EU Budget

Don't get caught up and angry over the expensive wines and stuff - you didn't really expect those that rule us, to be having Chateau Neuf de Plonk at £3.99 or 3 for £10 from ASDA, did you?

For me a sure sign of the unraveling of the whole 'project' is that our EU  'leaders' couldn't even manage to agree on a covering statement.  They couldn't even use their collective wit to pass off a piece of the usual fudge  - give the UK, Germany, France et al a fig leaf of budgetary restraint, to keep the plebs (sorry taxpayers) at home happy and then go on spending like crazy anyway.


These are the same people that extol the virtues of austerity for others.

The same people that talk about probity and summon multinational companies for grillings  (while their accounts remain unaudited, year after year after year!)

The same people that have hoodwinked the UK government into going down a disastrously expensive, so called 'green route' which leads to ever higher energy taxes and the despoiling of our countryside for no real environmental benefit. 

The same people that publicly condemn 'sharp (but actually legal) tax practises' while privately benefiting hugely from tax free salaries and perks, that would have made the Soviet nomenklatura blush.

David Cameron will receive some praise for his sticking to his guns but don't get carried away.  He almost certainly did this to avoid massive trouble from within his own party and indeed, cabinet.  I think that UK interests ranked a poor second to those political ones.

I think that on Europe, Cameron is frit, to coin the Lincolnshire word used by Lady Thatcher.  And, this particular rabbit is not just caught in the headlights but, is likely to be run-over by UKIP on Europe.

Think about the challenges facing the Conservatives

Where they have strength, folks will move to UKIP because they like their honesty on EU policy and see that DC has turned on them and he and his metroplitan clique are more interested in pushing marriage for homosexuals than solving the country's economic crisis.
Where they are weaker, they will lose to Labour because the rhetoric about austerity, though not actually matched by action, is being painted, by the BBC and their Labour Party allies as having devastating effects.

I keep coming to the same conclusion that unless a spine is inserted, along with a Conservative brain and a Conservative heart, the Tories are in trouble, and, along with them, the UK.
  

Corby messages

So Labour duly reclaimed the parliamentary seat of Corby?  Big surprise?  I don't really think so as the former Conservative MP, Louise Mensch, had a rather slim majority, anyway.  Also this was a lowish turn-out of around 45% and so maybe the Conservative supporters just stayed at home?

Nevertheless, this result does pose questions and provides lessons for David Cameron and the Tory leadership.

The minority-coalition partner, Liberal Democrats, were badly beaten into fourth place.  How badly should not be under-stated.  This party that seeks, from a very minority position, to dictate (successfully in most eyes, so far it must be said) the tone and direction of UK Government policy and yet could garner less than 1,800 votes!  A lesson for David Cameron?  Maybe there is no need to be so super-nice to these folks?  Maybe you should press on with boundary reform? And deeper welfare reductions.

The big winner of this by-election, was the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP).  UKIP came a very respectable 3rd getting almost 15% of the votes and three times that of the Liberal Democrats!  UKIP's main policy objective is the exit of the UK from the European Union.  In national opinion polls, UKIPis now regularly polling in third position.  A lesson and and opportunity for David Cameron and the Tories.

As I have posted here before, I believe that whichever of  the major party - Tory or Labour - that has the courage to clearly announce a policy of re-negotiation of the relationship between the UK and EU, a policy that does not rule out a possible exit, will greatly benefit in electoral terms. 

In spite of Labour's sudden conversion to an anti-EU stance on the EU budget issue, we know that they are fully on-board with the statist and protectionist policies of the EU as well as their federalist politics and direction. 

After all, in Europe, Federalism means 'do as I tell you. I am an EU politician and therefore I know best!  Okay so I wasn't democratically elected but I still know best and you need to know your place!!  You, are a taxpayer and provide funds for my lavish lifestyle, I don't need your opinion, just your money!'

So there is a great opportunity for the Conservatives to, at a stroke, gain political popularity and seize the political initiative.  I doubt though that they will grasp it.  I sense that come the next general election, of the four main parties, Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems will all offer a common platform of 'negotiation rather than confrontation' with the EU and so will keep the UK saddled with this enterprise-stifling and dangerously undemocratic organization.

The biggest danger for the Conservatives is, what if UKIP just doesn't 'fade away?   What if they continue to poll third, nationally?  What if they start to put together a policy platform that holds-up all of the Socialist policies that the EU has fostered and brought countries like Greece, Spain and Ireland to their knees and the edge of anarchy, and show that this is the direction where the UK could head?  Then they would be stealing the economic policy of the Tories, as well.

Not good times for the Conservative leadership. 

Must Republicans change?

Following the US Presidential Election, the media, on both sides of the Atlantic is rushing to advise the Republicans that they need to change.  If I was a Republican, I would wonder why people, who are most definitely not my ally (Fox News being the exception), would be giving me friendly advice - what's in it for them?

Maybe I would also think, okay so we didn't win but did we massively lose?  The answer there is clearly no.

I would also look at say the UK and consider the fate of the nominally right of centre Conservative party.  They lost elections, badly, to the left leaning, statist Labour party.  The advice they received was 'you are seen as being too right wing' and 'you are the nasty party'.  So they changed their policies, they moved further to the centre.  Much further than many of their traditional supporters liked or wanted but these people still came out and backed them in elections.

The result?  The UK has a coalition government that is supposedly led by a centre-right Conservative party.  Supposedly?  Well yes, look at the agenda of the UK government - 40 years ago that would have been a dream for the socialists and would be unrecognizable to a  Conservative from that era.  In short, the Conservatives have 'sold their soul' for no real political gain.  They are in bed with the Liberal Democrats who know that they are a minority party and know that they always will be and so they act like one, all the time.  Their whole policy in government is to push their agenda and frustrate and block any truly Conservative policies. 

Recent polls suggest that the Lib Dems have now slipped into fourth place in the UK and are now trailing the anti-EU UKIP party.  The platform of UKIP is the most natural territory of the Conservative Party but the ' modernizers' that have David Cameron's ear shy away from showing any courage on Europe and instead think that pussyfooting around and making empty threats is going to impress either our European partners or the UK public.

So, my advice to American Republicans is hold true to your principles and beliefs.  Resist the siren calls from the leftist media - their motives at least, are clear.  Remember that there is still an incredibly high number of Americans who value free enterprise, pride in country, faith and other Republican values.  Remember also, on November 6, 2012, America elected a President that doesn't have a plan, one that is facing the 'fiscal cliff' without a clue how to solve it or address America's fiscal debt and deficit or to define America's role in the world.

If you ditch and run from your principles, simply for supposed electoral gain, on what do you stand?

The US election - a foreigner's perspective

I can't vote in Tuesday's presidential election in the US but if I could, my vote would go to Mitt Romney.

Why?

Well, on the economy, I just think that Obama really doesn't understand America or Americans. All those Americans that I have ever met are aspirational.  They look at the (failed) European social model and say ' that's not for us, that's not the American way'.  This isn't restricted to WASPs or successful professionals, Americans want success and view it, not as something to be despised but to be admired.

On foreign affairs, what has Obama achieved?  Okay, so he got the Nobel Peace Prize.  Hmmm!  I can't help thinking that that was some kind of tokenism from the Norwegians!  Otherwise, what?  His softly softly approach with Iran?  How has that worked out?  All indications are, that Iran has used the last four years to advance its nuclear capabilities - and I mean its military capabilities.  Africa?  A much vaunted visit to Egypt and a big speech in Cairo, doesn't really cut it (especially since his Cairo speech seems to have fallen on deaf ears).  Asia Pacific?  Well he upset some Europeans when he told them that the future defence focus would be on the Pacific rather than Atlantic but then he proceeded to allow China to run rampant and bully its way through the South China Sea, with America abandoning its allies long the way.

Energy?  All that talk about 'alternative sources' and renewable energy'.  Net result?  Dubious dealings with companies that can only survive on US government backing.

Unemployment?  However you cut the numbers, employment is at the same level as when he took office.  How's that pump-priming working out?  What happened to all of those 'shovel-ready projects' that were just crying out for government (as in US taxpayer) money?

Deficit?  Need I say anything?

So that's Obama then.  What about Romney?

Well, firstly he offers a change and, something that Obama doesn't - a way forward that isn't another wasted four years.

On the economy - tax cuts - that is similar to Obama's quantitative easing but instead of just printing money and bailing out banks, puts the money into the pockets of the US taxpayer.  Or more accurately, doesn't take it out, in the first place!  It isn't just that 'trickle down' works, it's how do you get money being spent in local businesses -  by individuals or by federal or state governments?

Foreign Affairs?  Has a no nonsense approach to Iran.  Unequivocal.  Will not let Iran obtain a nuclear military capacity.  That clarity alone should win him the election!  His stance on China and their managed currency rates as well as their other trade policies are very encouraging. 

Healthcare - repeal of Obamacare will remove an additional tax from ordinary people and give people freedom.  Take a look at social healthcare systems like the failing British NHS - is that really what Americans want?  A vast beast with an insatiable hunger for more and more money?

Energy - Would promote an energy policy that realistically approaches energy independence.  So, doesn't exclude offshore continental shelf deposits and allows the Keystone pipeline from Canada.  Doesn't exclude 'alternative' energies but makes them compete, fairly.


So, Romney for change and hope, Obama for a slide towards the chaos and despair that is Greece.

Stonewall, Cardinal O'Brien and free speech

Wikipedia, a reasonable enough source,  defines bigotry as

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, defined by Merriam-Webster as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".^[1] Bigotry may be based on real or perceived characteristics, including age, disability, dissension from popular opinions, economic status, ethnicity, gender identity, language, nationality, political alignment, race, region, religious or spiritual belief, sex, or sexual orientation. Bigotry is sometimes developed into an ideology or world view.

Stonewall, the 'charity' that promotes homosexual causes has awarded Cardinal Kieth O'Brien, the head of the Roman Catholic church in Scotland, the title of 'Bigot of the year'.

This is presumably because Cardinal O'Brien openly and strongly opposes the UK government and Scottish parliament changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. 

Among the senior public figure opponents of these proposals, Cardinal O'Brien is probably a safe bet.  He isn't going to be issuing any fatwas, after all, as some other opponents might.  Plus, by displaying their own intolerance of any opinion that differs from their own,  Stonewall still manage to keep the issue on the 'front page'.

One has to wonder at what point Stonewall will consider they have achieved their aims?  When everyone is homosexual - surely not - don't they proclaim it is all about choice?  So someone can choose to be homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual - right?  However, to pass any comment about homosexuality is somehow bigotry?

Read the definition again.  Where or when has Cardinal O'Brien ever spoken hatred against homosexuals?  Yes, Catholics consider homosexuality a sin and yes Cardinal O'Brien can be expected to speak out against it, just like he does against poverty etc..  However, in my experience Catholic teaching condemns the sin and not the sinner - so, I would suggest that it is the act of of homosexuality which is against Church teaching and that the homosexual person is not the target.

I would go further, when reading the definition and consider that the actions of Stonewall constitute bigotry since they are;

obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;

and, in Stonewall's case are religiously motivated.  Or perhaps that is anti-religiously motivated.

Ruth Davidson, the homosexual leader of Scotland's Conservatives won Stonewalls Politician of the year award at the same time.  If she has a shred of decency, she should immediately decline this in the strongest possible terms.  Being associated with bigots cannot ever be right.

Barclays Bank are considering their sponsorship of Stonewall.  Considering?  What's to consider?  Surely they can see that their donations are being used to fund bigotry?

Coutts Bank are also considering their position- last time I looked, Coutts were owned by the majority sate-owned bank RBS - yet another example of the elite using taxpayers money to promote their agendas.

Incidentally, aren't charities supposed to refrain from politics?   Don't expect too much of a backlash though, minorities somehow have a completely dis-proportionate grip on the levers of power and the political agenda in the UK.