goal of the First Crusade, as it was annunciated in the papal call as well as numerous crusader charters, was to respond to Muslim aggression against Christians in the East and to restore those lands taken by Muslims to their Christian owners. [...]

3. Some accuse the Crusades of being a sort of medieval colonialism disguised in religious trappings. Is this true and could you comment on this?

Colonialism, if it is to have any meaning at all, requires certain things: most importantly a mother country that funds and directs the colonial expansion, a colonial government linked to a home government, and policy of colonization or exploitation in the colony. The Crusades had none of these things. No mother country supported the Crusades. Rather they were funded and undertaken by individuals across Christendom for the benefit of their souls and their co-religionists overseas. The governments in the Crusaders States were independent, with no direct ties to any European countries. And the Europeans had no policy of colonization or exploitation in the East. Rather, the overriding purpose of the Kingdom of Jerusalem was to safeguard the Holy Places and the lives of Christian pilgrims coming to visit them.

Steve Moxon for Home Secretary?

2007-01-26T18:34:00.000Z

Oh, how hard we would laugh at the embarassing Home Office, if it wasn't for the fact that the consequences of its idiocy are so dire.

Then, have a look a the one that got away, Steve Moxon. Steve represents everything that the Home Office is not: principled, rational and decidedly anti-PC. Just compare this post, with the hysterical reaction of the mainstream media:

It is a guffaw inducing irony that of all organisations Channel 4 is in the dock. Rightly it defended that there had been a clash that was not racist but merely about culture and class. A spokesman for JSP cited her public record on anti-racism, as if hysterical anti-racism is itself any defence. We live in the post-MacPherson world: any incident is officially deemed to be racist on the say-so of anyone deeming themselves the victim, or by anyone who witnessed it. Absolute lunacy. In any case, Shilpa is on record as saying that she did not consider Jade and Danielle's attack as racist. That leaves those BB viewers who sent in complaints. Pehaps we should use the more TV interactive viewers of Emmerdale to redaft the law on robbery or fraud?

If we cant call an Indian and Indian, then we cant call a Canadian a Canadian. We are already absolutely forbidden to call a Pakistani a Paki, yet Australians are always known as Aussies.
Wait for the backlash. It's coming. Anti-racist hysteria is anti-integration and deadening to the human spirit. The only place for it is as laughing stock. Being able to wind each other up is essential for social interaction, and all the idiots in politics and the media had better get wize to this and fast.

To say that people - white people to be more precise - are racist simply for calling an Indian 'the Indian', is lunacy. And as Steve correctly states, it shows that anti-racist hysteria is out of control. It doesn't stop there though. The hysteria has spun even further out of control on the back of the 'Big Brother' row:

Welsh Assembly Member Eleanor Burnham has apologised for referring to the Japanese as "Japs" in a chamber debate.
The Liberal Democrat AM for north Wales made the comment while talking about Japanese trains.
After criticism by other AMs she denied intending any slur, adding: "I had no intention in mind. I do apologise."
Labour AM Carl Sergeant said: "This was appalling behaviour from the Liberal Democrat AM for north Wales, especially coming hot on the heels of the Big Brother racism scandal.
"The Liberal Democrat leader in the assembly Mike German should take the action Channel 4 executives were too scared to take.
"He should immediately remove Eleanor Burnham from the North Wales regional list for this year's election."

Now, I am not much of a fan of the Lib Dems, but the reaction of Carl Sergeant sounds so far over the top, he'll be disappearing over the Moon sometime soon. If that is not the definition of hysteria then I don't know what is.

However, we must realise that, as Steve says, this hysteria is damaging to both race relations and integration. Therefore, in this anti-white climate, any attempt to 'teach' Britishness and to make society more cohesive, is bound to fail.

Equality - The Killer of Freedom

2007-01-24T17:30:00.000Z

The law is the law is the law, quoted Nick Robinson, claiming that those were the words of a Labour cabinet minister replying to the Catholic criticisms of the new ‘Equality law’. The first question that arises in my head from hearing this is: does that little mantra apply to Muslims as well? If so, perhaps you should mention that to Sir Ian Blair.

But what the act, and the reaction of the government, really shows is that fundamentally liberalism is intolerant of any opposition to its belief system. In sum it’s a type of extreme fundamentalism, which may be the reason for its cosying-up to radical Islam. Note the almost Korannic nature of liberal doctrine – equality is good, discrimination ‘evil’, for instance.

This is where old-school conservatives, like myself, come into grief with liberalism. We try to be tolerant. Questioned on homosexuality, I tell people that really I am not interested in interfering in other people’s bedroom habits, and that the state has no place prosecuting people for sexual orientation. I also have no desire to abuse people, either verbally or physically, for their orientation. But, I will not accept and support gay marriage, civil partnerships, or gay adoption, ever. If a gay couple want to draw up some legal documents recognising them as next of kin, fine. But civil ceremonies are a charade; they are designed, like normal marriage, to show community approval of the union, but I will never approve of recognition of a marriage, other than the ones between a man and a woman.

I’d also say that it is up to an individual hotelier, and adoption agency, whether or not they accept gay couples. Freedom of conscience is a right we should all have. Yes, this is discrimination, and therefore probably doctrinally unacceptable to liberals, but criminalising this makes liberals as intolerant as those who prosecuted homosexuals in the past.

In many ways the modern Church, has also reached what seems to me to be an amicable accord. Namely, that homosexuals can live as they want, but those who oppose it do not have to ‘celebrate’ or condone their activities. And what’s the reward for those who have taken this moderate, tolerant line? Extremism and intolerance. A secular fundamentalism, led by a modern day Torquemada, Lord Falconer. I must obey, or I am a ‘criminal’.

The ludicrousness of this world-view should be obvious. It seems that to the nutty ‘rights’ brigade, there is no difference between the Catholic Church’s objection to this law, and a Muslim Iman who calls for homosexuals to be thrown from a mountain. And my belief that people should have freedom of conscience and the right to discriminate between what behaviour is viewed as good for society, and what is viewed as bad, probably makes me a Nazi sympathiser. And that’s the point about modern politics mired in a liberal epoch, there is no room for compromise, rationality and debate. Instead, there is only good and evil, equality or 'oppression', and an axis between secular and Islamic fundamentalism.

It really is hard not to be severely depressed and despondent, when faced with such truths. But we must battle on, for there may yet come a day when the public realise that to the gods of equality, freedom itself has had to be sacrificed.

Martin Kelly

2007-01-20T19:26:00.000Z

Martin Kelly has ended his blogging career. For those of you who were not aware of his work, Martin was one of the most productive and incisive members of the right-wing blogosphere.

His departure will leave a very large hole.

The Inflationary Rabbit's Escaped

2007-01-19T18:34:00.000Z

Who’d have thought that inflation would be such a big topic in general conversation? Certainly not me, that’s why I relied on my blog to vent my opinions on why we were headed for higher inflation, last year. And, as inflation is a lagging indicator, it’s the effects of last summer we are feeling now. So, if the BofE had raised rates in May, more than likely the ‘shock’ that that would have produced, would have led to no renewed housing inflation, and a slow down in the high street instead of people continuing to overspend, so inflation would now be under control.

Even the media have come to this conclusion, now. For instance, the Sun’s Fergus Shanahan states in his column today:

The Bank has been sloppy too, waiting too long to act and letting inflation get a dangerous hold again which will be difficult to break.

What effect the rate rise will have is difficult to fathom. It's obvious that previous rate rises have not stopped inflation. However, from what they have said, the government and the Bank are convinced that inflationary pressure will reduce by the end of the year. Presumably, that will be due to the lowering of energy prices in the last five months, feeding down to lower prices in the high street.

They may have a point with regards to energy prices, as we have had a winter without a hint of frost and snow here in North Cheshire. It’s scheduled to change soon, but I am not exaggerating when I say that I can never remember a winter this mild. And, the same is true not just of the North of England, but the whole of England, the British Isles, Europe and the other side of the Atlantic. So, the result of mild weather has directly led to oil prices falling to a two-year low, stuck in the $50-55 barrel range. Natural Gas has suffered, too, with lower use of central heating.

But what goes around comes around. What the weather has given with one hand it has taken away with the other. Because of scorching drought in Australia, the grain harvest was severly affected. That has sent the grain price soaring, which will feed through into higher prices for all staple produces.

The effect of the wheat prices will not, however, be as inflationary as high oil prices, so all in all that could help to reduce inflationary pressure. So, with oil prices unlikely to go anywhere near $80's a barrel this year, perhaps the government are right not to worry too much. But, it could be only a temporary respite when you consider the China factor. And, finally, with retail prices still climbing, it suggests that inflationary pressure is still in the process of building up. Only when that falls will inflation likely to come down, and even then it will take a while to filter down.

All in all, I find it very difficult to see a situation where the Bank will be able to lower interest rates this year. So, any sign of a spiral towards stagnation or recession cannot be counteracted by an interest rate cut, without inflation being set free to wreak havoc.

The Act of Union

2007-01-16T20:50:00.000Z

This blog is celebrating the Act of Unio n, signed 300 years ago today.

As an aside, I have also print-screened the front pages of numerous UK websites, and then saved them as jpegs using Photoshop. As there is another anniversary coming up in March, it will be very interesting to compare the media's coverage of them.

Islam's Global Nature

2007-01-12T18:20:00.000Z

There is a discussion on View From the Right, centring on the numbers of Muslims in Europe, and their ‘power’ being disproportionate to the actual numbers they possess. I am not sure about the numbers involved, and which census was used in compiling the figures. What is missing from the discussion is acceptance of the fact that the problem is that Muslims are a whole, not a disparate, isolated set of people. When there is Islamic pressure on governments and people, it is the entire Islamic world that is involved. The Denmark debacle was a case in point. And, the point has been reinforced this week, with a letter sent to an Italian MP.

In October Daniela Santanchè, Alleanza Nazionale Member of Parliament, appeared on an Italian television debate about the veil. Santanchè had previously written a book about women under Islam, and that was the rationale behind inviting her on to the debate. An Iman, Ali Abu Shwaima from the Segrate Mosque, was also present, and took exception to Santanchè’s hypothesis that the veil has no religious justification and is simply a cultural tool used to control Muslim women living in the West.

The Iman's response, calling Santanchè an infidel, was construed as a 'fatwah' being placed on Santanchè. And, as is the way that people who criticise Islam usually have to respond, Santanchè had to have police protection:

An Italian politician will be given police protection following comments she made about the Islamic veil on television.
The MP, Daniela Santanche, from the right wing National Alliance, said the veil was not required by the Koran.
She was labelled an infidel by an imam appearing on the same programme and there are now fears for her safety.
Daniela Santanche recently published a critical book on living conditions for Muslim women called Woman Denied.
She is known for her forthright comments.
'Ignorant talk'
On Friday she appeared on a chat show on Sky Italia for a heated debate which quickly spiralled out of control.
"A veil," she said, "is never a symbol of liberty and it is not required in religion".

"There is a law which forbids - for reason of terrorism - people to go around with masks on"
Daniela Santanche

"And in our country," she went on, "there is a law which forbids - for reason of terrorism - people to go around with masks on".
Her comments brought a furious response from the imam who appeared alongside her.
Ali Abu Shwaima, from a mosque near Milan, called her an infidel.
"I will not allow the ignorant to talk about Islam," he said. "The veil is an obligation required by God."
Ms Santanche has now been offered police protection for her own safety.

All had gone quiet with regards to this story until this week, when Santanchè’s office received an envelope originating from London. The envelope contained two pieces of paper, one written in Arabic, the other in English, and photos of Ayan Hirsi Ali and Theo Van Gogh. I’ll have a go at
translating the message, but I can’t promise that it’s entirely accurate with my level of Italian. But it seems to be saying ‘this is the hour of my liberation, now it’s yours, too. Clearly this is a serious threat to the life of Daniela Santanchè.

This cuts to the very heart of the debate about Muslims and Islam. Since October it has clearly been discussed in the Mosques of Europe, so much so that one 'true-believer' wants to teach the ‘infidel’ a lesson. And this fact should worry everyone who cares for the future of Europe; for, the more organised Islam is, and the more Mosques there are, the more the power of Islam in politics and against free-speech increases.

What the graphs do is make us think, errantly, of fifty million people scattered around Europe and disconnected from each other. In fact, we need to view the fifty million as one, powerful nation within Europe, and that their means of communication is through Mosques and Imans. And, in approving more of these, we are creating more problems for ourselves in the future.

Daniela Santanchè's official website.

Posting Drought

2007-01-09T19:15:00.000Z

My postings have come to rather a crawl, lately. There’s no doubt that the barren spell has a lot to do with the news, or, lack of it to be more precise.There are other more personal reasons, however, that are really the root cause of the ennui.

It is rather silly and superstitious to believe that a change in the calendar date dictates a change of luck. But 2006 ended with a pay rise, taking me from being lowly paid, to being on the low side of average. Needless to say, this heightened my enjoyment during the so-called ‘party season’. The comparison with the only a-week-and-a-half old 2007 is marked, due to a rather bad turn of events at work, leaving myself covering a colleague’s position. And, as many people know, being in a position of stress hardly helps those of us who are a little, ahem, highly strung.

These turn of events, also leave me in a bit of a quandary. I am hardly the most energetic of people, let alone bloggers, so struggle to do many of the things I wish to, even with a large amount of free time. This free time now looks set to evaporate. What this will do to my postings and comments, I simply don’t know. Perhaps my brain will be so fired up that I will actually be posting left, right and centre. And, what is better than responding to a stressful day than a long moan at the government’s expense!

Of course, that is the positive side. I may, on the other hand, disappear from commenting and posting altogether. I really can't be sure at the moment. But, if there are no new posts on this blog, keep checking back, because I will resume posting when things get back to some sort of normality.

Transport UK

2007-01-03T18:21:00.000Z

Oh dear. Railway users have been hit by 'inflation busting price rises':

Chris Grayling, the shadow transport secretary, said: "When the Government seems determined to introduce a national road pricing scheme, it is ludicrous to be pursuing a policy that will price many people off the trains too.
These increases are coming at a time when overcrowding on many services is very serious and set to get worse. It looks like the Government has decided to collude with the train companies to tackle overcrowding with inflation-busting rises that will force people off the rail network.

National road pricing scheme? Like the M6 tol l? The price of which has, erm, also increased above inflation:

The cost of using the motorway will rise by up to 20 per cent on January 1 taking the standard fee for cars to £4.

The charge for cars exiting at either end goes up from £3.50 while people leaving at toll stations along the route will pay £3 instead of £2.50.

Vans and lorries will face an £8 day rate instead of £7.

So, that's rail prices up, road prices up, and lots of mention of that word, overcrowding. Strangely, no mention was made of possible causes of overcrowding, like, well, immigration. Of course not. Silly me for thinking that more people equals more demand on the transportation infrastruture.

The CBI certainly can't join any dots. Here's a quote from them today:

But Susan Anderson of the Confederation of British Industry said Migrationwatch was "seeking to score a few cheap political points".
Migrants to the UK bring valuable skills and ideas with them and help to fill job vacancies where Britons are unable or unwilling to do so," she said.
Their taxes help pay for our public services and our pensions, long after many migrants have returned home.

And yet, they have had the gall to moan about the UK's transport infrastructure, in the past. Talk about having your cake and eating it, too!

Laban V Guardianistas

2006-12-28T17:44:00.000Z

I tip my hat to Laban Tall. He’s entered into the dragon’s den of Liberalism, the Guardian online, to try to convince them that stopping the, can be achieved only by the acceptance of liberal mistakes. Sadly, most didn’t listen, but I suppose it was worth the effort.

What can be gleaned from both The Guardian's comment, and their exposé, however, is that liberals cannot understand the motivations of those who vote for the BNP. And, therefore, will never solve the problems which feed its support. ‘Forceful campaigning’ may sound good, but in actual fact it is tripe. Without acknowledgement of the failure of multiculturalism, the result will be more and more success for the BNP.

The Guardian, like an early twentieth century general, is fighting the last war. Seemingly, they believe that people will be ‘shocked’, by these revelations. Some members use racial epithets? As shocks go that’s not quite up there with Foinavon. And, the racialism of some members doesn’t change the fact that a large amount of people who are not racialists, now support the BNP. These people have legitimate concerns, and these concerns cannot and will not be tackled by attempting to side-track the BNP.

They also managed to find out that the BNP operate in secrecy? Well, it is obvious that they do so because in oh so democratic Britain, these people would be persecuted for their political beliefs. Indeed, it is difficult not to feel sympathy for Simone Clarke, she seems to have sensible immigration concerns and, in light of her domestic arrangements, can hardly be called a racial nationalist. I can only hope that the decision to 'out her' will backfire on the Guardian, as The House of Dumb puts it:

Back in the day, the Guardian waxed lyrical about how digusterated they were by the News of the World publishing the names of convicted paedophiles. So, let’s check the scores on the doors here: outing perverts who prey on kids: bad, outing people who support a party the Left disapproves of: good.

If the true goals here are the retreat of the BNP, and the achievement of a cohesive British community, then what is needed is not Guardian exposés, but a political party not beholden to the current mode of thinking. Put simply, the best way to attack is from the right. And at the moment this is not happening.

The policies needed are not rocket science. All we are looking for is a party that doesn’t think of anything as ‘beyond the pale’; a party that will have the guts to say that the current immigration policies are a deliberate attempt to weaken the nation state, and highly desired by ‘world-governmenters’; a party that will maintain British independence; a party that shows that the logical conclusion of The BNP‘s policies are racial balkanisation, and the disastrous consequences of that for this country; and finally, a promise to destroy multiculturalism, period.

Laban thinks this gap on the right will be filled, soon. The question is: by whom?

A Christmas Carol........

2006-12-24T10:44:00.000Z

There is no more perfect day for bad economic data to come out, than this. It gives us the opportunity to paint Gordon Brown as a latter-day Ebenezer Scrooge. No bad thing in my mind!

The BBC may call the economy 'impressive', due to hardly sparkling GDP growth, but who has benefited from this impressive economy? Young people who have entered into the much vaunted 'New Deal', clearly haven't. Perhaps that's why Tony fails to mention it now, when talking about New Labour's 'achievments'. And then there is your average worker, facing inflation creeping ever higher. Add in Gordon's obsession with taxing things like petrol, and council tax rises, and you find the poor now pay a higher share of taxes.

The link to today's news? I think that there is a direct link between this impoverishing tax burden and crime. And that this has been starkly illustrated in a leaked report:

MINISTERS have been warned that crime is to rise for the first time in 12 years, according to a leaked Downing Street report.

A newspaper reported last night that the document, drawn up by the No 10 strategy unit, warned that a slowdown in economic growth was threatening to reverse recent falls in crime levels. Also, the report was said to predict that the prison population would rise by 25% over the next five years, from 80,000 to more than 100,000 - outstripping the planned rate of growth in prison places.

It suggested that the government consider other remedies, such as rationing the amount of alcohol people can buy, prescribing heroin instead of methadone to addicts, and "chemical castration" for sex offenders.

The report said that 80% of the recent decrease in crime was due to economic factors, but that improvement was now in jeopardy.

"Unless action is taken, economic and social pressures are expected to put recent falls in crime under threat," it said.

Now, I am not a marxist (obviously!) , so I do not believe in a solely 'homo-economicus' explanation for crime. A large percentage of the decrease in crime figures has been automotive and, in my opinion, more than likely due to increasingly sophisticated alarms. That said, economic reasons are a factor that will motivate many opportunist crimes. A snatched handbag, a mobile phone swiped (happened to me) and an unlocked car, all provide an opportunity to the desperate and capricious. The capriciousness and feeble mindedness of petty criminals will remain locked in their personality; it's more than likely they would commit crimes whatever the circumstances. But when desperation, caused by the economic policies pursued by the government, is factored in, the mix becomes particualry toxic. So, to see an increase in this sort of crime would be quite simply the most damming indictment of Gordon Brown's Chancellorship, yet.

Finally, I would like to wish everybody a merry Christmas, yes, even dear old Gordon, and a happy new year. I would also like to thank those bloggers who who have been kind enough to link to me, God bless you and your families.

The Benefits of Diversity............Asian Gangs

2006-12-20T18:46:00.000Z

The following article is taken from the BBC's website. Surprisingly, for such a big story, it's hardly in a prominent position, simply tucked away under the BBC Manchester section:

Five men have been charged as part of a major investigation into the sexual abuse of girls in Oldham.
More than 20 men were arrested and three were charged with rape and two with abduction offences.
Shahzad Masood, and Suleman Mohammed, both 32, were charged with abduction and Sarwar Ali, 31, was charged with rape. All have been released on bail.
Kadir Hussain, 23, and Shakil Chowdhury, 39, were charged with rape and remanded in custody.
The arrests were made as part of a joint inquiry carried out by police, Oldham council, Oldham Primary Care Trust and the charity Barnardos.
Mr Masood, of Melford Avenue in New Moston and Mr Mohammed, of Derby Court in Werneth, were charged on 23 August.
Mr Hussain, of Princess Street, Ashton-under-Lyne, was charged on 12 November.
Mr Chowdhury, of Attock Close, Chadderton was charged on 2 November.
Mr Ali, of Chester Street, Werneth, was charged on 2 November.
The men appeared before Oldham Magistrates in October and November.

It's strange that this news has only just come out now. Especially as this is one of the busiest times of the year, in which most people have little time to follow the news.

It's even more strange that the article is so reticent to give out the full story. The fact that most of the girls are underage, one only twelve years old, is not mentioned at all.

Perhaps if this was an isolated incident it would not warrant generalisations. But Asian - meaning Pakistani Muslims - gangs have form:

The shocking revelation came as one Rotherham mother told the Yorkshire Post that her 13-year-old daughter was repeatedly raped by a gang of Asian men who befriended her.

It follows reports that police in Keighley are reopening investigations into alleged attacks on 33 teenage girls, whose mothers claim have been targeted by Asian men cruising the streets of the West Yorkshire town.
Many of the girls – who are all white – are reluctant to give evidence against their attackers, whom they see as their "boyfriends", and are seduced by presents and flattery before being assaulted.
Police and community leaders have discounted race as an issue but there are claims that the cultural background of arranged marriages is the key to understanding the problem.
The Rotherham woman branded her daughter's attackers "untouchable" amid a climate of fear and violence created by the gangs.
The girl fell victim to the men after they befriended her in Dinnington town centre, showered her with gifts and treated her to trips to a pub in their high-performance cars.
The teenager eventually reported the attacks to police but was too terrified to take her case to court for fear of abduction, her mother said.

The similarities are amazing. In the Oldham case, the gang befriended the girls by using the gift of a mobile phone, enabling them to keep in constant contact with them. And one can only presume from the Rotherham case that the presents mentioned are also mobile phones.

The Rotherham-gang article may state that this is a cultural and not a racial thing, as if this makes everything all right. In fact, it shows that there is a rotten culture that exists within the muslim community of misogyny, honour killings, rape gangs and suicide bombings. And, if this is 'vibrancy' and 'diversity', Tony Blair can keep it.

Talking of Christmas

2006-12-19T18:14:00.000Z

Is my belief that religious Christmas is a thing of the past, and that this fact doesn't particulary bother the British people, an over-exaggeration? Perhaps:

The vast majority of Britons oppose moves to secularise Christmas, according to a new poll.
The survey found that 80% believe celebrating the birth of Christ remains an important part of the festival.
The study follows a string of high-profile media reports of apparent attempts to rebrand Christmas on secular lines as a "winter" celebration.
The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, is among those who have attacked what he called "Wintervalitis" - a reference to the decision eight years ago by Birmingham City Council to rename Christmas "Winterval".
Recent controversies include a school which took turkey off its festive menu in favour of halal chicken and a council which chose not to use the word Christmas on its cards, opting for "Season's Greetings".

But, I wouldn't get too excited yet, the generation to come are the the real worry.

Yet another poser

2006-12-14T10:29:00.000Z

I have a very large problem with our modern Christmas tradition. We all know that since Victorian times Christmas cards have been exchanged between family and friends. That's fine, I have no problem whatsoever with it. Although having to send cards to people you haven't spoken to for twenty years merely because they send you one, seems like a bit of a tyranny. But, hey, I suppose that there's nothing wrong with a bit of courtesy.

The problem I have is with the cards themselves. Firstly, there is nowhere near the same amount of cards bearing any religious scene. In the modern secular world I suppose that's to be expected. But would it really be such a stretch to endow the card's scene with the star of Bethlehem? A small gesture, true, but one that would at least retain some sense of the religious aspect of Christmas in the minds of the people who receive the cards.

Of course, when entering into a discussion on the nature of Christmas cards, it's easy to forget that even the Victorians would have sent cards with traditional scenes, rather than religious ones. Father Christmas with his reindeer, children bedecking Christmas trees, a family gathered around a log fire or a chocolate box village decorated for festivities. All conjure up the ideal of Christmas, and are a wonderful addition to the main room over the Christmas period. Without them, Christmas is all the poorer. So, I can't grumble about them.

What's annoyed me is an addition to the pantheon of cards sent over the Christmas period, in the last decade. The 'seasons greetings' card. Ninety per cent of these cards have some sort of link to Christmas, either on the outside, or inside within the message. But there are some which have a silly decoration type of display, and these don't even mention the word Christmas in them. You could even say they daren't mention the word.

The motives of the card companies who produce this guff is something I have been pondering. I suppose card companies are trying to be 'trendy' or 'inclusive', imbecility is a more appropriate word. If somebody, heaven forbid, sends me one of these type of cards, what I am I supposed to do? Are they trying to celebrate the winter season? If so, perhaps I should send them a 'spring greetings' card on the Ides of March. Surely, if people have actually bothered to send out cards at this time of year, they must have some sort of feelings towards Christmas. If that is the case, then they must realise that their cards are part of a cultural shift away from the traditions and Christian links of Christmas.

Looking at it perspectively, at the moment this is only relevant to a small minority of cards. Most of the ones recieved by our family have the words Merry Christmas emblazoned in the middle. Some even have the nativity scene. the rest have some sort of a recognisable Christmas scene. But, lest we forget, the decline of religious Christmas was quick, and now it plays a small part in the festival. The decline of cultural Christmas, the one involving family and community, is now going on around us. And the best way to defend the traditional Christmas is a card. A card which says Merry Christmas, and shows a happy family in all its glory. Let's keep the tradition alive.

Over the weekend, I'll be in the south-west, for a family wedding. So no more postings for a bit.

Minding the gap

2006-12-11T17:45:00.000Z

It does feel rather churlish to have a moan about something as good as the Royal Society’s online webcast service. I mean here’s an opportunity to listen to world class scientists debating some interesting and cutting-edge scientific subjects, all from the comfort of your computer chair. An opportunity that many people must have craved, since the inception of the society under Charles the 2nd. But, alas, I do have a major problem with their last presentation. So, moan I must.

The title of this discussion was ‘Mind – The Gap’. The gap in question is the one between the minds of humans and animals. Or, if you prefer the vacous politically-correct term 'non-human animals'. In its own words the presentation asks:

How have human attitudes to animals changed over recent decades? Our panel of experts will discuss what, if anything, really distinguishes human beings from their fellow creatures presentations.

This is an area that I find fascinating, and so I was looking forward immensely to listening to it. My hope was that cognitive fluidity, the lingustical theory of human intelligence, would receive an airing. And, with Nicky Clayton, a biologist who focuses on the mind of crows and Andrew Whiten, an evolutionary psychologist, the panel contained a couple of top-class experts. An intelligent discussion seemed on the cards. But, then I noticed the name of Will Self. The same one who makes Have I Got News For You and Question Time unwatchable (for myself) when he guests on them. What on earth was he doing there, I thought.

Luckily enough, Mr 'I don't regard myself as British' was first up, and his qualification for being on the panel was explained. Self apparently wrote a novel entitled Great Apes, in which his lead character Simon Dykes engages in a night of heavy alcohol and drug use and wakes up as a chimpanzee, in a world where chimps are humanity's superiors. An idea which has more than a whiff of misanthropy to it.

After the debate chair, novelist Maggie Gee, started proceedings, Self started with his rhetoric. The only thing of any substance he said was that humanity is currently wiping out ‘our closest living relative’. Incidentally, the phrase ‘our closest living relative’ he uttered repeatedly. It's as if we somehow needed the point ramming home. Yes Will, that truly would be a tragedy, and I would urge everyone to donate to the WWF, but, frankly, what has that got to do with the gap between the minds of human and animals? Then we have another Self gem. Whilst he's talking he remarks:

So-called western civilisation, although that statement seems like a bit of an oxymoron, to me.

It took all my will not to switch the presentation off after that remark, but I persevered. Self finished with some egalitarianism when he states that we are finally realising what tribal people have known forever, that animals are 'different, but not inferior'. The irony of Self's comments wasn’t able to grasp, is that the reason Chimps are being hunted out of existence is because of a demand for ‘bush meat’. And that this demand comes not from ‘so-called western civilisation', but from those ‘enlightened’ tribal people, that Self is so fond of.

Nicky Clayton was next up, talking about intelligence and brains. So, we finally entered 'proper science' territory. Clayton began by skipping over the religious and historical views of animal intelligence, and then quickly reached humanity's evolution. The puzzle, for her, was that language and culture had only really developed in the last 40,000 years. For 80,000 years before that, we seemed to be in an intellectual stasis. Her question was why? At this stage I was just waiting for 'cognitive fluidity', to be mentioned. But, her view is that biology doesn't seem to point to differences between human and animal intelligence.

Andrew Whiten, takes a slightly different approach. He does mention the 'gap' between humans and chimpanzees. Nonetheless, he states that the gap has 'narrowed', and he talks about the similarities between humans and chimps. He mentions the chimp tool sets showing up at the moment, mentions the warlike instincts of chimps and talks about the culture of chimpanzees. Cultural transmission is also touched on, as this is spread in a similar way to human culture. Whiten ends with the statement that similarities of cultural transmission is one thing, but the difference between human culture and chimp culture is obviously massive. Some sanity had, therefore, been restored to proceedings.

After the cat-loving novelist Doris Lessing's speech, we reach the questions and debating section. First up is the subject of animal emotions. The conclusion for this line of thought is that it's not a very well researched' area. Then Maggie Gee asked the question: are humans animals? And misanthropic Self is on again. His view was that Doris Lessing takes the view that animals need to be elevated to the level of humanity, he thinks that humans need to be lowered to the level of animals. Given his past history, perhaps he has a point about the level of behaviour of some human beings.

The debate was then opened to the audience. The first contributor expressed surprise that no one had picked up on the fact that human beings understand the concept of cause and effect, and the fact that this is missing from all animals, even chimpanzees. Another contributor asks Nicky Clayton whether intelligence and ingenuity are, in fact, the same thing.

Andrew Whiten responds to the first question, stating that there is a large difference between our own, and a chimps concept of cause and effect. Although, he does provide an example of an experiment pitting chimpanzee v human child. In this experiment the chimpanzee varies its approach to a specific problem, whilst the human child does no, the reason for this being our childhood culture of conformity. We then have some animal rights type of questions. A man who quotes Peter Singer, talks about the need to avoid 'generalisations' because we could do 'the same thing with racism and sexism.' Perish the thought.

And then, at last, we get to linguistics. A man says that feral children over the age of seven have the ability to recognise themselves in the mirror, but cannot reach the same level of cognitive fluidity, as normal humans. Sadly, this question got buried under another debate on the validity of anecdotal evidence, and was not satisfactorialy answered

All in all, I was a little under whelmed. There should have been an expert in the brain's architecture, on the panel. The facets of intelligence which are unique to our species were only discussed after contributors from the audience mentioned them. And whilst cognitive differences between our ‘closest living relative’ and ourselves should not be overestimated, they should definitely not be underestimated, either.

It was a shame that this important and interesting subject was sometimes reduced to the rhetoric of the lunatic-fringe of the animal rights movement. There was an admittance of ‘differences’ between humans and animals, but they couldn’t conclude that these differences render humanities minds superior to those of animals. It would offend their sense of egalitarianism to say that only mankind can achieve the highest form of thought. But this is the truth, and science must yield to truth however uncomfortable to the political beliefs of the scientists involved.

Christmas Message

2006-12-06T20:02:00.000Z

Channel Four, purveyor of smut and reality TV garbage like Big Brother, has excelled itself again in the moronic stakes. It will broadcast a message by a Muslim woman, in full niqab, as its 'alternative Christmas message'.

Channel 4 is to reignite controversy over the wearing of the veil - by featuring a Muslim woman in full niqab giving the broadcaster's alternative Christmas message.

The woman, today named only as Khadija and said to be a lecturer in Islamic studies, will go head-to-head with the Queen when she gives her annual speech to the nation on 25 December.
Producers are said to have "discovered" her after a month-long search for a suitable candidate.

I have so many questions arising just from reading this article, my head is almost throbbing. The obvious one is why are Channel Four doing such a crass thing? Well, any channel who has a plan for something called 'masturbation week', is obviously a lover of cheap publicity and controversy - with little regard for quality progamming. And, insulting Christianity is par for the course for our public broadcasters.

But there are also some questions about the mysterious Khadija. Where did they 'discover' her? And, why have they only given her forename (if that is even her real name) to the public? Without this knoweledge I am left to ponder whether 'Khadija', has any links to extremists. It wouldn't surprise me if she is simply a mouthpiece for an extremist Islamic organisation like Hizb-ut-tahir, or The Respect Party. If that turns out to be the truth, then make no mistake about it, the insult will be magnified many, many times.

Blame it on the Pope.............

2006-12-02T09:55:00.000Z

As we all know, Pope John Paul the 2nd was responsible for 'millions of deaths'. This was because of his non-belief in the usage of condoms, and its contribution to the spread of AIDS in Africa.

This is modern doctrine. A doctrine that was originally propogated by 'progressives', and then by their media mouthpieces, Peter Thatchell and Polly Toynbee. Toynbee even criticised Tony Blair for paying his respects to Pope John Paul the 2nd, at his funeral, on account of him 'killing millions of Africans'. So works the strange mind of Ms Toynbee. And yet, it seems that in almost every aspect of modern politics in Britain, the mainstream eventually dances to the tune of these 'progressives'. And now this theory, formally belonging to the left, is the official doctrine of our glorious leader:

Tony Blair has told religious leaders to "face up to reality" and drop their opposition to condoms to help the fight against Aids.

In a pointed criticism of the Vatican's stance on contraception, Mr Blair used a television interview on World Aids Day to insist that preaching abstinence was not enough. Speaking to MTV, Mr Blair said: "The danger is if we have a sort of blanket ban from religious hierarchy saying it's wrong to do it, then you discourage people from doing it in circumstances where they need to protect their lives."[...]
The Vatican says abstinence is the best way to tackle HIV/Aids, but in April, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, the former Archbishop of Milan, said the use of condoms was "a lesser evil" in relationships where one partner had HIV/Aids, prompting speculation that the Vatican was preparing to relax its position.

With attacks like this from world leaders, Pope Benedict will almost certainly have to change the official Vatican policy. And that victory for 'progress', will be another wound in the belly of common sense. Because, this is quite simply the most nonsensical and ludicrous theory, ever expounded by a human being. In fact, it makes some of these look positively sane.

The theory rests on the belief that inter-sex relations in a tribal village in Africa are hugely affected by Papal teaching and doctrine. This belief is simply laughable. It's obvious to me - perhaps not to the left- that if you are basing your sexual behaviour on what the Pope says, adultery, multiple-sexual partners and extra-marital sex (especially with prostitutes) are sins. And, as they seem to be the main ways in which African HIV is spread, they are obviously widely practiced. So a large number of people are directly contradicting the teachings of the Pope. That, of course is their choice. But why would such a person, who obviously doesn't believe in Papal doctrine, then start wearing condoms specifically because Pope Bendict has said so?

Furthermore, would remote African villagers even know what the Pope thinks about condom usage? I'd say that it's highly unlikely. As unlikely as an adulterer suddenly deciding to used condoms on the Pope's demand. And, therefore, any change of policy from the Vatican, will have absolutely no afffect on AIDS cases in Africa. Niente, nada, zero, not one life will be saved. And this is the point. This isn't about helping Africans but about western self-hatred. A hatred which is embodied perfectly by people like Toynbee and Thatchell. Now, their views are mainstream, and the hallowed 'centre-ground'.

As the Pope would probably say, God help us all.

The end of one law for all?

2006-11-29T18:32:00.000Z

The wikipedia article on national identity states:

Nations are defined by a limited number of characteristics, which apply to both the individual members, and the nation. The first requirement for the definition is that the characteristics should be shared - a group of people with nothing in common, can not be a nation. Because they are shared, the national population also has a degree of uniformity and homogeneity. And finally, at least some of the characteristics must be exclusive - to distinguish the nation from neighbouring nations.

The fact is, this is not the case in modern Britain. The break up of the nation is continuing slowly but inexorably.

As the article states, the basis of the nation are shared culture, language and law. Of course, it's also important to remember the roles of ethnicity and faith, but some would say they have diminished in importance within the modern state. On those pillars everything else is built, without them the nation is simply a 'global traffic station'.

That multicultralism is being used to attack the nation state, is obvious. Multiculturalism attacks the first pillar holding up the state, the shared culture of the nation. But it also leads to multilingualism, in which the ability to speak the language of the nation is no longer required. Instead, the state pays for translators at huge expense to the taxpayer. And the very fact that we speak different languages is even celebrated by the liberal media.

The only pillar of the nation state which has not yet been attacked by multiculturalism, is the law. Well, so I thought. Then I came across an article on the BBC website, it turns out that the laws of this land, rooted in anglo-saxon common law, are not accepted by some British citizens. Instead:

Aydarus Yusuf has lived in the UK for the past 15 years, but he feels more bound by the traditional law of his country of birth - Somalia - than he does by the law of England and Wales.
"Us Somalis, wherever we are in the world, we have our own law. It's not Islamic, it's not religious - it's just a cultural thing."
he 29-year-old youth worker wants to ensure that other members of his community remain subject to the law of their ancestors too - he helps convene an unofficial Somali court, or "gar", in south-east London.
Aydarus is not alone in this desire. A number of parallel legal universes have been quietly evolving among minority communities. As well as Somali customary law, Islamic and Jewish laws are being applied and enforced in parts of the UK. [...]
So how did this court come about? Some academic lawyers see these alternative legal systems as an inevitable - and welcome - consequence of multiculturalism.
Dr Prakash Shah, of London's Queen Mary University, advocates this "legal pluralism".
"Tribunals like the Somali court could be more effective than the formal legal system in maintaining social harmony."

And so, the final pillar is attacked. Don't be surprised when the whole structure collapses.

The Bizarre Rantings Of An Iman

2006-11-27T21:08:00.000Z

Attack of the Mind Fog

2006-11-25T13:32:00.000Z

I read David Smith’s economics UK blog regularly. For those of you who aren't aware of him, David is an author, and the Economics editor for the Sunday Times. And, his blog is a very informative read.

David fulfils a useful purpose for me. As most of the things I don’t understand about economics send me into blind panic, a read of David’s blog usually returns me to acquiescence. Take the M4 money supply. It's out of control, I think. Surely inflation is gonna rocket! And, the pound is gonna going to go down the pan! Not true, says David:

What's changed is that inflation on all measures has come in lower than expected, earnings growth remains very benign and the Bank has published an inflation report showing a quicker return to target than it previously expected. M4 growth does not represent a dilution of the pound sterling, in fact it is hard to tell what it is. There's a nice chart in the Bank's inflation report (1.6 p12) showing the poor relationship between M4 and money GDP.

Everytime I read his blog, the alchemy that is modern finance, looks more and more like an exact science. It’s entirely explainable, predictable and, well, goldilocksish. I wonder why I am so sceptical of this 'new economy'. Look at the alchemy involved with Gordon Brown’s mismanagement of the economy. Think of him smelting discarded copper ingots, some iron-ore, and some moon dust to finish it off. And then he brings the metal out of the forge - and it looks a lot like gold. All hail the modern-day Paracelsus, say the media. Unsurprisingly, this leads me to feel mighty confused and unsure about all things economic. Is there really nothing to worry about, I think. So what do I do? I read David’s blog, try to understand what on earth he is talking about, and if I have understood, I tend to rest a lot easier.

However, that feeling evades me when I think about the UK housing market. To be brutally honest, it baffles me. And, no matter what they do or say, economists, like David, still can’t convince me that there is not more to it than supply and demand. Take this BBC article, where they have even provided graphs, and a veritable collection of these supply and demanders. And as I read it, that fog didn’t clear. Infact, I was left in the middle of a mind-peasouper.

There are currently 22.8 million households in Great Britain. The Department for Communities & Local Government (DCLG) predicts that another million or so will be added in the next five years alone.

And by 2016 there will be 25.1 million households in Britain - an increase of 2.3 million in just ten years. A lot of attention has been given to the fact that the country has seen a surge in immigration recently, principally from Eastern Europe.

But Professor Michael Ball, of the University of Reading business school, said the rise in household numbers will be driven by a large increase in the number of us who are living alone.

No, no, no, it’s nothing to do with immigration. It never is to the BBC. So, what else can we find to explain it? Ah yes, single ownership households. Let's beat that drum mercilessly:

We estimate that the number of households has been growing at 200,000 or even more each year in recent years," said Milan Katri, chief economist of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

Yet new building has been running at between 140,000 and 160,000 a year, he added.

Thanks to successive government policies, hardly any new council houses have been built for the last 20 years. Some people who might once have rented have been more or less forced to buy instead.

Tony Key, Professor of real estate economics at the Cass Business school in London, said this under supply of housing has led to a huge distortion in the UK property market. Somewhere around the mid 1980s we stopped building council houses and we didn't fill in the gap. There's been a group of people who might logically be renters who have been forced into being owner occupiers," said Professor Key.

Meanwhile millions of former council homes have also been sold by local authorities.

I wrote about both of these, in the spring. Undoubtedly, single ownership households have had a major impact on the housing market. But this has been happening for years, as the BBC graph shows. Therefore, they didn’t stop the housing prices from crashing in the early 90s. So, yes BBC, immigration has been widely mentioned as a price-driver, and with very good reason too.

But there is still something missing, with regards to the housing market. Single households cannot explain everything. A Professor, called Christine Whitehead, has another explanation:

Despite our perennial complaints about the roguishness of estate agents, dilatoriness of lawyers and the cost of stamp duty, buying and selling here is relatively easy to do.

Professor Whitehead said our transaction costs are lower then in most of rest of Europe, where taxation and the administrative costs of moving can take more than 10% of a property's value. We have a much more fluid market, in the main, buying and selling does not take very long, she said.

If you add in the fact that we have lots of houses -which offer more privacy and control than flats, a legal system geared to the home owner and the fact that mortgage repayments are usually cheaper than rent, then you have some pretty good reasons to buy a house.

Perhaps this is the nub of the matter. Instead of, as the BBC report wrongly states, being a nation of ‘homeowners’, we are now a nation of ‘housing speculators’. We're not after a home, but an 'investment'. After all, all those aforementioned single households have to be able to repay a mortgage by themselves. So, with only one wage, and with wages fairly stagnant, how on earth is all this possible? The most plausible explanation is that it’s mortgage providers, who seem hell bent on a race to the bottom, with regards to lending practices. Their motto is lend, lend, lend. Interest only? Yes sir, sign here. Bad credit rating? Who cares!

And then I think of the logical conclusion to all speculation. What happens when we reach the lending bottom of the barrel? And how long can we afford these 'mega-mortgages', on stagnant wages. Well, David Miles from Morgan Stanley, believes that as much as half the growth in house prices since 1996, has been down to speculation. And he predicts there will almost certainly be a slump, maybe within the next two years.

And this is where David Smith comes in again. As I am thinking speculation, leveraging and hyper-growth. It sounds an awful lot like a house of cards. Now I am really worried! But David actually admonishes this thinking:

The effect of rising population and limited housing supply on prices should not be underestimated. The number of new “dwellings” being completed is rising. I use the word dwellings advisedly because about half of current “housing” starts are flats and maisonettes. The House Builders Federation has just changed its name to the Home Builders Federation for that reason. In 2004-5, 206,750 dwellings were completed, nearly 9% up on the previous year. But housebuilding has not moved decisively higher. During the 1990s, the typical number of new dwellings completed was about 190,000. Nearly 90% of new accommodation these days is built by the private sector.[...]

Housing demand is not, of course, just about population growth and immigration. It is also affected by size of household, divorce, how early young people fly from the parental nest, second homes and a range of other factors. The government’s projections show that in England alone there will be an average of 209,000 new households annually over the next two decades.

The strength of housing demand is one thing, but what about the “fact” that house prices are plainly too high? The surprise about this year’s housing market strength is that what looked like an overvalued asset has gone up a lot more. How can this be, and how dangerous is it? Perhaps not at all, because housing was not overvalued.

I read it and all the worry should have been smoothed away. It's the goldilocks housing market! I shouldn’t still be thinking ‘house of cards’. And yet, this doesn’t look like alchemy. It’s plain to see, at least to me, that at this level, housing is in an unsustainable boom. So I am still puzzled. And I am still panicing. I remember that I am not an economist, David Smith, Saxon Brettell, professors Ball, Key and Whitehead are. They know what they’re talking about; they have the degrees to prove it. What do I have? A couple of economic textbooks, that I don't really understand.

Losing interest in the subject, and with my head hurting, my mind drifts to something I do know a lot about - energy. I remember the oil price going up and up earlier in the year. And, I remember my words at the time:

My belief is that the rises in energy prices are permanent. So does Stephen Leeb. It's simple supply and demand, and thanks to our Chinese friends, there is not enough to go around.

Hmmm, they sound very much like the economists quotes. It's Supply and demand due to single households. It's supply demand due to Chinese consumption. In fact, what I said at the time was mostly true. Oil prices remain historically high. The fundamentals are driving the oil price. And the supply and demand situation is a major factor behind this. But it’s all very easy to underestimate speculation when the prices are rocketing, especially when you have fundamentals on your side. That was a lesson I learned the hard way.

Pro-choice Barbarians, Emerge From a Hole

2006-11-21T18:00:00.000Z

This is Nadine Dorries, Conservative MP for Mid-Bedfordshire. Last month, Nadine tabled a bill attempting to amend Britain's ultra-liberal abortion law. The bill was moderate in its proposals:

The introduction of a cooling off period of 10 days. If the abortion is still wanted, it will go ahead.
Cutting the upper limit from 24 to 21 weeks.
During the cooling off period, the woman/girl will attend counselling.

All of these are very sensible propsals, which would constitute an improvement to our current laws. Nonetheless, the government, represented by a harridan called Chris McCafferty, described the bill as:

Cynical, cruel and inhumane

As opposed to the wonderfully 'humane' process of abortion, I suppose?

Unfortunately, the bill was defeated. But Nadine was succesful in raising this important issue, even though it received very little national coverage. And, as this was part of the bill's objective, she was happy with the result.

To tackle such an issue requires a lot of courage. The establishment do not want the debate, and there is also the sinister 'pro-choice' nutjobs, to consider. And almost inevitably, the aforementioned nutjobs targeted Nadine with death threats. It's not a stretch to imagine that these threats are very real. Life is obviously cheap to such people.

As sad as this all is, I hope it will, one day, lead the public to see the reality of abortion. And, I hope is that one day the media will stop its instutional pro-abortion bias. Perhaps, instead of portraying pro-lifers as a bunch of facists, it will tell the truth about the extremist pro-abortion lobby. And, that the public will also recognise that the anti-abortion lobby uses logic, arguments and peaceful protest, whilst the pro-choicers use insults and threats. I believe, and hope, that thanks to Nadine's bravery, that day is getting closer.

Some Links

2006-11-18T17:35:00.000Z

Oh dear, what does it say about 'Red' Ken Livingstone, when even Hugo Chavez is too embarassed to meet such a mad extremist? Moreover, what does it say about the people of London, who elected him?

This brings me nicely to a couple of new links I am adding. Because, the first blog charts the idiocy of Ken, and he certainly doesn't fail to keep them in business.

Secondly, I have to thank Osama Saeed's nemesis, Martin Kelly, for the link to Econbrowser. It's by far the most interesting economics blog I've come across.

Derek Turner, the editor of Right Now, is also worth a read.

And finally, David Davies, the MP for Monmouth, and probably the most admirable Tory MP around.

The Liberalism of 'Conservatives'

2006-11-16T18:11:00.000Z

Somebody once said that 'everyone will be blogging in a few years'. Well, it's not quite true yet, but we are definitely getting there. Now, Charlie Wolf has joined in, albeit a little sporadically.

Who's Charlie Wolf? Well, he is an Ayn Rand devotee, unemployed radio host, uber hawk and, generally, a Neoconservative extraordinaire. Unsurprisingly, he talks quite a lot of nonsense, especially about Iraq and Israel.

But even Charlie comes out with some salient points, sometimes. Take this post, in which he takes aim at David Cameron:

He said that he is not a neo-conservative but is a liberal conservative. But neo Conservatives are liberal conservatives.

Very true Charlie. Neoconservatism is liberalism, albeit right-liberalism. When Cameron professes he's a 'liberal conservative', he really means he believes in left-liberalism. The battle in modern conservatism is merely a civil war between right and left liberals. Let's not forget that Cameron still generally believes in the Iraq war, but not the way it has been prosecuted. His economic ideas are not radically different to that of the right of the party, with tax the obvious exception.

But, to support the war in Iraq contravenes fundamental conservative principles. Last week's Spectator quotes John Hulsman:

The necons have gone wrong by offering us humanitarianism on steroids. It has been false realism, as though you impose democracy at the barrel of a gun and people will like that. As though one size fits all for the world - culture and history don't matter at all. In essence, the neoconservatives are still Jacobin utopian Rousseauian Trotskyists, supporters of permanent revolution. That's their gig. And of course it's met with predictable disaster.

The traditions of conservatism go back to Edmund Burke, not to this utopian fantasy that you can make the world a Kantian paradise sometime in the near future.

Darwinian Conservatism picks up the baton:

The American war in Iraq violates such conservatism by assuming a utopian view of human nature. That explains why many American conservatives now realize that the neoconservative idealism of Bush's war in Iraq is not really rooted in conservative thought.

The American war in Iraq is foolishly utopian in at least two respects. First, it is utopian in the assumption that the institutions of ordered liberty can be nourished around the globe in every society by imperialistic wars.

Neocon Charlie Wolf, wouldn't understand that. His utopianist liberalism blinds him. That's why, later in his post, he wishes that Tony Blair would cross the House to become a 'Conservative' prime minister. Yes, anti-family, anti-liberty, anti-conventional marriage, pro-immigration, pro-taxation and pro-huge public spending Tony Blair. A conservative!!

Quite frankly, Cameron's rejection of neoconservatism, was the most salient thing he has ever said. His rejection of all neo-Jacobinist liberalism, would mark him out as fit to govern this country.

Iraq Descending.....

2006-11-14T18:16:00.000Z

More sad news from Iraq today. That follows Remembrance Sunday's deaths, at the hands of Shia Militia.

Matters seem to be coming to a head right now. So, it's likely that we will have to make some serious decisions soon. The options are very simple: more troops, full withdrawal, or an attempt to stop foreign interference, letting Iraq sink, swim, or divide by itself. Perhaps there is also another option, one which was suggested by Democrat Joseph Biden, divide Iraq on ethnic grounds.

Well, firstly, more troops is a complete non-starter. Pat Buchanan said:

Americans will not send added troops to Iraq, as McCain urges. They want out of this war and are willing to take the consequences.

Quite simply it's too late to send in more troops, too much blood has been spilled, too much money has been spent. There is no public will for such a move. And frankly, would more troops have neccesarily 'won us' the war, anyway? According to this article it would have been a struggle with 500,000. Knowing this fact now, makes Rumsfeld's idiocy seem even more acute.

One fact that has to be acknowledged, is that our troops presence more than likely is making things worse. Therefore, even if we set up seperate regions, as Biden suggests, we are still likely to face the brunt of angry insurgents, blaming us for their region being given 'a raw deal'. It's obvious that the best thing would be for us to get our troops out.

A full withdrawal is so unlikely that, whatever Buchanan says, it is not going to happen. Its lauding, as a victory for Jihadists, would set a dangerous precedent. And, it would be such an admission of defeat, that it would almost certainly condemn its architects to the political trash can.

What to do then? All I can do is ask whether we are able to withdraw our troops to the desert and borders of Iraq. Therefore, we might be able to limit Syrian, Iranian and Turkish meddling in a possible civil war. This seems to be our best option, and that fact is the most damning thing to say about the whole debacle.

(BTW - there are still some in the Blogosphere who believe that we are 'winning' in Iraq. God only knows what a defeat would look like.)

Remembrance Sunday

2006-11-12T10:38:00.000Z

They gave their lives. And their reward from modern Britain? Scum like this.

Economic Warnings - Rumbling On

2006-11-11T14:14:00.000Z

Early in the summer, I made a few comments on the down-turning economy. Most of the analysis still stands up now. Mervyn King had to raise interest rates later in the summer, and has done so again last week. My opinion in May was that a 'shock' interest rate rise, or at least the threat of one, would have been a good thing at cooling off inflation, there and then. Instead, the Commitee dillied and dallied, and have now had to raise rates twice, with a further one on the cards thanks to continued house price mania and an increasing RPI.

The oil prices have, however, been a bit harder to predict. Seemingly on an inexorable rise before, they peaked during the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. But with a, thankfully, damp squib of a hurricane season over, and after the passing of the American 'driving season', September saw speculators exiting the market very quickly.

I am not going to attempt to write that I foresaw this happening, Jerome K. Jerome once said that 'it is always the best policy to speak the truth - unless, of course, you are an exceptionally good liar', well I'm a terrible liar. So hands-up. But, shorn of speculators, oil is now stripped down to its fundamentals. And, with continued economic growth, no matter how small, oil is headed on an upwards trajectory, with $80 barrel crude a possibility within the next couple of years.

What has been slightly more surprising is the performance of the stock market. It has actually held up very well, with the Dow making a record high and the FTSE climbing over 6200. Whatsmore, all news seems to be good news to the markets. The record corporate profits are probably responsible for a large part of the buoyancy, but the market now seems to be rather overpriced, for my liking.

The main worry for the markets has to come from the state of the American economy. It seems to be wobbling quite badly at the moment. And, historically speaking, when the US slips into a recession, Britain usually follows.

Perhaps 2001 was an exception to this, but, more than likely, that was avoided by Gordon Brown's Keynesian public spending binge. But let's not bash poor old Keynes. Sure, he gave politicans justification for spending huge amounts of public money. It's also true, however, that he called for spending to be reduced when the economy was doing well. So, politicans claimed to be following Keynes when they were spending their way out of a recession. But once world-improving politicans have a taste for spending money, they continue to spend. After all, so the theory goes, if the medicine has worked, why not swallow the whole bottle?

Enough of the digression, let's get back to the question about the US economy. Well, it does seem to be dangerously close to teetering over the brink. An inverted yield curve does not look promising. Then there's the housing market, still looking for a soft landing. The use of housing equity withdrawal, treating the house as an 'ATM machine', has been a major factor in fuelling consumer spending. The reduction in GDP can be at least partly attributed to this. But, Neither of these factors make a recession inevitable. And, many economists do not seem to be especially perturbed:

The effects of the housing correction will be entirely contained within the housing sector," says Mike Englund, chief economist of Action Economics. Corporate balance sheets are stronger than they've been in years, with U.S. companies sitting on $600 billion in cash. Interest rates are stable, and may decline. Falling energy prices are easing the burden on energy-intensive industries like chemicals and airlines.

So, all in all, the economy is at a worrying crossroads but is not yet a dead-man walking. And, my suspicion that as soon as the US economy looks to be heading south the Fed will turn up its printing press, still stands. Although another interest rate rise in the new year would suggest that inflationiary worries still persist. Either way, the road ahead is full of obstacles, one false move from the Fed and we are staring either a recession or increasing inflation in the face.

My advice is the same as ever. And, I don't mind being as annoying as Mogambo on this subject. Quite simply - buy some gold!

The Gift Of Gods

2006-11-08T18:14:00.000Z

It seems that the Auster v Derbyshire debate, has now died down. The debate was started by this article in NRO by Derbyshire, focusing on his views on God. Now, I am not going to enter into that particular debate today. But I am puzzled by Derbyshire's views on humanity, and its place on the planet. Looking at it in a rational and godless way, he basically believes that we are no more important or special, than any other species. Furthermore, he seems to think that we are not substantially different in thought or behaviour, as well.

In his post, Derbyshire asks:

But doesn’t the I the Me, that I mentioned earlier — the self-awareness that we humans uniquely have — doesn’t that make us special? Do tigers, toads, and ticks have an I? Do they have a connection to the Creator? I don’t know. Perhaps they have a fuzzier one — perhaps higher animals, at any rate, see through a glass as we do, but more darkly. In any case, that only makes us special in the way that an elephant is special by virtue of having that long trunk — more exactly, the way the first creatures who were able to register visible light as images were special. We are part of nature — an exceptionally advanced and interesting part, but… not special.

Derbyshire talks about an ‘I’, without realising that this is the cornerstone of humanity. We have the ability to place ourselves in the world, to understand the concepts of distance, space and time. And as most humans think in this way, they seem to believe that all animals’ brains, especially the highly intelligent ones, work in exactly the same way, albeit, as Derbyshire said, they are a little ‘fuzzier’. Frankly, I do not believe this is true, we have unique tools to unlock the potential and brilliance of the brain. And, science has not shown us an animal that has this tool. Even more striking than that is the fact that there is no proof that early Homo species had it as well. So what is this tool? Well, I think it's the most convincing argument as to why anatomically modern and fully modern humans, seemed to have behaved differently. The tool is language, and its most sophisticated aspect - syntax.

To understand why this is the reason behind humanities unique abilities, and to why this shows us as different, we have to look at the history of language development. Derbyshire’s view that language can be explained by Darwinian adaptations is, in a way, correct. But, franly, it belies the fact that the origins are shrouded in mystery. Simply put, language cannot be shown to have evolved for a specific purpose. Indeed, the only satisfying conclusions that have been reached about it are that the physical characteristics of language, the development of the linguistical areas of the brain, the development of the larynx e.t.c are simply by-products of the evolvement of bipedalism and the brain.

We then reach the evolution of Homo species, who had large brains and who's voice boxes had become more and more human-esque. But, despite this, their behaviour was far more like that of very early human, not Cro-Magnon man. Their ‘language’ was in all probability a holistic based one, without specific words. The holistic language hypothesis was developed by Alison Wray, her belief is that holistic (sounds) would have engendered a conservatism in thought, as such a language would have been limited to a specific number of utterances, stored in the long term memory. Thus, a new ‘phrase’ would have had to be clearly understood between the two Early Humans, meaning it would have to be radically different from any of the other phrases. Ambiguity was simply not an option. The hypothesis is supported by the evidence, as there is a marked lack of innovation between 1.8 – 0.25 million years ago, Hominid stone tools remained unchanged and strictly limited, there are no engravings in bone and fire may have been harnessed, but there is no evidence of fireplaces, so, therefore it was never controlled.

And then there are Neanderthals. There is a distinct lack of evidence for linguistics. Some scientists believe that without language, it was simply impossible to teach youths how to make the complicated Neanderthal tools. However, a Japanese study showed that two sets of human subjects, had about the same proficiency in tool making, despite the fact that one group was shown how to make them without verbal instructions. Perhaps Neanderthals did have a large lexicon of words for objects. Or maybe they didn’t. Either way, it is obvious that with such a difference in anatomy, Neanderthals certainly didn’t have the richness of human like speech. And, most importantly, they were unlikely to have syntax. This is perhaps the most convincing argument as to why Cro-Magnon man out lived Neanderthals, in Ice-age Europe. Cro-Magnon man is one of the most divisive aspects of human history. He, and his descendents, produced brilliant paintings, Venus figures, carved bone and wore jewellery. There is no doubt that they were fully modern. The contrast with anatomically modern humans, who lived in Africa 120,000 years ago, is stark. They did not live a particularly different lifestyle to their predecessor species. And, if the out of Africa hypothesis is correct, they didn’t successfully leave Africa, until 60,000 years ago, when humans were fully modern. The behavioural contrast grows even sharper when you think of how quickly humanity conquered the planet reaching Australia very quickly. Science simply cannot explain why such wanderlust suddenly emerged. So what makes us different and special? Well, Steven Mithen provided the answer:

How can humans be so biologically close to our great ape relatives but so radically different in terms of behaviour and thought? How is it that our close relatives, such as the Neanderthals, possessed equivalent sized brains to modern humans and language, but remained culturally archaic, with no signs of art, religious behaviour or scientific thought in their behaviour? In my previous work I have argued that the answers to such questions relate to the particular form of mentality possessed by modern humans within which there is a substantially greater degree of cognitive fluidity than in other types of (extinct) humans and primates. This provided the critical capacity for metaphorical thought that underlies so much of modern culture. In this talk I wish to develop this theme by examining how we should see the products of our culture, such as pieces of art, songs, dance, and social institutions, not only as the products of our modern mentality, but also as its source: such cultural behaviour may indeed be the mechanism by which our minds escaped from the constraints on human thought imposed by the evolutionary history of our brains

Ultimately, most cultures and traditions speak of the creation of langauges in the same way. They were the original gift from God. Well, maybe they were, or maybe they are simply a gift of evolution. It works both ways for me, as I am a Christian who believes in evolution. Either way, with them, we are certainly the most extraordinary species that has ever lived on this planet, and, as far as we know, on any other planet as well.

Blogging In Beta

2006-11-07T19:21:00.000Z

Now seems to be a good time to make 'the switch'. I have had numerous publishing problems recently, with a number of posts being duplicated when I try to make amendments. Sometimes, I can't even publish at all. Such little frustrations have led me to the end of the teather. So, now, it's Blogger Beta or bust.

Hopefully, archives and template will be left intact, but with Blogger's track record who knows! I suppose the only thing I can do is to cross my fingers.

Update - Well, it does not seem to have worked! I might have another try later, but it's hardly a promising start to Blogger's Beta.

An irony?

2006-11-05T10:58:00.000Z

This week the globalisation-obsessed government, declared war on the middle-classes. Blaming them for global warming thanks to their cheap flights, 4x4s, rubbish and the fact that they 'leave the lights on'. The solution, which must have been oh so heart-breakingly difficult for the government to reach, is tax, tax and.....more tax.

Yesterday, the world's biggest goods ship brought us a massive amount of 'goodies' from China. The ship also has the biggest diesel engine ever built. Do politicians realise how many 4x4's would be needed to create as much pollution as this ship? And, therefore, do they know that their taxes are worthless in any attempt to 'save the envirnoment'? Do they? Yes, they do.

They pursue a policy of trade which sends all manufacturing to a country with dodgy economic controls, and then ships the goods over massive distances causing huge pollution. So, if politicans are not bothered about global warming, why should I be?

Oil Fundamentals

2006-10-30T21:06:00.000Z

Whilst oil is seemingly determined to fall back below $60 a barrel everytime it rises above that level, the fundamentals are still unaffected. So, after hedge funds and speculators took a profit with a large futures sell off during September, has anything really changed? Well - yes and no.

Yes, because we have seen some unseasonaly warm weather, a damp squib of a hurricane season and therefore, increasing amounts of spare capacity. In theory we could see more and more production capacity increases, and thus more and more oil, leading to the price falling further. There is also a reasonable chance of a US recession in 2007, what affect that would have on demand is unknown, but would almost certainly ease demand.

But what about geopolitical worries? Whilst the Lebanon-Israel war has ended - for now, the Iran crisis has hardly eased off, and North Korea has detonated, however small, a nuclear weapon. The geopolitical optimism sweeping the markets seems a tad strange.

Nonetheless, I am convinced that these factors, relating to the short-term trends and speculation of the oil price, are simply an aside to the most important factor driving the oil megatrend, China. Exhibit one is this graph, showing World Oil Demand:

The 2001 recession doesn't seem to have led to a large reduction in total oil demand. And if we are seeing a reduction in US demand, China doesn't seem to be reducing its oil demand. The latest figures for Chinese oil imports show a 24% increase in oil imports in September alone.

I'm not a speculator, the only shares I have are buy and hold jobs which I am probably overattached to, to ever be succesful as a trader. But, long termism has its benefits. The fact is the oil price is in a long-term trend, and this outlook points towards continuing inflationary pressure, and, eventually, $80+ oil.

100 Posts

2006-10-28T09:32:00.001Z

This is the 100th post on this blog. That's including my early posts, even though they were rather spurious and infrequent to say the least! Posting frequency has also slowed down a bit recently, a fact of which I am all to aware. One or two of my recent posts have been 5-10 minute jobs, and therefore, probably not of the same quality of my early posts. For this I can only apologise.

The thing is, when you start a blog, or in my case when you get a second blogging wind, the subjects seem to roll into your head at will. The fire in your belly is only placated by switching on your computer. Recently, however, I have been wondering if I am suffering from a well-known disease, as those ideas have seemingly dried up, like a desert river.

But the facts remain the same. The same subjects are still important. The economy is still teetering on the brink of a nasty piece of turbulence. The immigration debate is still so one-sided it's sickening. I watched Question Time on Thursday and had to switch it off, especially when the smug Ashdown was talking. The text page, where they receive SMS's from the public is pretty revealing of the type of people who watch QT:

Text: We desperately need immigrants. They keep wages low.
Shirley, London
Text: We need Poles because half of our country is too lazy to work.
Dennis, Wigan

Well at least Shirley is honest, unlike ITN's Tom Bradby who reckons that there is 'no evidence of immigration affecting the Labour market'. Yeah right. But, who is the 'we' Shirley is talking about? As for 'Dennis', well he probably employs many Poles and makes a nice profit from paying them pitiful wages. Either that or he's a moron, you decide.

And then there's debt. Like all the Anglo nations we just love debt. Even our Chancellor get's in on the show with his record borrowing. And like the Chancellor, people are wracking up the debt with no intention of paying. Of course, with wages not rising for the vast majority of people (with one big exception), they need to keep borrowing to maintain a lifestyle they believe they are entitled to. Which is where I come in with cautionary advice, 'there's no such thing as a free lunch', I say. The people, however, don't or won't listen. They still reach for their credit cards; they cheer spiralling house prices; and they reach for their get out of jail free card, otherwise known as an IVA. IVA's are up 153% from last year, by the way.

I caution against these things and my other bug bears like energy dependence, inflation and the uselessness of multiculturalism because I am a decidedly old school conservative. George Oborne would never say 'there's no such thing as a free lunch', and no modern Tory would talk about 'a strong Pound'. They are engaged in realpolitik, I suppose. But, this is the reason why I, and every small 'c' conservative, needs to blog. We all have our niches and differences, unlike the popinjays on the left. But we also know that true conservatism will not die. And that when, as it must, the House of Cards comes tumbling down, people always return to cherishing the very things that we stand for - thrift, family and community.

Phillips on The Veil

2006-10-23T09:23:00.000Z

So, Trevor Phillips reckons the veil row could trigger a 'grim spiral that produced riots in the north of England five years ago'. Sadly, yet another example of don't question Islam, or else. Muslims push and push for more and more, then when there beliefs are questioned, the spectre of 'damaged community relations' and attacked Muslims, raises its head.

But who is really to blame for keeping this row going? Yes, Jack Straw originally brought the subject up, but Aishah Azmi has to take the blame for keeping the media in material for the past few weeks. And, what about those (strange?) bedfellows who have seeked to profit from the Muslim vote, in this row? Yes, I'm talking about him and him.

Another poser.

2006-10-20T13:01:00.000Z

So, who are this lot?

Is it a picture from a diversity training manual? No. Give up? Well it's obvious dear readers, this is the 'Welsh', according to Plaid Cymru.

Of course, Wales is nearly 98% white, but Plaid continue to be pointlessly obsessed with diversity. What's ironic about all this is that if Plaid took more of an interest in the majority population, they wouldn't actually have to ask what the Welsh want!

But, let us come to this question and the responses given by the contributors. What does Wales want? Well a new football team would be nice! But, jesting aside, the contributors to the site show that there are many Welsh people who have a far greater understanding of the problems facing Wales, than their alleged 'party'. And, unsurprisingly, Eid festivals are not at the top of the list.

There are numerous posts referring to Plaid's frankly futile quest to move further and further to the left. The reason for that policy is simple. Their 1999 election results, in which they made significant gains in Labour heartlands, went to their heads. More socialism is the key to victory, was their erroneous conclusion. Recently, those ex-Labour votes, have evaporated, and Plaid has been left with egg on its face.

So, there are two paths avaliable to Plaid. A new one, which consists of moderation, nationalism, capitalism, alternative energy generation, the return of industry and the current population put first. The other, current one, consists of more socialism, anti-Englishness, multiculturalism, EU aid, rampant welfarism, massive public sector spending and endless 'regeneration projects', which are useless without high-quality industry.

Of course, they will continue to follow the second path and they will continue to be soundly beaten by Labour, after all isn't that what the Welsh are supposed to do - lose and lament?

Today's Question

2006-10-17T20:58:00.000Z

Can I trump my last post, with even more asylum madness? You bet!

A 7ft 2ins Pakistani woman is to live in Britain on benefits after claiming asylum because she is 'too tall' to return home.
Zainab Bibi, 33, claims she faces constant persecution and ridicule in her own country over her height. She has lodged an asylum claim with the Home Office and has already been granted a two-year visa to remain in the UK.

Miss Bibi, who in 2003 held the title of tallest woman in the world, plans to live off benefits and take advantage of free NHS healthcare.
Last night critics branded the immigration system a 'laughing stock' and called for tougher restrictions on asylum applications.
Philip Davies, Conservative MP for Shipley, said: "It shows what a soft touch people think we are. You couldn't believe someone could think this was a good enough reason to stay."
He said: "Anyone thinks they can get in. Will we start getting applications from people because they are too short, fat or thin? When the two years are up, even if she is refused asylum, I'd like to bet she'll slip off the radar and remain here anyway."
Miss Bibi lodged her application for asylum claiming she was repeatedly attacked in her home town near Faisalabad, Pakistan. She said youths in her home town of Toba Tek Singh threw stones and rocks at her and often pulled at her clothing.
Miss Bibi says one man hit her with a stick breaking her wrist and now she is too afraid to return to her home country for fear of further attacks.
The 7ft 2in woman has used her enormous height to earn money in the past making dozens of public appearances both in her own country and abroad. Earlier this year she was hired by American ice cream giant Baskin-Robbins to undertake special promotional work in Britain.
She spent 15 days handing out ice creams on behalf of the company but claims she is unable to work full-time because she suffers from diabetes.
Miss Bibi said a major appeal of living in Britain is that she can receive free NHS treatment instead of paying for costing private care in Pakistan.
After flying in from Pakistan, she clamed asylum in June and was given a council flat in Stockport, Greater Manchester, where she pays no rent or council tax and receives £40 a week in benefits.
Speaking through an interpreter, she said: "I like it very much in Britain. You are kind here. People smile at me and I have no problem.

Aye, she had such a tough time, what with all those parties she had to attend as a Pakistani celebrity.

And, to think that people still wonder why there are NHS deficits?!

Black Americans Claim Asylum

2006-10-16T19:15:00.000Z

From The Sun:

Britain is seen as such a soft touch that poor people from countries such as America are even coming here now.

'A couple of years ago I met two black guys from the States who were over here because they thought they could get a better standard of living.

One was from Ohio and the other from Kansas. They claimed asylum because they said they were racially discriminated against at home.

But they freely admitted they were here for the free healthcare and accommodation. It is an absolute joke.

They could have been here for up to five years before their application was processed.'

Last night the Home Office admitted five American nationals have claimed asylum this year alone.

Saving the Planet, or Taxing the Poor?

2006-10-14T09:02:00.000Z

Martin Clarke has posted 10 ways to save our planet, on his blog. There are a couple on there which probably wouldn't make much difference at all and I have a couple of suggestions myself, too. On of them would be the 'China factor'; it has to be remembered that this is a country where numerous Coal fired power stations are added every week. And western companies' factories are allowed to pursue environmental practices which would not be tolerated in the US/EU. Nonetheless, there are some excellent points raised:

1) Streetlights, why do we need a street light every 10 yards? Take the roundabout at East Street Sittingbourne, it has a multitude of lights on the central reservation, lights around the outside and then the footpaths have yet another set of lights. Do we really need the streets to be lit up like daylight? For those who argue (wrongly I might suggest) that they are there for safety reasons, why are the streets still lit up at 2,3,4,5 in the morning? How much electricity this would save? The problem is the government would lose VAT.
2) Why do we import Fruit and Vegetables into the UK when some are grown in abundance locally, think of the environmental damage caused by shipping apples etc form South Africa, Australia
3) Why do we need plastic bags in Supermarkets surely paper would and what about encouraging shoppers to bring their own, this was the norm 30 years ago
4) Why so much packaging. Instead of polystyrene why not use paper or cardboard which can be rotted down.
5) Why not use vegetable oil as fuel instead of Petroleum oil?
6) If the government want us preserve the environment they should give us Solar Panels but then again how much tax would they lose electric sale.
7) Instead of importing so much food why not encourages the public to eat seasonally i.e. only eat fruit when it is cropped.
8) Surely the jaunts MP’s and ministers who travel all over the World can be curtailed look at the damage there travelling does to the environment. Most of there work can be done via the Internet and conference calls.
9) The European Union apart from being the most corrupt and inefficient organisation in the world, there Parliament causes a great deal of pollution for example once a year the whole EU parliament moves from Brussels to Strasbourg how much pollution does that create?
10) Why not give us grants to sink large tanks into the ground for those of us who have gardens, rain and wastewater could be collected. With this we could flush our toilets, water our garden etc, with a filter system we could even wash our car?

Numbers 2 & 7 are related, and in fact are probably also related to the 'China factor' I was talking about previously. The solution is blindingly obvious - an environmental tariff. The environmental cost of this is massive and yet rarely discussed. For instance, it always makes me cringe when I hear people pontificating about the environment and low-cost airlines, I work at an airport and see people cramming onto a A320 or 737, then I look over at the cargo section and see huge 747's bringing food and Chinese goods into Britain. It's obvious which of the two is the most damaging.

Number 5 is a bit more complicated. But, what I will say is that simply changing from Petrol to Diesel engines, would be a huge step in the right direction. That's not to say that we should dismiss Biofuels, infact I am a huge fan of Biomass technology as I believe it will help the agricultural sector of this country. Of course, this is still a developing sector, but we are only a few years away from seeing biofuels at the pump.

What I think you can gather from this post, and many similar ones is that all in all the debate is moving in the right direction. It's just politicians who are stuck in a rut. The Lib Dems can only think of Taxes, New Labour taxes and Nuclear Power and as for the Conservatives, well, nothing of any note so far, but I would expect taxes to involved somewhere. In my experience people willl take on environmental issues and they will change certain aspects of their lifestyles. The current thinking of we the Politicians, will deal with the environment alone, is at the heart of why there will be plenty of talk but no action on the environment.

Cameron - My verdict.

2006-10-06T17:01:00.000Z

The opinions on David Cameron following the Tory conference, have been mixed. In fact, the word 'underwhelming' comes to mind. Nonetheless, there is still a feeling amongst the Conservative Party faithful that they are on to a winner, and will defeat a Gordon Brown led Labour party, at the next election.

A prime example of this is the talented young blogger, Sam Tarran. In a post titled 'The Future's Bright - The Future's Blue', he enthuses about the Cameron revolution. And, he firmly believes that Cameron will sweep the Conservatives to power at the next general election. I, however, do not. The simple fact is that Cameron is there for the taking, and Labour know that.

Cameron's poll lead was blown out of proportion due to the unpopularity of Blair and the Blair/Brown feud. The fact the Conservatives haven't had such a lead since the 80s made it all the more impressive. But, with peace temporarily restored in the Labour party, and with Tony Blair's saccharine speech receiving over the top plaudit s, the large lead has now disappeared.

As I said, the current thinking within the Conservative Party is fairly confident. The widely held belief is that when the election comes, and with the parties so close together on policies, it will simply be an 'image contest' between Cameron and Brown. Obviously, such a contest would see an emphatic win for Cameron.

However, the stage is now set for the final Gordon Brown budget. A budget that will be marked by three words, Panem et Circensis. Bread and circuses. Brown's pre-election budget was a masterpiece of bribery. As much as it will probably pain him, Brown will offer up a veritable raft of goodies. And, as he has seen the popular reaction to abolishing income tax on soldiers fighting abroad, more than likely he will purloin that as well.

On the back of these promises, Gordon Brown will be the next PM. Promises and bribes will triumph over image. And, with four election defeats behind them, the Conservatives will probably split. Sadly, that is how I see events unfolding. I just hope that it's the pessimism within me that sees the horizon looking so bleak. And, that I will be proved wrong - again.

Headlining

2006-10-03T17:14:00.000Z

Surely this headline would have been more appropriate on May the 2nd, 1997?

The Liberal Mind = diseased

2006-10-02T17:16:00.001Z

Martin Kelly has a link to a particulary risible Guardian article, on his blog. Now, notwithstanding the poor quality of the aforementioned article, I had a read through the comment section. The messages left on this section are perhaps the most enlightening evidence of the diseased mind within the liberal left.

The first message to catch my eye was from someone under the moniker of bibamejico:

Cultural racism is far from being acknowledged in the UK, there are "innocent" ignorants who don't see racism and practicing believing racists and between them a whole range of other types and levels of racist.
I don't know why so many white people find it difficult to notice that racism is an everyday, everywhere occurence in the UK and elsewhere.

Having a black friend or two (which most whites don't) is not a sure sign of a cleansed soul .... perhaps having a black spouse/partner and some black kids is.

So you see, without black friends or children you are an 'unwitting' racist. Surely such stupidity could not be bettered? Of course it can squire, this is The Guardian:

CameronFan is what we in the U.S. call a piece of garbage White trash scum. Could you please send this worm to Basra so that some Iraqi marksman can enjoy the well-deserved right to put a bullet right between his eyes? Make the world a better place for our children: if you spot White trash scum, spit in their face.

How long would it take for the Guardian to delete a message from someone who talked about Black trash scum?

Admittedly the quality of the comments does increase markedly after that, but such logical arguments are lost on the minds of liberals, particulary a frequent commoronentator called damnlies:

so much bile in these comments...this is a sick country breeding some sick minds...racism is just a part of it...

A bad case of Psychological projection there. And, there's even time for the famous non sequitur to be trotted out:

BRITIAN COLONISED THE WORLD FOR CENTURIES, NOW THE WORLD IS COLONISING YOU BACK. live with it.

Unbelievable. Liberalism is a diseased idealogy, rotten to the core. And hopefully, one day, the whole edifice will collapse on liberals unworthy heads.

Sir John on immigration

2006-09-27T17:50:00.000Z

Sir John Bull has an excellent post up on his blog. Amongst other thing in his sights is GDP, which is one of my particular bugbears. To misquote Churchill, GDP is the worst form of economic calculation, except for the all the others that have been tried.

The best example of the mendacity of GDP is the change in the status of women. In the 50's a woman stayed at home, cooked dinner, did the laundry, looked after children e.t.c. None of this was recorded as economic activity. Nowadays most women work. So, whilst GDP has grown since the 50's, how much of this is just the monetarisation of previously unrecorded activites? Day care, fast food, an extra car (as the woman will have to commute to work), new clothes for the career, all of this has boosted the GDP. Are we really richer, though? No.

What seems to be repeatedly swept under the carpet, when we are talking about immigration, is that GDP can grow whilst people get poorer. People like Kelvin McKenzie point to GDP increases as the reason we should welcome even more Poles. Well interestingly, GDP has actually declined since Poles were let in, in May 2004. But, even if they have added to GDP in terms of economic activity, increases are based on low end services - eating out, having a coffee, buying groceries e.t.c. All of them add to the GDP, but unless the immigrant is highly skilled and thus we can all reap the 'consumption price effect', GDP per capita will actually decline.

Gold Prices

2006-09-22T18:09:00.000Z

I doubt anyone took my advice and bought some gold, simply because of what they read on this blog. Nevertheless, with gold struggling just below $580 an ounce, if anybody did take my advice I would imagine they would want to use my face as a dartboard, at this moment in time! But I am not worried in the slightest. Unless the US is facing deflation, with commodities, housing and the economy turning south, then the fundamentals remain the same.

However, if people are getting a bit jittery about gold, then this article should dampen the anxiety a bit:

As expected, more talk of a slowing US economy caused base metals prices to continue their decline last week and, as expected, falling base metals prices dragged the gold price down as well. Very few institutional investors differentiate between gold and other metals; they bought them all as a hedge against a weaker US dollar, so when they finally wrapped their heads around the fact that the US economy can slow down and that a slowing economy will cause a decline in base metals demand, they started selling their metals - including gold.

Why do I believe it is only a temporary downturn? Well.....

US money supply (as measured by my own estimate of M3) increased by 8.4% over the past twelve months. Current gold inflation, which is mine supply as a percentage of all above-ground gold (all the gold that has been mined to date), is around 1.6% per annum. That is why the gold price continues to rise against the US dollar over time – it is as simple as that. In the short term, however, exchange rates and investor sentiment also have to be brought into account and it is mostly they that cause short-term volatility. But in the long-term, the gold price in any currency will rise by an amount equal to the difference between its inflation rate and the inflation rate of the currency you price it with.
My model of the gold price (based on the inflation rates of gold and the US dollar) puts the gold price at around $900 an ounce with the difference between the current gold price and $900 being accounted for by an over-priced US dollar. For gold to rise from $600 an ounce to $900 an ounce requires the dollar to fall, on average, by 35%. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) said earlier this year that the dollar had to fall by 35% to 50% in order to balance the US current account gap. I don't know how they came up with those figures, but they correspond very well to my own expectation of how much the dollar should decline.
If the gold price is going to rise to $900 an ounce then gold at under $600 an ounce is starting to look attractive again, but there is still downside risk in base metals and until the gold price uncouples from base metals prices I would not get too aggressive on the buy side. But gold will decouple, because unlike base metals, its value (and long-term price) is not dependent on economic growth.

R.I.P. Oriana

2006-09-15T17:30:00.000Z

I was saddened by the news about the death of Oriana Falacci, at the age of 77. Michelle Malkin has a great tribute to Oriana, on her blog.

What is so sad is that Oriana was one of the few who not yield an inch to Islamic aggression and intolerance. The contrast with our spineless 'leaders' on this subject, is massive. 'Dave' Cameron's speech shows that he should be added to the list of the clueless:

And the deformed vision of Islam which inspires some of them is part of a wider picture...

So David, how exactly is it deformed? Have you read the Koran? There is nothing blasphemous in what Islamists are doing. As a direct interpretation of Mohammed's words, Islamists have as much validity as traditional Imans. Indeed, listening to the Imans themselves, who's condemnation of extremists is always qualified, I believe that they know that to. Let's go back to Dave:

.......and winning the trust of the majority Muslim community.........

In other words, if Muslims ask, let's surrender. Like all politicians Cameron doesn't get Islam. The only solution he can offer is dhimmitude.

Oriana, you will be missed.

Spanish migration problems

2006-09-11T18:06:00.000Z

I continue to be unsurprised by the events in the Canary Islands. The Spanish are obviously worried about the effects that it may have on tourism. Hardly surprising, considering that the prospect of boatloads of Africans washing up on the shore certainly puts me off. But, this is no time for being sympathtic towards the Spanish.

As I have mentioned before, the Spanish raised the white flag with an immigration amnesty. This, more than any other event, proves to prospective migrants that the country is a soft touch, and unwilling to enforce the rule of law.

It's rare to here me praising the EU on this blog, or anywhere else, but on this subject we are as one:

While the commission has expressed solidarity with Spain and its efforts to fight immigration, it has also indicated that Madrid may have brought the problem upon itself when it last year put into effect an amnesty programme allowing several hundred thousand people illegally living in the country to apply for work and residency permits.

At the time Spain attracted criticism from other member states for acting unilaterally and, in effect, granting these regularised workers access to the whole of the bloc.

Writing in French daily Le Figaro on Thursday, justice commissioner Franco Frattini said mass regularisation makes it appealing for people to come to countries to live illegally waiting for the day when there might be another amnesty.

He also said that member states should be very strict with employers who employ workers on the black as they create a "pull factor" for people coming from poor countries.

If the Spanish want to stem the tide, it's time to get tough. And remember the golden rule of immigration: never, ever, ever, ever, have an amnesty.

5 Years On

2006-09-11T17:54:00.000Z

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have.: Ronald Reagan.

Fjordman on Feminism and Islam

2006-09-05T17:22:00.000Z

The Fjordman, writing over on the Brussels Journal, believes that the rise of Feminism has led directly to European dhimnitude:

I got many comments on my posts about Muslim anti-female violence in Scandinavia. Several of my readers asked what Scandinavian men are doing about this. What happened to those Vikings, anyway? Did they drink too much mead in Valhalla? Despite the romantic mystique surrounding them today, the Vikings were for the most part savage barbarians. However, I doubt they would have looked the other way while their daughters were harassed by Muslims. In some ways, this makes present-day Scandinavians worse barbarians than the Vikings ever were.

One of the reasons for this lack of response is a deliberate and pervasive censorship in the mainstream media, to conceal the full scale of the problem from the general public. However, I suspect that the most important reason has to do with the extreme anti-masculine strand of feminism that has permeated Scandinavia for decades. The male protective instinct doesn’t take action because Scandinavian women have worked tirelessly to eradicate it, together with everything else that smacks of traditional masculinity.

He adds:

Didn’t feminists always claim that the world would be a better place with women in the driver’s seat, because they wouldn’t sacrifice their own children? Well, isn’t that exactly what they are doing now? Smiling and voting for parties that keep the doors open to Muslim immigration, the same Muslims who will be attacking their children tomorrow?

The matriarchy, as a system, has thus failed to be 'motherly' in any meanningful sense. As the majority of females continue to vote for pro-immigration on mass, children are being slaughtered on the underground or having the value of their citizenship degraded by millions of low-skilled immigrants. However, concomitant with this, a recent study found that mothers are more likely to be against immigration than pro.

Thus we have a bizarre paradox, in which feminists and non-mothers are the most pro-immigrant group and mothers are the most anti-immigrant. So, the obvious question has to be: is there an explanation for this?

The Case For Energy Sovereignty.

2006-09-02T08:56:00.000Z

As energy seems to be in the news at the moment, I thought I would return to the subject. Mostly, the focus from politicians, green campaigners and the BBC has been on climate change. But, the real reason we need to put energy on the top of the agenda is not climate change. No, our medium term security, and long term financial security depend on energy sovereignty. I will examine why, now.

There can be no denying that things have quietened down on the energy front recently. After all, look at the oil prices down at $70 dollars a barrel - a 4-month low. Well yes, that’s true, and I believe that oil prices could probably go down as far as $65. At that point everybody will take their eyes of the larger picture, and alternative energy will look a less attractive investment. But, this is not the time for a short-term outlook.

Whilst it's true that impressive new drilling technology may temporarily raise the production levels of current oil fields, it doesn’t negate the fact that large new fields are not being discovered. In fact, relying on technological improvements in drilling, amounts to little more than moving the deck chairs round on the Titanic. I am absolutely certain that oil will hit the $100 barrel mark within the next ten years, and when it does Britain will be in big, big trouble. W will explain why that is later. So, this is by far the most important reason that Britain must become Energy Sovereign. But there are other reasons for a policy of energy sovereignty, and they are far more pressing than peak oil.

For instance, this week I opened my e-mail up to be confronted by mounds of junk.It was one of those days when the whole world and his wife decides to send me adverts for Tramadol. Sorting through it, I found one proclaiming the coming age of Ethanol and the end of ‘American dependence on Mideast Oil Inc’. Wouldn’t that be nice, I dreamily said to myself. How many of our current problems are tied to oil? There certainly can be no doubt that oil, more specifically oil revenues, has propped up countless dictators and indirectly financed Islamic terrorists. It also allows left-wing ‘populists’, such as Hugo Chavez, to buy votes. Not to mention the danger that western citizens encounter working for oil companies in places such as Saudi Arabia and Nigeria.

A case-in-point is President Idriss Derby, from the large impoverished nation of Chad. Last week he abruptly ordered foreign oil companies to leave, with Petronas and Chevron ordered to get-out immediately. This caught oil executives and western diplomats totally by surprise, but it’s a symptom of the global movement towards defying the west. And, in almost all the cases, they have a new favourite customer - China.

So, there can be no doubt that energy sovereignty is desirable. Oil money goes directly into the hands of hostile regimes and dictators; it also finds its way indirectly into the hands of terrorists. Furthermore, if Iran gained de facto control of the Shiite areas in southern Iraq, it would then become more powerful than the Saudis in terms of reserves. The power they would then yield of the world’s market would be immense. That should worry everybody, unless, like Steve Sailer’s correspondent, you believe in the ‘pipe dream’ that tar sands will save us. It’s plain to see that the goal of extirpating ourselves from the Muslim world is desirable, but it’s achievable only if we actively move towards energy independence.

There is already a large movement of patriotic Americans advocating energy independence. Now is the time for a similar movement to arise in Britain, and time is of the essence. You may ask why do I think the situation is so desperate? Well, it’s very simple: the North Sea Oil peak and decline. I explained a few months ago how important North Sea Oil was to our balance of payments. Just this month its importance to the Chancellor was shown, when, thanks to a tax threshold rising, he received a record budget surplus. And, ironically, the very harbinger of future doom – high oil prices, has led to the profitability of North Sea oil remaining steady, even whilst reserves decline.

Then there is the negative impact on our trade deficit by population growth. In 1988 Britain imported over 30% of its foodstuffs. Since then the population has increased by over 3 million, and with the crazy immigration policies of the government it’s scheduled to hit 70 million by 2040. Added to this, our supermarkets continue to drive British companies out of business and source more and more food from abroad. So, with our exports of oil on the decline, we will rely solely on financial services to keep our trade deficit down. But, as this industry is subject to the whims of the international economy, a global recession or depression would hit that industry very hard. The likely scenario then would be that the Pound will follow the same path that the Dollar is on.

In conclusion, the benefits of energy sovereignty are enormous, but to see the benefits requires a long termist view that is sadly lacking from modern politics. The main question has to be, is energy sovereignty an obtainable goal? I believe it is. And I will examine our future options, at a later date.

A paragraph says a lot...

2006-08-30T11:25:00.000Z

Whilst reading Matthew Parris' take on modern western civilisation's similarity to ancient Rome, I came across a quite unbelievable comment:

He describes a mutual emulation of Roman and barbarian peoples, revitalising a lifeless culture. Contributor, Christabelle Dilks (Script Editor of BBC1's forthcoming Rise and Fall of Rome), sees Britain today as a "period of transformation ... other civilisations are taking over ... and what's to mourn really."

I've read that comment twenty times, and I'm still dumbfounded. What's to mourn about the passing of the British people and culture? Everything.

Inheritance Tax

2006-08-27T11:04:00.000Z

The campaign against inheritance tax is gathering pace. I give it my full support.

My opinion has always been that, as we get taxed for an action, this is a tax on the act of dying. Therefore, it is fundamentally immoral. And surely, it is also in direct violation of the fundamental law of modern taxation?

Skills shortages

2006-08-23T18:24:00.000Z

The immigration debate has heated up markedly in the last few days. First, there were stories questioning the orthodox, "they are contributing to our economy line". Then, the inevitable, hysterical backlash. Skills shortages need to be filled, they say.

My question has always been, in which industries are there shortages? So it's thanks to the CBI, today, for giving me the answer - hospitality. Right. So does that include those highly skilled professions such as plate washing, waiting-on, barwork, glass collecting and housekeeping? Okay, forgive me, I am being flippant. But seriously, what 'skills' within the hospitality industry are in such short supply?

I doubt I will get a satisfactory answer.

Housing and Mortgages

2006-08-18T17:17:00.000Z

This week, the Daily Mail had another story about first-time house buyers:

Increasing numbers of desperate first-time buyers are gambling with their new homes by taking out interest-only mortgages without any means of repaying the capital.

Rising house prices are forcing first time buyers to borrow record amounts to buy a place of their own. And the larger mortgage payments are putting budgets under strain.

What nonsense! There is nothing “desperate” about them. And they are certainly not being “forced” into anything. They’re greedy and irresponsible. In an attempt to shortcut their way onto the property ladder, people have taken on ludicrous mortgages; it’s no wonder that the housing bubble has stoked back up again. They do so not out of desperation, no, these are the sort of people who invite their friends around to a dinner-party and spend all evening bragging about the rise in the worth of their property.

The media should instead, feel sorry for those who suffer the consequences of this one-upmanship. People who are sensible enough to save money and wait for house prices to stabilise, are being gazumped. Then, these people truly will be desperate, and they will take risks as well. And thus, the pyramid scheme that is the housing bubble continues to spiral out of control.

Now, I am not sure whether the housing bubble will burst, but if it does, those gamblers who had been relying on equity from the sale of their house, will be left high and dry. They will blame the Banks and Building Societies, the Chancellor, the BofE everybody but themselves. After all, nobody takes responsibility for their actions nowadays. But, for me, these idiots are headed for a deserved fall.

Great website

2006-08-16T17:37:00.000Z

I'm at an all time high, with regards to the number of books I am buying at the moment. In my room, I literally have a pile of paperbacks which I have read once and will probably never read again. But, I have always been reticent to throw them away, and I am fairly certain that they are to tatty for the charity shop. So, what should I do? Well, now I have discovered Read It Swap It, a website which allows people to swap books. When you register your list of books, other users can approach you requesting a swap. Following on from that, you view their list and then decide whether you want one of their books or not. The only cost incurred is the postage. It's well worth a look.

Completely unrelated, but also interesting, is the return of Sir John Bull. Expect more rants about 'Hitler Blair', Feminists, the bankruptcy of multiculturalism and, probably, some Peak Oil predictions thrown in.

Doom?

2006-08-11T17:17:00.000Z

It's very easy to feel a sense of profound gloom about the situation at the moment. Notwithstanding the Israeli-Hezbollah situation, we have now seen an attempt to commit 'mass murder, on an unprecedented scale'.

It's even more gloomy when you see police Range Rovers everywhere on your way to work. Then, whilst you are buying your lunch, seeing policemen with machine guns all around you. Such is the lot of those of us who have to work at an airport.

Reading papers and blogs hardly lifts the gloom either. Littlejohn, commenting today in the Mail, said: 'heads we lose, tails they win'. Larry Auster's prophecy also sounds depressingly realistic:

This is the unchangeable reality I pointed to in my 2004 article, “How to Defeat Jihad in America.” We will have terrorist attacks and threats of terrorists attacks and inconvenient and humiliating security measures and the disruption of ordinary activities FOREVER, as long as Muslims are in the West in any significant numbers. The Muslim terrorists are part and parcel of the Muslim community. According to a survey reported in the Scotsman, 24 percent of Muslims in Britain (I never describe them as “British Muslims”) believe the July 2005 London bombings were justified. Imagine that. Not only do these Muslims in Britain support terrorism against Britain, they’re not afraid to say so openly to a pollster! The unchangeable fact is that wherever there is a sizable Muslim community there will be a very large number of terror supporters and therefore—inevitably—actual terrorists as well.
This is our future, FOREVER, unless we stop Muslim immigration and initiate a steady out-migration of Muslims from the West until their remaining numbers are a small fraction of what they are now and there are no true believers among the ones that remain. Travelers from Muslim countries must be tightly restricted as well. Muslims must be essentially locked up inside the Muslim lands, with only carefully screened individuals allowed into the non-Muslim world.

Stanley Kurtz is also gloomy. Continuing on the theme that whatever we do is destined to failiure, he concludes that the best thing to be is a hawk - albeit one who sees no possible way of defusing the threat.

But, we are authors of our own downfall. We believe that all cultures are the same, and that being born in Britain negates your cultural and religious heritage. We believe that middle-eastern countries can be 'democratised'. Kurtz's view on this is worth repeating:

The stick of military force combined with the carrot of democracy was supposed to have provided a way out. Unfortunately, democratization of fundamentally illiberal societies cannot happen quickly. Real democratization requires a great deal of time and deep, painful, expensive underlying cultural change, almost impossible to bring about without an effectively permanent military occupation.

Liberalism's child of cultural relativism, has led us down this wrong path. Afghanistan is not a country of westerners, it's a third world country with a backward people in a mountainous wilderness. You cannot simply plant western style democracy there, and then expect it to resemble Europe. it's no wonder that 'the state' has no control over such a country. As in medieval Europe, a strong leader is needed - either a King or a Dictator.

But, our worst sin is another one given to us by liberalism. Our aversion to profiling by religion or race is unforgiveable. Maybe all Muslims are not terrorists, but all the terrorists are Muslims. And yet, Heathrow airport still employed Asmin Tariq as a security officer. We also need to look at the ranks of suicide bombers, almost all are of Pakistani origin. However, we waste precious resources on stopping all ethnic groups, in an attempt to keep false liberal delusions alive.

So Larry is right, this is our future, forever. And it's a future beggoten by liberalism.

The end of Italia?

2006-08-08T17:50:00.000Z

As depressed as I am about the future of my country, others seem burdened with an even worse government. Take Italy, for example. I predicted that the Prodi government would be a complete disaster. I have been proved right.

Fabio, from the Italian Version, has listed his complaints against the government:

The Fight against tax invasion - The Prodi government has instigated a set of measures which are both intrusive and authoritarian, disregarding privacy, presumption of innocence and property rights.
Forced extraction of DNA - Self explanatory.
Pardons - Whilst I am not aware what this is referring to, it seems youth offenders have been pardoned.
Immigration - Not content with giving an amnesty to 350,000 illegals, the Prodi government has introduced a bill which will entitle immigrants to automatic citizenship, after five years of residency.
Apartheid on the Beach - GalliaWatch had a great post on this. Even the suggestion that beaches should be put aside for Muslim-female only bathing, shows that Italy are following the French into dhimmitude.

It's sad to see all this happening. I had hoped that Italy would resist the inexorable march towards to becoming a 'global traffic station'. Now, they face an increasingly authoritarian and pro-EU future.

I said it before and now I will say it again. Forget the picture that the smug media in this country painted of him; all hope for Italy died when Berlusconi was voted out.

Racist Legislation

2006-08-07T17:48:00.000Z

Nothing should surprise me. I shouldn't still be angered. But I am. Why? The most disgraceful piece of racist discrimination ever seen on these shores, has been proposed by 'our' government:

COMPANIES that bid for multimillion-pound Government contracts will be rejected if they do not employ enough black and Asian workers, under new proposals seen by The Times.
A powerful committee that includes seven ministers has drawn up plans to question competing companies about their attitudes to race before choosing which to employ. Firms will be asked to provide figures showing the numbers of their black and Asian employees. This figure will be compared with the proportion of people from ethnic minorities living near the companys offices and will be a factor when deciding the winning bid.

Three pilot schemes have been authorised with the support of Downing Street the first time that positive vetting in procurement has been approved by a British Government. It follows the release of figures showing that people from ethnic minorities are twice as likely to be unemployed as the white majority.
Programmes of affirmative action have proved controversial in America, where some business leaders say that they can hinder the employment market and discriminate against white workers.

I love this country. In fact, there is no one who could be more proud of his ancestry. The farmers, miners and labourers who trod the land in centuries gone by, are now just names in my family tree. But, to me, they played a part in making this country; however small that contribution was, it was still a contribution. The Welsh national anthem sums this feeling up, perfectly:

The old land of my fathers, it's dear to me.

However, I now wonder about the future, my future. I don't have kids, I am not married, hell, I don't even have a girlfriend! But, when/if I have a male child in this country, he will face discrimination simply for being white. That thought makes me sick to the stomach.

So, even someone as patriotic as myself is asking; is it now time to look towards the door, like so many others?

Misvaluing Manufacturing

2006-08-01T18:11:00.000Z

A superb post here, from Photon Courier in 2003. Despite the age of the post, this is a subject that still seems as pertinent:

In the blogosphere and in the media, there have recently been many comments running basically as follows: "We're better off without all those manufacturing jobs, anyhow...let the boring assembly line jobs be done somewhere else, and let our people concentrate on high-value knowledge work."

I believe that comments like these reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of manufacturing.

It's true that in a typical manufacturing plant there are many jobs which are repetitive in nature and require fairly low skill levels. But there are also many other kinds of jobs--jobs requiring high levels of skill and education. When a manufacturing plant leaves, these jobs usually leave as well.

The MSM catches up...............

2006-07-28T18:58:00.000Z

One of my hobby horses is oil (and energy) led inflation, and why, in the current economic climate, we will not be able to tackle it effectively. Many mainstream economists are so bullish on this subject that it is usually given little coverage. In fact, I still have the WSJ predictions from the start of the year, in which they state that oil will hover around the $55-$65 a barrel mark. And, as a consequence of this, interest rates would not be raised after March. They were spectacularly wrong on both counts.

So, I have almost given up on mainstream journalists talking any sense on this issue. However, today, on MSM money, an article tackling this very subject appeared. Here are some of the best bits:

For the global economy this latest conflict, like so many before, is not about what has happened but what might happen. Neither Lebanon, nor Israel for that matter, produces significant amounts of oil. If Syria, a small producer, or more particularly Iran, a huge one, are drawn into conflict then oil supplies may be at risk.

This matters particularly now because there is almost no spare capacity in the world oil supply system. Even a small cut in output could have a big effect on oil prices. The risk to global oil prices is clearly on the upside, said Julian Jessop, chief international economist at Capital Economics.

And the crunch:

However, while central banks normally fight inflation by increasing interest rates, when faced with the oil-induced combination of imported inflation and slowing growth (stagflation) they are less likely to push up interest rates than when faced with home-grown price rises. That is why the stock market reaction to the Middle East conflict has so far been relatively subdued.

He also talks of the danger that hurricanes pose, as I mentioned in June.

To see such an article linked to on the home page of MSN UK, is immensely satisfying. People need to be aware of the problems facing the economy in the next few months, and articles like this will certainly help.

As I said before, buy some gold!

Compare and Contrast

2006-07-25T18:14:00.000Z

First, a nice quote from Alan Johnson, Education Secretary:

He told the UK Youth Parliament that exams were not getting easier and critics were sentimentalists harking back to a "mythical golden age".
Critics claim that the rising exam pass rates are evidence of "dumbing down".
But Mr Johnson told the meeting in Leicester that the nation should "take pride in these improvements".
He cited research showing that standards of grammar and punctuation had improved over the past decade.

Hmmm. Well, let's have a look at a little example. This is from The Telegraph's education section, within John Clare's any questions?:

A friend of my daughter has just taken a GCSE in "leisure and
tourism". How difficult is that? Here are some questions from this year's paper set by Edexcel: "Describe two duties of each of the following jobs: chef; lifeguard;
tourist information officer (12 marks); explain how table reservations
and a children's menu could meet the needs of families using a restaurant (6 marks); explain why Australia is classed as a long-haul destination (2 marks); explain why the amount of money people have to spend affects what they choose to do in their leisure time (4 marks)."

Then there is: "Two 20-year-old Swedish girls travelled by plane to London for a three-night short break. They used the London Underground from the airport to their hotel. Each day the girls bought day travel tickets, which they used on buses and the Tube in central London. Explain why they used a bus to travel around London (3 marks) and why they did not travel by taxi from the airport to their hotel (4 marks)". Together, these questions accounted for a third of the marks. The
subject "leisure and tourism counts" as two GCSEs. I hope that this answers your query.

Now let's contrast it with something posted on a Yahoo messageboard:

8th Grade Final Exam: Salina, KS -1895 Five hour exam.

Grammar (Time, one hour)
1. Give nine rules for the use of capital letters.
2. Name the parts of speech and define those that have no modifications.
3. Define verse, stanza and paragraph
4. What are the principal parts of a verb? Give principal parts of
"lie,""play,
" and "run."
5. Define case; Illustrate each case.
6. What is punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of punctuation. 7
- 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you
understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.

Arithmetic (Time, 1:25 hours)
1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many
bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at 50
cts/bushel, deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
4. District No 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy
to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for
incidentals?
5. Find the cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $20
per square meter?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance of
which is 640 rods?
10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.

U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)
1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.
2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn,
and Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800,
1849,
1865.

There is more, but you have probably already got the point. The point is, can anyone with a straight face really admit that there is no difference?