Turing pardon

The UK government has pardoned the deceased computer pioneer and cryptographer, Alan Turing for his 1952 conviction for homosexual related offences.

I can't but feel a sense of unease at this.  OK, so I know there is a large element of political posturing in this but .......

What's next?  Pardoning those that betrayed their country and spied for East Germany and the USSR, on the grounds that these entities no longer exist?  What about convicting people for acts that are now crimes but weren't when they were committed?  Remember, hate crime is now apparently not in what you say but is in how it is perceived by the recipient.  So, prosecute Enoch Powell for his 'rivers of blood' speech?  Posthumously prosecute all the 1930's supporters of the Communist regime of the Soviet  Union and the apologists for the show trials?  A pardon for Lord HawHaw on the grounds that he was an Irish nationalist and we now accommodate and treat with such terrorists?

Or maybe just leave things as they are and not apply 2013 'standards' to historical events and somehow think we know better than the people, at those times knew.

2013 Culture Review

Well, the title sounds grand!

Building on last year's review of books, I wanted to share the following:

Books
Last year I got heavily into Jack Reacher novels, by Lee Child and found them to be  quite engrossing but then, at the end of 2012, a movie was made of one of them.  Tom Cruise was cast as Jack Reacher.  Cruise's production company having apparently bought the rights.  If you have read any of the Reacher books you will have the same difficulty that I have in squaring the idea of Reacher portrayed by the diminutive Cruise.  In some books, Reacher's size - height 6' 6'' and weight 240 lbs, is actually an integral part of the plot lines so I find it hard to acquaint the visual film reality with the written variety.  Consequently, I have struggled with these books this year.   They are still well-written and gripping but...........  the image of the sofa-jumper keeps interrupting my enjoyment.

Best book read this year was Arguably by Christopher Hitchens.  This is a compilation of the late author's reviews and shows the depth and breadth of his knowledge.  Oh to be able to write like that!  If you love America and it's history, I strongly recommend this.

Also if you love America, I re-read Decision Points by George W Bush -  a fascinating read, which puts the lie to much of the media distortions.

Finally, Hiding the decline by A W Montford.  This was a Christmas gift that was truly enjoyed.  This book explores the ClimateGate e-mail saga and exposes the so-called climate change experts for the lying charlatans that they are.  A powerful book which clinically dissects the story and then onto the cover-ups, that were said to be investigations.  If you value truth, do find the time to read this book.

Films
Perseverance and patience is always recommended and I am glad I listened to this advice.  I saw two 2nd parts of trilogies this year.

Part two of the Hunger Games series was considerably better than the first part.  Gets one a little closer to some of the grim reality of the books and is promising nicely for the third and final part.

The middle part of The Hobbit was also better than the first part and is building well for the finale.  I saw this with family, as part of a newish tradition that has taken in all of the Lord of the Rings trilogy  on successive Christmas' past.  Generally the external reviews were mixed but from the family all on the positive side but there is a feeling that the whole thing was perhaps longer than it needed to be.

TV Series
Enjoyed House of Cards - US.  As with the original from the UK  this shows the everyday venality of politicians and their fellow travelers.  Also watched Hannibal series one.  Gory but a fascinating back-story for this fictional monster.

What's wrong with America?

I am forced to ask this question because the nation that was once seen as founded upon capitalistic principles and the land of opportunity is fast hurtling towards European-style socialism.

What's startling is that there is ample evidence of the failures of socialised medicine available and yet still America is accelerating in that direction. 

It all starts with education.  The USA's educational establishments have long been infiltrated by left-leaning academics and they now hold such sway that they set the educational agenda.  So it is taken for granted (and taught)  that the scientifically proven non-existent global warming, is somehow happening and it is man's fault.

These entryist fifth column seek to curtail the very freedoms that allowed America to become a beacon for wave after wave of immigrants.  They undermine debate by labeling any opinion contrary to the Left's as racist or reactionary or sexist or homophobic.  The products of this educational system litter the media and those that fail to get into that industry - one can't call it a profession, as it would demean, by association, the other members of the world's oldest profession - these people go into 'government'.  They become public 'servants' as they would style themselves.  Though, their idea of public service is oftentimes to drive forward a leftist, nanny-state agenda.  I would wager though that many of them wouldn't see their petty officiousness and anti-capitalist behaviour as leftist, such is the extent of their childhood brainwashing.   

The strange thing though, about the American Left is the one group that they do not attack.  They will attack Pro-Life people, who oppose abortion, in the most virulent way.  Likewise, Christians are pilloried for following their beliefs because these are founded on the Bible.  Anyone that suggests that the absence of live-in fathers in black communities, is immediately a racist - regardless of the evidence that shows the comparative consequences of this state of affairs.  Anyone who makes even a passing reference which might be construed as slightly negative towards homosexuals, is a legitimate target for abuse and a campaign to teach them the 'error of their ways' by getting them fired from their job or suspended from their TV show (look-up Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame!)

So who don't the American Left address their campaigns against?  The answer is the religious group that is most actively engaged in attacking all those 'issues' that the Left hold dear.  That is, Muslims.  Women's rights, Homosexual rights, these are non-existent in most parts of the Muslim world.  However, A&E, the TV channel that suspended Phil Robertson or MSNBC or CBS or CNN, etc.,  don't ever talk about the 'elephant in the room' - Islam.  In this they are not alone.  The European media is also scared to bring forward exposure of the practices prevailing in much of the Muslim world. 

Think back to any incident that was perpetrated by Islamists in the name of Islam.  What is the second thing that you see on TV or read in the press, straight after the pictures of the dead and dying and wounded?  It will be a 'moderate' member of the Islamic 'community' condemning the atrocity and saying how this doesn't represent the true face of Islam, which they then go onto claim is a peaceful religion.  What kind of peace is it that blows-up people, indiscriminately?  That beheads unarmed Christians in Syria and posts videos of their actions - say what you like about Syria's Assad but Syrian Christians were able to live and worship under him, something the Islamic militants (that President Obama wants to support) won't allow them to do.  A religion,  two of whose adherents, hack to death a British soldier on the streets of London, in broad daylight and in full glare of video cameras.  An orthodoxy that is funded by Saudi Arabian money - the same money that funded the 9/11 attacks on the USA.


A great man called Edmund Burke  once said that "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".  Had he been alive today, he would no doubt have added something that addressed the willful blindness of the media to the flaws in Islam, as currently practiced, while the self-same media viciously attacks anyone that promotes a Christian viewpoint. 

Edmund Burke also said "Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot long exist."  President Obama and his liberal predecessors have propelled America down that path.  Consider the corrupt activities of America's government in spying on its own people, targeting them with IRS audits and leaving it's representatives to die in Benghazi.  A government that allows Kermit Gosnell to murder unborn babies, with relative impunity as here.    I don't know about you but I call that fairly corrupt.   
 So Americans, look to that 'city on the hill' while you still can.  The light of hope, opportunity and freedom that was apparent to all your forebears is growing ever dimmer and unless American's take back their country, will soon be extinguished.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/e/edmund_burke.html#yaYcH3ewqxpSXh6Q.99

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/e/edmund_burke.html#yaYcH3ewqxpSXh6Q.99

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/e/edmund_burke.html#yaYcH3ewqxpSXh6Q.

MPs pay

Regular readers will know that I couldn't let this topic pass, without commenting.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) has recommended that members of the UK parliament should receive salary increases equaling 11%.  At the same time, there would be cuts in allowances and changes to pension rights which, say IPSA, would make the overall impact a net zero cost.

I am quite okay with those proposed changes to allowances.  In my view they are already too high, so this little bit of pruning won't go amiss.  They are also largely tax-exempt - even in the socialist paradise that is today's Britain, some are more equal than others.

Similarly, the pension changes are merely 'tinkering' which bring the golden pensions that MPs currently enjoy, just the tiniest bit closer to those which other public sector workers have.  Note the comparison - public sector workers!  Not the poor benighted souls in the private sector.  They continue to have pensions that are far inferior to those of the cosseted civil servants, which they nevertheless, fund!

Maybe you disagree that MPs enjoy good benefits?  After all, why would so many of them be forced to 'fiddle' and cheat on their expenses if they were so generous?  I say fiddle and cheat because I have decided to mince my words and refrain from calling the activities lying and stealing, though that is what the courts in a few 'show trials' seem to have decided.

Consider this though, how many businesses could fund an 11% increase in base pay by cutting back on other benefits, without those 'benefits' already being way too high in the first place?

Ed Miliband, from the socialist Labour Welfare Party, remains true to form.  Being of the socialist frame of mind he cannot resist a free ride.  So when the 'this is outrageous' bandwagon rolls along he has to jump on it.  He has written to the UK Prime Minister requesting that all party leaders meet with IPSA and get the recommendation reversed.  My admiration for his ability to posture, while on a rolling bandwagon, is tempered by the biliousness his opportunistic hypocrisy, generates.

Let's think about this.  Miliband already knows that the UK PM, David Cameron opposes the increase - though I suppose there is no point in jumping on a bandwagon and not letting the whole world know by publishing a letter - but Miliband also knows that IPSA are trying to  establish a process for determining suitable levels of pay for MPs and that implementing such a process is always likely to result in one-off anomalies.  Don't get me wrong, I do not support the increase but neither do I support the hypocrisy that pretends that developing a systematic and transparent approach to the issue is somehow wrong.  I have posted here before on why I think MP pay should be lower and linked to a multiple of the UK National Average wage - one sure way to get MPs focused on improving the 'lot' of all the people.

Here is my suggestion.  The IPSA proposals would not take effect until 2015.  Let's assume that this means, after the May 2015 General Election.   Why don't we have all candidates for election in 2015, publicly declare in their election material,  whether they would accept the increase or if they would refuse it.  If the increase has to be awarded, for practical purposes, then they would commit to donating the increase towards the reduction in the National Debt.  Since they are so adept at increasing this National Debt, their contribution would be a welcome step, for once, in the right direction.

This would avoid a pointless fight between party leaders and IPSA and would give voters a chance to see if their candidate is really with them and recognizes what 'we're all in this together' really means.





 

Questions for Americans

Two quick questions for Americans.

Between Margaret Thatcher and Nelson Mandela, who of these was the greatest friend and ally to the USA?

Of these two, who did the President of America most honour when they passed on, by personally attending a memorial service or funeral.

Oh, and a quick, third question, of these two, Mandela and Thatcher, which was a firm supporter of capitalism and, along with Ronald Reagan, brought about the downfall of the Soviet bloc and which was a former (some say always) 'card carrying' member of the Communist Party and would under today's definitions be called a terrorist?

Answers on postcards to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and your local Congressman.

The UK may no longer hold much sway in the world but we do remember when we are slighted.  At least I sincerely hope that we do, when the present incumbent passes on.

Before everyone jumps on me for verbally shooting at Nelson Mandela, let me declare that I truly believe he was a special person.  I am sure I could never have found the forgiveness that he showed to his captors.  No my 'beef' is with the Obama administration and another example of how they treat their friends. See here for further  http://bit.ly/1fny5ka

Presidential conspiracy in the US

As a non-American, looking in from the outside, I detect a conspiracy surrounding President Obama.

Much as I dislike the individual and believe he is dangerous for both the USA and the free world, this isn't a conspiracy led by the former community organizer - at least I don't think it is, that's the trouble with conspiracies, you just never know!

No this is about what has happened to the American media.  Have they been so infiltrated by socialists that none have the courage to see that the emperor has no clothes?

Consider:

Benghazi September 11, 2012 - the American consulate is stormed by an armed and intent on murder mob of Islamist fanatics.  Those inside call for help.  US  military forces are available but are ordered to stand-down.  The commanding general balks at this order and is relieved of command.  Four American citizens are brutally abused, including it is said, sexually, and murdered.  One of the four is the US Ambassador to Libya.

The IRS is found to be targeting right of centre groups, and their members, such as the Tea Party.  Initiating tax audits of these people and clearly on the grounds of their political opinions.  In the ensuing investigation, news of profligate spending and waste, by the IRS, surfaces.

John Kerry and President Obama hail a temporary agreement with Iran, as a victory. This agreement allegedly requires Iran to stop uranium enrichment but post the announcements, it seems that some of the Iranian nuclear facilities are not included.  What is included though is that sanctions are lifted on $8 billion that was previously frozen.  So Iran gets what it wants - money and other relief from sanctions that were hurting (as was intended) - and they don't have to actually give-up anything for it!

And then there is Obamacare.  Some say it should be properly called the Affordable Care Act but since it isn't affordable, there is no additional care, it can be seen to be an act, as many conservative commentators have noted.

One of the things that the USA boasts about, is it's technological prowess.  No, really!  So, think about that.  President Obama gave the 'techies' and 'geeks' three years to come up with a website and registration system.   They didn't just fail, they failed abysmally.  Three years and $100s Million and it simply didn't work - and by all accounts still doesn't.  That wouldn't be a problem though because Obama said people could keep their old policies and such, except.....  they can't.  People would not see premium increases or be forced into this or that but...... they are!

There are other instances, such as the NSA spying on Americans, reading their e-mails and listening into their phone calls, as well as spying on supposed allies  (see here:  http://bit.ly/1fny5ka )  and the shameful shutdown of WWII memorials during the government shutdown but you should have the picture by now.

So, how does this super-teflon coated President get away with it?  The answer is because the main stream media is blind, deaf and dumb.  Even now, as some Democrats try to distance themselves from the train wreck that is Obamacare, the media still pushes the 'party line' from the White House.  Okay, you would expect Claire Shipman, ABC senior correspondent, to steer clear of embarrassing the White House Press Secretary, she is, after all, married to the same Jay Carney but what of the rest of the press corps?  Where are the putative Woodwards and Bernsteins?  Or do they only come out against Republicans?

I don't believe that Twitter and other social media is ready to replace the MSM but where else can an American go to hear something that isn't what amounts to propaganda from President Obama?   What has made the media, that were always so savagely anti- George Bush, now so toothless and un-enquiring?  Remember the outright lies put out by the media about Obama's predecessor?  Those are easier to recall than the half-hearted eventual apologies or retractions.

No the Left, and take it from one that has suffered under the yoke of UK socialism, make no mistake,  Obama is a true Socialist and he has fellow 'card-carriers' throughout the media.  The Democrats and the MSM are so in bed together (sometimes literally) that even the complete 'green' bilge spouted by Al Gore goes unchallenged as does his oh so blatant, hypocrisy.

So here's a prediction.  Watch, read and listen to the media in the coming weeks if you like or just know now, that the following headlines will provide adequate coverage of the next round of budget discussions.  'GOP, fearing Tea Party extremists, obstructs resolution of budget issues.'  or 'President Obama stands firm on budget in face of anti-progressive elements in division riven GOP'

2014 is just around the corner and presents Americans with an opportunity to start to take back their country.  Know though that this will be a very hard process.  The socialists move one yard to the left and then the 'right' manage to move one foot back to the right but America is still two foot further to the left, after this dance.  It's time for the 'right' to talk direct to the people and bypass the biased MSM and to move two or more yards to the right - incremental steps to sanity leaves a country too long in a state of madness.

Finally, consider that you won't read anything like this in the American media so make sure that you protect the freedom that Twitter allows us. 

Scottish choices

As I write this, I am listening to the House of Commons debate on the European Union Referendum and hearing and seeing the shameful delaying tactics of the Labour Party.  If nothing else, the fact that Labour is so pro-Europe, might one say slavishly so, illustrates that this organization is a crypto-Socialist organization which fits solidly into the undemocratic mould that all Socialists desire.

Listening though, I am forced to return to the questions raised by the referendum that will be held in September 2014, on the question of whether or not Scotland leaves or remains within the United Kingdom.

These questions, I would suggest, are:

• How long after a yes vote, would it take for separation to occur?
• What would be the split of UK national debt assigned to an independent Scotland? Something around 8.2% - matching the population ratio?
• Similarly, how would pension liabilities be assigned?  Most of these are unfunded and so must come out of future current national income (GDP)
• In the event of a No vote, would that be it?  As in, would the current devolution settlement remain or would there be further concessions granted or demanded?  That is, independence by the back-door - total freedom without real responsibility. 
• Would Scotland have to apply as a candidate member, to join the EU (as I suggested on an earlier post, and now stated by the Spanish PM)
• Indeed, would the UK, which would be something less than when it signed-up for the old European Economic Community, have to re-apply for membership?
• What would happen to the Armed forces?  All fall under the rump UK or would some of the 'Scottish' regiments move to being part of Scotland's defence forces?  Would the military personnel have a choice?
• Back to the EU, if Scotland was admitted as an independent country then surely they would have to adopt the Euro as their currency and not the Pound Sterling as the Scottish Nationalists seem to think is possible?
• Staying with currency, how independent would Scotland really be, if it were able to retain Sterling?  Then its economic policy would effectively be set by Westminster not Holyrood. Mind you, if it joined the Euro, it's economic policy would be set by Berlin.  Funny kind of independence!
• If Scotland votes No, will the UK Government have the courage to abandon the Barnett Formula, which sees Scotland getting a disproportionate share of public spending, particularly welfare, and adopt a more equitable system?  Better yet abolish welfare all together

If you are wondering why I continue to pose these questions it is because these have not been answered by the Scottish Nationalist's papers on the subjects.  The recent Scottish Parliament White Paper is long on waffle and obfuscation and very short on facts.  Scotland will enjoy free this and free that, when the yoke of London is lifted etc. but no mention of how all of that is going to be paid for!

Anyone care to answer any of these?

The dark side of Labour and Parliament.

UK politicians are generally held in low esteem by the public.  It takes a lot to dislodge Estate Agents and Lawyers from the title but MPs and councilors are now competing against tabloid journalists for the dubious title of least trusted 'professions' .

Even with issues like Plebgate, the police are still viewed more favourably than politicians.  Imagine, the police stitch-up a senior member of the coalition-leading Conservative party and yet they are still considered to be 'better' than politicians!

The latest revelations to surface relate to the Labour party and concern the recently former chairman of the Cooperative Bank and his affinity with drugs and seemingly 'having inappropriate gay porn images on his council provided computer'. 

The Labour party has surpassed itself in the way it is trying to distance itself from Paul Flowers, the Methodist minister that they allowed to be appointed as chairman of the Cooperative Bank.  When Flowers was appointed, he was somehow found to be a 'fit and proper person' despite being previously convicted for drink driving and gross indecency.     This is the same bank that developed a £1.5billion hole in its balance sheet, under Flowers' watch, following the acquisition of the Britania Building Society.  The same bank and organization that, like the unions, provides funding to the Labour party (any connection, one wonders).  In the case of the Cooperative Group this includes funding, via direct payments to the tune of at least £50,000, the office of Ed Balls, the Labour Shadow Chancellor and, through providing a significant overdraft of £3.9 million to the party at what are reportedly 'unusually generous terms'.

Given all that Labour has received from the Co-op, you would maybe expect a bit of loyalty but no.  Damage limitation is the name of the game and so Paul Flowers and the Co-op are thrown to the wolves.  The Cooperative Bank has now been rescued by the darlings of the left, the hedge funds!

In typical Labour fashion, they claim that any inference that they closed their eyes to Flowers' appointment is a smear tactic used by political opponents.  This is the same tactic that is used by all so called 'progressives' whenever their policies or actions are questioned.  Want to talk about immigration?  You must be a racist!  Did you mention homosexuality?  You are a homophobe!  One can never question the integrity of a Labour politician because they are, 'well you know a straight kind of guy' party.

Make no mistake, just as with the scandal at Falkirk, where the Unite union (Labour's biggest financial backer) tried to pack the selection process with union paid members, this Co-op scandal will further stain the Labour party.

However, the Labour party led by Ed Miliband (one of whose 'business advisors was the same Paul Flowers!) are not alone in dragging politics into the gutter (or a place lower than the gutter (House of Commons?)).

 We have also heard, in recent weeks of Nadhim Zahawi MP, of the Conservative party,  who claimed £5,882 for energy bills, seemingly to, in part, heat his stables.

We have Dennis McShane, former Labour minister, who has admitted expenses fraud.

Chris Huhne the darling of the left in the Liberal party and proponent of crackpot 'green policies' was jailed earlier this year for perverting the course of justice.

The list goes on and on.

There are some honest politicians with integrity - lest I be accused of anti-Labour bias, Dennis Skinner and Frank Field immediately spring to mind - but one gets the distinct impression that they are in the minority.  That is likely not fair but that is the impression.  Time and again we have stories where it is apparent that for many MPs, the sole purpose of being in parliament, is to milk the system for all you can, and in some cases, for a bit more, if you can get away with it.

I can't think of a stronger word than venal but I'm open to non-foul-mouthed suggestions!

So I have had a rant but honestly can't think how the position can be changed.  Ed Miliband and Labour are so dependent upon vested interest funding from the unions that, even if they wanted to clean house, they simply couldn't.  The Lib Dems must be treated with suspicion because their solution would lead to state funding of political parties.  The Conservatives?  Many Conservatives, from David Cameron on down, seem to just think that being in government is it.  Policies and integrity, who needs them, we have 'red boxes'!

What a sorry state in which we find British politics! 

Poverty?

I think it is funny, in a perverse kind of way, how words get twisted around and come to mean different things to different people.  Now we also see that words can have geographical changes.

I have been thinking about poverty.  The pictures of the victims of Typhoon Haiyan, in the Philippine Islands, showed that before their lives became so sorely affected by this powerful force of nature, they lived, in many cases, in what a Westerner, applying a  'Third World' perspective, would call poverty.   They often lacked basic amenities such as clean water, sewage systems, regular access to food, etc..

Rightly, the World is stepping-up efforts to provide relief to these people and we should all make our own contributions rather than just relying on governments to do it.

Thinking on this got me on to the mis-use of the word poverty, within the UK.  (This probably also applies in other Western countries).

In the UK poverty becomes defined as not having the latest I-phone or wide-screen TV or fashion label.  Poverty sometimes means having to choose between beer, cigarettes, drugs or food for the table.

In the real-world of real poverty, these choices simply don't exist.  And exist is the word.  In the real-world of poverty, the only choice is can I put bread on the table.  Can I put food into the belly of my children?  Whether to go for an I-phone 5S or go for the lesser but, 'hey the colours are really nice' 5C doesn't enter the mind of these people.

I lived in South Africa for a while.  The beautiful city of Cape Town.  I remember being told a story of people from the townships - both parents working - who for them, the daily struggle was really about putting bread on the table.  Not bread and jam or bread and butter, just bread.  I have also traveled throughout Asia and other parts of Africa and as I have done so, I have seen similar examples of poverty.  And I am sure that in my western-cosseted lifestyle, I missed a whole lot more and a whole lot worse, during my travels.  So I don't consider myself an expert, but...............

I cannot help contrast  this real-world poverty with the way the UK media and Socialists and similar types apply double standards - so we have 'poverty in the UK', which has come to mean not being able to survive on a capped benefit level of £26,000 a year and then we have 100's of millions of people who get by (or tragically, sometimes don't) on less than a $1 a day.

In the eyes and twisted minds of some, these two levels of poverty have equivalence.   Except, they don't.

The poverty I have seen a first hand is what most sane people would consider to be real poverty.  These people suffer the lack of access to basics like clean water and food and, above all, opportunities.  They often have no real chance to break-out of their ugly life-cycle.  They are born into poverty, struggle through an often overly-short life of it and cannot escape.  Those in so called poverty in the UK, do have the opportunity to escape.  There are opportunities to 'get on'.  There are opportunities to make choices - 'I-phone or dinners for a month?'  Many of the poor in Britain think though that they are 'entitled' to both but given the choice would choose the I-phone because the 'state' will take care of the food, won't they?

Socialists and liberals, who have the temerity to call themselves, progressives, love to have social experiments.  Remember all of those social housing tower blocks provided by councils up and down the UK?  ''Vertical communities or 'communities in the sky' they were sometimes called.  These replaced real communities, where people were born and lived 'cheek by jowl', with cells where people could live and eventually die,  in isolation.

Anyway, I wonder if I could interest them in a truly enlightening experiment.  Let's take  number of Britain's 'poor' - let's say 100,000 and transplant them into a Third World poor environment.  Doesn't matter where.  Let's then take the same number of people from that host country/city and put them into the homes of the UK transplantees and give them state benefits but, since they are used to existing on a lot less, let's make these capped at £13,000 a year or 50% of the current welfare cap.  Before  any 'lefties' start howling, consider that the current welfare cap is higher than the national average, pre-tax and national insurance, wage of £25,000.  That means that there are a lot of people in the UK who work and earn less than £25,000 a year. 

Somehow, I would see the British 'poor' struggling in the host country, while the 'real' poor would thrive in the UK.  There is an old saying about a poor man 'not needing a hand-out but a hand-up'.  Maybe such an experiment would do just that!

Of course there is poverty in the UK but to my mind, the real poverty in the UK is government made.  And specifically, the work of the last Labour government.  And now maintained by the Liberal Democrats in the current coalition government.  This poverty is fuel poverty.  People are being forced to make choices between heating a home or feeding their family.  I am talking here of working people and pensioners facing these choices.

Why?  Well Labour and the Lib Dems would have you believe that this is all the fault of the energy companies that are working in concert to fleece the British fuel consumer.  Acting in concert would be illegal but because Labour and the Lib Dems know that there is no evidence to support their claims that just make them as soundbites rather than pursuing through legal channels.

Labour and the Lib Dems know, categorically and absolutely, that the so called 'green taxes' that they love - greater than life itself - contribute far more to fuel poverty (3 to 4 times as much), than the so called excessive profits of the energy companies.  And these taxes are set to continue rising, year on year, for the foreseeable future.   

If we want to eradicate poverty in the UK, then abolish these 'green taxes'.  End the subsidy for 'renewables' and lift people who are suffering genuine hardship, out of fuel poverty.  Pensioners who have paid into a system, all of their working lives,  shouldn't have to be making the kind of choices that they will face this winter.  Neither should low-waged working people.

I strongly dislike the idea of taxes but while we are at it, why not put a tax on the mis-use of the word poverty?  Charge the Socialists every time that they bang on about the poor in the UK.  Ed Miliband is a millionaire, he can afford it! 

The American idea of friendship?

I don't have a Webster's dictionary to hand but would struggle to believe the definition of friendship includes anything like the way the current US administration (and recent former ones!) is treating its friends and allies.

I am not a gambling man but I would bet the equity I have in my house, that Angela Merkel is not plotting the overthrow of Western civilization and its replacement with a Sharia compliant caliphate,  with Al Qaeda.  Does anybody really think that Francois Hollande has the time for such plotting?  Thinking up more and more daft taxes to impose on his benighted citizens takes up so much time, there is too little left for proper plotting.

And yet......  If the leaks from Edward Snowden are to be believed, then that is what the folks in the US Administration think is happening.  Somehow these people have got it into their heads that the 'war on terror' requires them to spy on whomever they choose.  Prime Minister of Spain?  You bet! UN Secretary General? Of course!  Millions of Americans? For sure!  

How do I know that is what they're thinking?  Well how else can the USA possibly justify spying on its friends?  The only justifiable reason to spy on Merkel would be to get hold of her Sauerkraut recipe, which is said to produce a result that is only surpassed by her Lebkuchen one (Lidl and Aldi both follow this, trust me, but don't ask me how I know!) 

Those of us, of a certain age, remember the 'cold war'.  Amongst us intelligent ones (as opposed to the fellow travelers), we always understood that certain actions, let's call them spying, would be undertaken on our behalf, to protect us.  I am sure that we also suspected (and condoned) the fact that sometimes our enemies - foreign or domestic - might be legitimate targets and even that they could end-up being killed by our security services.  It was a war and as such casualties are inevitable. 

Part of the acceptance came from a belief that our system was better than theirs.  That we had freedoms that were worth protecting and fighting for and that sometimes playing a little dirty was required and therefore acceptable. 

Now though our 'system' is coming to look a whole lot like the systems of control that we, in the West, fought against.  In the UK, we have a Conservative-led coalition (or at least on paper, Conservative-led) seeking to impose severe restraints on press freedom.  From the USA we have widespread snooping on foreigner's mail and phone calls - OK to some US readers that might be acceptable - they're foreigners, after all - but we also have US citizens having their own mail and phone calls snooped on.  In the USA you don't have the Stasi on street corners asking you for your papers, but you do have drones flying overhead and you being watched by people in darkened rooms, simply because they can.

And that really is it.  The NSA and it's co-conspirator, the British GCHQ, do all of this snooping because they have the technology to do so.  They are boys with toys and have to use them.  They are the kid that gets a remote controlled helicopter for his birthday and then has to use it to 'buzz' his neighbour's house simply because he has this new toy and since his dad got it for him, he is going to make sure his son's 'constitutional right' to fly the toy are protected.

We are told that Al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations are really smart and getting smarter and more sophisticated.  While many of their weapons are crude - suicide bombs, for example - they are an implacable and intelligent enemy.  So, how many of them, do you think, are getting on their cell phones and directing their 'martyrs' to the next atrocity or sending e-mails detailing their upcoming plans?  I suspect that because these terrorists are well aware of the counter-measures used by the West, such as snooping, then they resort to old-fashioned methods of communication like a whispered conversation in a crowded street or behind locked doors.  

And then there is the hypocrisy.  Remember how the USA was enraged when it discovered that its erstwhile allies, the Israelis, were spying on it?  I am sure that at the time, there would have been Senators and Representatives and other 'nodding heads' condemning this as being unfriendly, 'these are not the actions, we, Americans would expect of a nation that we consider, a friend' etc..

Going back to those domestic drones for a moment, consider this.  One of America's contributions to the English language is the term 'going postal' - where someone becomes so deranged at slights, real or imagined, that they just load-up on guns and ammo and go to the scene of their humiliation and start killing all and sundry.   Think though about those guys in the darkened rooms, looking at these monitors.  Think about them just maybe 'losing it'.  That cheerleader that said no, when she was asked to the prom?  The number plate of her car can be read from 25,000 feet.  That 'jock' who always gave lesser beings and nerds a wedgie?  His cell phone can be tracked, wherever he is.  And hey, the guy in the darkened room has rapid fire weapons and a hellfire missile or two.   But Americans have nothing to fear.  It couldn't happen in America right?  There are controls on all this kind of stuff, aren't there?

 Bottom line is that friends don't spy on friends.  That for freedom to have any meaning, a government shouldn't be spying on it's own people.  Terrorism isn't just about bombs and assassinations - it is also about creating a climate of fear such that the values that we hold dear and which are anathema to the terrorists, we agree to relinquish, in the belief that it's part of the 'war on terror' and yet, by us doing so, the terrorists win!      

America and Drugs

Why is it, do you think, that America spends so much money and effort fighting drugs that it has declared illegal, such as cocaine, marijuana and heroin and yet the two most dangerous drugs are ignored?

The two most dangerous drugs?  Sugar and debt.

Americans consume vast quantities of both.  Indeed the abuse of the former, because it leads to great obesity and a strain on medical systems, inevitably increase the need for the latter - a vicious circle of addiction.

I suppose that there might be something to be said for de-criminalising  the currently illegal drugs and taxing them, so that tax dollars on prevention could be saved and revenue raised.  I am not really sure where I stand on the argument - the 'war on drugs' seems to be a guerrilla-type one where the US gains some occasional small victories but the 'enemy' is too entrenched to actually be defeated.  All I have managed to come to know of the effects of drug use clearly demonstrate the very negative side-effects of such abuse but........

 Anyway back to America's drugs of choice.

Americans now consume, on a per capita basis, more than 34 Kg (75lbs)  of sugar in one form or another, each year.  The number 34 might be some kind of 'mystical' one as that is also the percentage of adult Americans that are classed as obese!  It seems that much of this consumption comes via so called,'soft drinks' - fizzy colas and such - rather than through refined sugar being ladled onto breakfast cereal or stirred into coffee or tea.  What's the common denominator when eating out in the US?  Some restaurants will have steak and other meats on the menu, some will just have vegetables, some pizza but not pasta etc., but all will offer soft fizzy drinks, which are loaded with sugar.  

Oh and don't think I am excusing the Europeans from this addiction, like with the other drug of choice, debt, the European Union members are mimicking the abuse seen in America but today's topic is America.

Think of what that level of sugar intake is doing to America's health and consequently it's economy.  All those emergency room visits for heart attacks - that isn't cocaine or heroin, that's sugar and it's consequential obesity.  All those large gas guzzling cars - that's the size vehicle that is needed to transport these larger people around.  Here's a visual for you.  Think of a small compact car - a Mini or a Micra or a Fiat 500.  Now think of trying to fit four average Americans inside.  Not working?  Brain can't get there?  Try two average Americans, maybe now you get a fuzzy outline of a picture?  You get my point, anyway.

 Now we move on to the other addiction - debt.  Quick pop quiz for you.  How many zeros in a trillion?  Don't know or can't guess?  Go on try, there's 6 in  million and 9 in a (US) billion so.......  You got it, 12.

Another question, what was the US debt level in 1980?  Less than $1T (I can't be bothered with all those zeros!).  2006 level?  $8T.  Currently it is north of $17T.  Think about that for a moment.  By 1980, America had accumulated, in its 204 years of independence, debt of $1T, 15 years later it had 8 times that level of debt, then during the Obama presidency, the amount has more than doubled again!  Think of that in an addicts frame of mind.  In 1980 you were smoking one joint or doing one line of cocaine a day but now you are smoking 17 joints or doing 17 lines of coke, a day! 

Americans are hooked on debt and as with most addicts (or at least how they are always portrayed), once hooked, just want evermore!

An American colleague tells me that when you add in the unfunded liabilities like Medicaid and pensions, then the debt level rises to $60T, even if that is only half right, that is truly scary.

Without concerted action to wean America off of it's debt addiction, Americans, for generations to come, will be paying the price for today's bingeing.

And please don't tell me that America is on the road to addiction-recovery.  The anemic spending reductions that have been put in place will still cause the debt to rise to $25T by 2023 - yes, in 10 years, the debt ceiling will increase by a further 50%.

And that is actually a conservative estimate.  Conservative because it pre-supposes that America can continue to export its inflation to the rest of the world and can continue to offload Treasury paper.  What happens though if over, say, the next ten years, the US Dollar starts to lose it's position as the world's reserve currency?  It isn't such a far-fetched idea.  China is starting to flex it's financial muscle.  Imagine if the Chinese, the world's largest producer and purchaser of gold, decided to back their Renminbi currency with gold and to make it freely tradeable.  The latter might be a way off but suppose you were a Middle Eastern government oil company and you were offered gold-backed currency rather than being paid in US$ which continue to lose value?  Not a difficult choice, is it? Can't happen?  Check out who are the largest investors in Iraq's oilfields.  Clue, it isn't those US oil companies that supposedly pushed Bush to go to war for oil, in 2003.  Nor is it the British oil companies that perhaps led Tony Blair and his Labour party to produce the so called 'dodgy dossier'. 

Maybe then, that's the solution.  Since America won't confront it's addiction problem, the rest of the world will need to do it for them.  To send America into 'rehab' by not buying it's debt or trading in it's devaluing currency and thereby forcing America to face the grim reality of a it's addiction.  Could be a win/win situation - America reduces government spending and, in the process the 'hardship' that ensues makes the average American reduce their soft drinks intake, simply because they cannot afford it.

Maybe but don't hold your breath.  There seem to be so few US politicians with the courage to hold-up a mirror and say, 'America take a good look, you are obese and you are getting worse and doing it on other people's money.  This cannot continue.'  There may be some honest politicians but I do not discern any with the courage required to deliver the needed message.

Oh, again!  the same applies to Europe though, as with so much in the 20th century, Europe lags behind the US but, is on the same downward spiral!

Apologies for being so depressing!  Who knows, maybe mirror manufacturing will lead to a revival of America's economy and prospects!

GOP = Gonads Outta Play?

What is it with the US Republican Party, otherwise known as the GOP?

Does GOP stand for Gonads Outta Play?  It certainly seems that many GOP members in the Senate display an amazing lack of courage and they are joined by their spineless colleagues in the House of Representatives.

Of course these folks will be looking at the mid-term elections but is that it?  A potential threat to job security means that principle and integrity is cast aside?

Surely there are some Senators and Representatives (you listening Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan?) who will filibuster any attempt at a deal that doesn't include a reduction in US debt  and the US budget deficit. 

The October 17th deadline is bogus.  The key date is November 1st because that's when big payments become due and maybe the US won't have the money, at that time so there is not the urgency that the White House have concocted.

So why are the GOP playing into Obama's hand?  

Linking the budget approval with Obamacare was surely short-sighted.  All indications are that this programme already contains the seeds of its own destruction (see the numerous stories on the multiplying of premiums that people are encountering and the failing, and failed, online registration system).  However, now things have moved on.

My advice to GOP members is don't get tied-up with Obamacare.  The real, indeed the only, issue, is America's addiction.  The drug of choice is debt or other people's money (taxes to you and me!)

When Obamacare is long-dead and buried the American people will still be suffering  from the spending splurge and debt-overdosing that is occurring day after day.  We are not talking about going 'cold turkey', of completely stopping government spending, but rather of weaning the government of their over-indulgence in spending money that they don't have. 

That should be the whole focus of the GOP and it's activities around the budget impasse and the debt ceiling.  Giving any addict greater and greater access to their drug of choice is never a good idea. 

Einstein said that insanity is  doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

 So this time, do something different - don't pass the budget, make cuts, don't increase the debt ceiling, stop feeding the beast!

Banking patterns, debt junkies and Fiscal diarrhoea

Have you noticed how financial institutions are starting to get worried about the possibility of a US default, if the US borrowing limit isn't raised?

First we had the head of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, expressing 'concern'.  Now we have Christine Lagarde, who took over as head of the International Monetary Fund, from Dominque Strauss Kahn after he was implicated in a sex scandal, saying her piece.

Ms Lagarde, the former finance minister of France, has warned that a default by the US could tip the world into recession and massive disruption.   Leave aside for a moment any thoughts or doubts about any former minister from a country such as France, opining on debt.  Forget that France's debt represents >90% of GDP!

Ms Lagarde and Mr Kim are joined by Jamie Dimon from JP Morgan (yes the same JP Morgan that has got $23Bn stashed away to cover expected legal charges for allegedly inappropriate banking behaviour, yes the same JPM that paid a fine of more than $900M just last month for bad behaviour)

I find it worrisome that these 'mega bankers' seem to have learned nothing from events in 2007 and 2008.

Here we have a US Government that continues to spend money far, far in excess of what it takes in.  The debt junkies that are running the US government (Democrats and Republicans) know that the US' economic model is unsustainable.  They know!  However, these 'patriots' fiddle and prattle about Obamacare (they can do this because Congress is exempt from the Affordable Care Act!) while the US burns!

Think about going to see a banker, let's call him Jamie-Kim Lagarde.  You have been called in because once again you are maxed-out on your credit cards and overdrafts.  You have been told to bring along with you a budget for the next year.

JKL:  Well when I look at this budget, I see that you want to spend more money next year than you are earning.

You:  Yes that's right.  I have all of these things and people that I need to pay because they think they are entitled to this, plus I have a couple of things that I like to do and, hey, these toys ain't cheap!

JKL:  I understand, consider yourself lucky that you don't have to spend a fortune on lawyers.  Anyway, what is it you want to do?  I keep thinking that giving you extra credit maybe isn't the best solution because you just keep coming back for more.

You:  But I need this, people will starve, chaos, in our household, will ensue...

JKL:  Wait!  I didn't say we wouldn't give you more money but, you know, I just want to avoid you getting into the same situation as some Europeans that we lent money to.  These guys got into a pickle and kept promising they would repay but then they couldn't.  They even 'stole' money from other people's bank accounts but my bank still lost money!

You:  I hear you and I have spoken to some of my neighbors about their over-spending.  I mean some of these folks think they have a god-given right to spend other people's money and that the government or someone else will just print and keep on printing the extra money they need.

JKL:  Yeah, well let's not go there.   OK, we will give you some extra credit but before you start jumping up and down, this is going to cost you.  As well as extra interest, I need you to get together with a few of your buddies and kick-up a ruckus somewhere.  I have interests in some businesses that would benefit from coming in after you have done your bit and fixing things up!

You:  You got a deal, buddy.  See you next year!

Of course, on the personal level it wouldn't happen that way.  JKL would simply take all that you have, to the world declare you bankrupt and a deadbeat, and then ask his shareholders to stump up money to fill the losses.  All the time, ensuring that his fat pay checks and bonuses continue to roll in and pushing governments to continue so called 'quantitative easing' as no one can now afford to turn-off this cheap source of finance.

Only in the USA!

Actually that's untrue, same applies in Japan, Europe and elsewhere.  Though, the USA does kind of excel at fiscal diarrhoea

Labour's dilemma - Welfare and Energy

Readers of previous blogs will have gathered that I am not particularly fond of the UK Labour Party.  Indeed, I have mentally re-christened them the Welfare Party.

However, I feel compelled to offer them advice on where they are going wrong and what they might do to turn things around.  Of course, this blog being open to all, it is just possible that the Conservatives will consider and then implement these.

Welfare - Labour is seen as the Welfare party - the party that values providing excessive welfare to a minority of people more than valuing the efforts of people who actually work for a living.  They opposed the Welfare Cap, even though it still provided an over-generous level.  They have opposed the idea, even the mention, of benefits that are regionally set.  They have constantly placed themselves on the side of the claimant rather than the taxpayer.

Labour's own private polling shows that support for welfare reform is a major vote winner and yet  the left-wing cabal that controls the party, sticks to it's failed and unpopular policies.

So, my advice to the two Eds is  be bold - 'out-Tory' the Conservatives - set the welfare cap below the UK national average wage - let's say at 80% - so £20,000 - show that you have heard the people and understand that it is important to recognize that in order to get people into work, they need an incentive.  Similarly, grasp the nettle of regional benefits.  If people are on benefits and genuinely in need of help, why should those living in a low cost areas get the same level of benefits as those in London, say?  Of course, this still requires the national 'cap' of £20,000!

Energy is much more problematic.  Ed Miliband's conference pledge to freeze energy prices is unraveling.  People see it as a cheap and essentially meaningless offer.  That this harks back to Labour's soviet-style obsession with control, doesn't help either.  Nowadays it isn't just people that have long memories, so do social media sites and blogs.  People dredge-up and post all those comments made by  Miliband when he was part of Gordon Brown's disastrous administration, when he insisted that energy prices had to rise for a decade.  When he initiated so called green taxes that do far more to push-up energy costs for families and businesses, than do the profits of energy companies.

So,

• Abandon the green taxes - wins votes across the country from grateful voters who see this as a real and sustainable cost of living reduction.
• Remove VAT from energy bills - see above
• End the subsidies for wind farms  - as well as taking money from 'rich' landowners (core labour policy) also garners rural votes from people who oppose the despoilation of the countryside.

Of course the Conservatives just might beat you to the punch on these - after all, they finally did on the EU Referendum (though Labour still have time to jump on this popular bandwagon) but you still have time!


  

US Shutdown - Questions for Goldman Sachs et al

Goldman Sachs are reported to be claiming that the 'shutdown' of the US Federal Government is costing the US Economy more than $300M a day!  Yes, a day!

As with many news stories, no supporting data is offered - just a self-serving soundbite.  Here's a tip for lazy journalists - ask the questions - how is that number supported and from where do the numbers come?
 
So let's try to think about it on a simple level.

The US Government is not spending money (money that it doesn't anyway have!) and it is doing this by putting employees on unpaid leave.  Is this the >$300M that is hitting the US economy?  If so, how?

What is the saving to the US economy by not having to borrow money to pay these furloughed employees?  Is that shown as a negative in the calculation?

The US military, Homeland Security and the FBI are not sending drones into the skies, to spy on the American people - so that means that they aren't spending money on foreign oil - presuming that the cost is predominantly for the product and not for the US middle-man's profit element,  how does that affect the US economy?

The EPA and other federal agencies are not issuing their usual reams of regulations that impose cost burdens on US business - is that cost benefit included in the $300M number? 

Surely the $300M can't be the daily cost for putting up barriers at places like the WWII memorial to stop veteran's visits? 

I can't believe that the GS number includes taxes and fines and penalties that are not collected, during the shutdown - surely these are simply deferred so no net impact (and they are zero sum anyway!

Here's another question for GS and Wall Street readers - We have heard all sorts of anecdotal evidence from companies across the US, citing by how much their health care costs will rise (and so profits and shareholder returns fall) as a result of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) but how much do you think this will take out of the US economy?  Is it a zero sum game?  So every $ of additional premiums that companies must pay is considered to remain sloshing around in the economy but just being transferred from other parts to the health care and insurance sectors?  Or is this wealth extraction from business seen as destructive to America's ability to invest?


If the GS numbers are correct, think about what that says about the US and its economy.  That the government is such an integral part of the economy that it starts to resemble and mirror the effects that the Soviet and it's satellites had on their economies - they become a or the key component in economic activity and so important that they feed their own destruction.

Of course, maybe GS are right and the number is correct but what would be the actual impact on the economy?  We all know that past shutdowns have led to real measured improvements in GDP so maybe the longer the shutdown, the better the benefit.  Since though this kind of positive data feeds into the 'smaller government is good' narrative, I can kind of understand why GS emphasizes the opposite.

Miliband's numbers

Charitably speaking, it must have been the fear. 

There was Ed Miliband sitting in his suite in Brighton, preparing his 'leader's' speech.  He knew he had successfully overcome the Neil Kinnock moment.  He had managed to successfully walk on the beach, while being photographed and hadn't fallen over!  But............

He also knew that Damian McBride, was publishing and promoting his memoirs.  If these were to be full and candid, what tales of complicity might they tell?   How might Rasputin's henchman implicate him.  Ed knows it doesn't have to be true, just said or whispered.  What a worry.

How is the Leader to plan for the post-2015 election turnip harvest, which will be a record, he already knows, if he is being bothered about these kind of things?

So, in pops a speechwriter with the latest draft.  The speech-writing aide is also worried.  Putting the knife into brother David's back, seemed the best thing at the time and certainly Len and the other big money-guys all supported it but look at the polls!  It's not as if becoming a writer for the Guardian is an option.  They are suffering losses, especially now that all that government jobs advertising revenue has dried-up!

So between them, they come up with a wheeze.  Let's promise to freeze energy prices!  At a stroke, Labour's ratings will soar and with them, Ed's.  For how long will we freeze them, someone asks.  4Ever, aide Owen, stridently says.  "This is just the start, food prices have been rising as well, so let's freeze them, too!  And let's be balanced, so abandon the fascist Tory freeze on council tax rises, after all, we don't want to frighten the vicar!"

In a resurgence of fratricidal-like vigor, Ed says No!  We will freeze for 22 months!  I have it on good authority that within 22 months of the establishment of our Socialist utopia, we will be able to produce sufficient quantities of both left and right foot clogs for the masses to wear.  This will keep them happy, when the freeze ends!

Perhaps it didn't happen quite like this but ...............

Miliband knows better than most that the more significant part of average energy bills is represented by environmental taxes - more than 10% of the cost.  Then there is VAT at around 6%.  The profit element comes in at less than 5% (and don't forget that this profit has also been taxed and any subsequent dividends paid, will be taxed!).

Miliband knows because it was he, as the minister at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, during the last Labour mis-government, that brought in the legislation that imposes such punitive (and futile) green taxes. 

I guess you can take the minister out of power but you can't take the spin and mendacity out of the minister?

Oh, and related to the above and before anyone bothers to question the futility of these green taxes.  Tell me, how can scientists be 95% certain that global warming is man-made? 

Firstly, their own evidence (embarrassingly) doesn't actually show any sustained warming unless they slice-up the data to fit the required answer - so from June 22nd 2013 through July 5th 2013, temperatures rose at an alarming rate and the freezer at Blackpool's Iceland store was unable to cope and the internal ice-caps started to melt - ergo man-made global warming!

Secondly, what kind of science is it that is 95% certain?  Can you be 95% dead?  95% pregnant?  Can we be 95% certain that the tensile strength of an object is X?  How was this 95% figure derived?  Using some kind of probability analysis, maybe?  Given that the data used by the IPCC and their fellow green-gravy-train travelers, has been found to be almost completely flawed, wrong and sometimes just plain manufactured, one would have to take any such analysis with mountains of salt!

I am not a scientist but recall from my schooldays that scientific experimentation was about proving something with a 100% degree of certainty.  Simply put, if I construct a compound of X% of this chemical and Y% of that one, I can expect to always see the same results and can prove and replicate my experiment.  Has science changed?  If I put a little bit less than X% or Y% into the compound and got different results would it be okay so long as they were 95% right?







 

  

Cameron's Conference speech leaked - Exclusive!

What follows is a copy of the speech (including notes)  that David Cameron will give to the Conservative Party conference, next week.  How it was obtained, only Snowden knows!

Conference, thank you for that rousing welcome!  It is always good to visit Manchester (note to self, ask Grant why we are meeting in Manchester, other than Gid's do we have any seats up here?)

Well what a year it has been, since we last met.  Andy Murray won Wimbledon (pause for applause) and in spite of Alex Salmond's buffoonish behaviour with the Saltire,  didn't come out in favour of Independence for Scotland, the British Lions, the epitome of the Union at its best, plus the Irish , of course, beat the Aussies, down under and England won the Ashes - Hope that doesn't sound like Aussie bashing!  After all Australia has just elected a solidly Conservative party, led by Tony Abbot.

Sporting triumphs aside, we have also seen progress on the home front.

Our Conservative Chancellor, George Osborne has managed to get the economy stoked-up enough so that we are seeing a growing economy (not to self, don't ad lib about green shoots, in fact don't mention horticulture, at all!).  He has managed to do this without making the so called 'savage cuts' that our opponents in the Welfare Party accused us of.   Make no mistake though, we have turned a corner but there is still a long way to go. 

We do need to do a lot more to roll back the state;

Iain Duncan-Smith is pushing forwards with reforms to Welfare which will mean that those in work are better-off than those out of work.  Also, as recently announced, that those out of work, will now have to work for their welfare handouts (pause for applause) - I know, many of you and much of the country think - about time!  But you know we now have to contend not just with the opposition Welfare Party, but also with our Coalition partners and now the United Nations. 

Yes, Conference it seems that the United Nations, the organisation that did such a great job in Rwanda and Srebrencia feels compelled to lecture the UK government on our welfare policies.  The same organisation that appointed Gaddafi as a member of the UN Human Rights Council, now thinks it knows enough about the UK to pronounce on our democratically approved policies!  (Pause for applause).  Well, Grant Shapps told them where to get off, didn't he!  (Pause for applause)

 We haven't been inactive on the home front either. 

Theresa May persevered and succeeded where countless Labour ministers failed and finally got Abu Qatada extradited to Jordan.  (Pause for applause).  We need to ensure that people like him are never allowed to abuse our judicial systems in the future.  So, our next election manifesto will include a commitment to repeal all of the Human Rights legislation that has so hampered our country.  Our people have said Enough is Enough! 

We have heard the people and we will act accordingly! (Pause for applause).

A former Prime Minister once talked of being 'tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime'.  Well we know where that led.  Decent, honest people afraid to walk the streets because of anti-social yobs, our town centres made no-go areas and overrun with drunken mobs on weekends and killers and rapists getting light sentences and being let out to re-offend.  Well Conference, this must and will stop! Our election manifesto will include policies designed to appropriately punish these people and protect you and the millions of others who are fed-up to the back teeth with a softly softly approach. 

We have heard the people and we will act accordingly! (Pause for applause).

Thinking of that former Prime Minister and  his successor, I must say that I now understand why we inherited such an economic shambles!  Reading all of the various diaries and memoirs, it was clear that these tribunes of the Welfare Party were much more concerned about stabbing each other in the back and smearing and leaking against themselves, than in running the country!   (Pause for applause). 

And they had the cheek to call us the nasty party! (Pause for applause).  Well no more!  The great people of Britain, know that it is the  Conservative Party and its economic policies that have pulled the country back from the brink of economic ruin - a minister in the last Labour government thought it a joke to leave us a note saying 'there's no money left'.

How can it ever be funny that you have fairy-tale policies and unsustainable economics that bring your country to the edge of the precipice?   The British people didn't see it as a joke!  We have all had to 'tighten our belts' over the last few years and let's not pretend it was easy.  It wasn't!  Many good, decent, hardworking people have had to scrimp and save and stretch the family budget just to get by. 

They know, as do we, that the country is now on the path to recovery.  I have no doubt that some of our people have been hurt in this period and for now, they may blame the Coalition but the overwhelming majority of people understand that the Conservatives had to do what needed doing, hard as that was.  The great British people know that truth and hard facts, however unpalatable are always better than spin and lies and taking money from A to give to B and then giving A tax credits and such. 

We have heard the people and we will act accordingly! (Pause for applause).

One of the people helping me put this speech together said ' Well Prime Minister, I suppose you can't get away without mentioning Europe'  (Pause for laughter?)

Of course I want to talk about Europe.  The Conservative Party is the ONLY party, yes the ONLY party to offer a referendum to the great British people.  I have said, and I do stand by my commitments, that if re-elected, the Conservative Party will engage with the EU and seek a re-negotiation of our terms of membership and then we will put the results of the deal, to a vote by the people of Great Britain.  People tell my ministers, MPs and I of their concerns about the EU, so I think I have a good idea of what it is we need to get from these talks - I suppose the over-arching theme is for Britain to regain control over many areas of our lives and to act like the sovereign nation which we are.

We have heard the people and we will act accordingly! (Pause for applause).  And we are the ONLY ones who will do so!

The Welfare Party met in Brighton last week.  I am not sure who to feel sorry for.  The smearers and back-stabbers that nominally lead the party?  How can all of this loathing of supposed colleagues be good for you?  It certainly wasn't good for Britain. 

Or should we all  feel sorry for Unite Union members?  They are led by Len McCluskey and he, having elected a leader that he chose - of course then the back-stabbing was even more brutal - your own brother, imagine -  had to take  all sorts of threats from this jumped-up party leader who had the temerity to question vote-rigging and such.  Fortunately Len was able to remind his party - well he does pay for so much of it, it is only fare to call it his party - that he holds the purse strings and is quite prepared to sit on his money if needed!  If he doesn't get his own way! 

To coin a phrase.  The Welfare Party has heard Len McCluskey and their other Union masters, and will act accordingly.

The big idea from the Welfare Party, other than spending money we don't have - and spending the same money multiple times, if their tax and spend policies are to be believed - well the big idea was a freeze on energy prices.

Now consider what that means.  We have already heard from the energy companies that this would stifle much needed investment (and the jobs that go with it) and could lead to black-outs and so on.

But leave that aside, for now.  Consider just how much profit is made by the energy companies.  The average home energy bill is around £1,200 a year.  Of this, around £50 is the company's profit, which is used to fund investments and dividends to shareholders - including pension funds!  Of the rest of the cost, more than £110 is so called Green Taxes.

These Green Taxes are a DIRECT result of the last Labour Government's legislation on Climate Change.  They put in place taxes that cause far more hardship for people than the profit that is made by energy companies.  AND, the policy doesn't work - these taxes penalise the British people and British companies by giving us higher energy costs and then make an infinitesimally  small contribution to reducing so called greenhouse gases, which is more than wiped out by the emissions from the economically emerging countries!

And so Conference, I can today announce that, as part of our next manifesto, we will include a commitment, to immediately repeal the punitive and tax affecting parts of the Climate Change Act.  This will have the immediate effect of PERMANENTLY abolishing the Green Taxes - not for twenty months - PERMANENTLY.

We have heard the people and we will act accordingly! (Pause for applause).

Staying with the environment and industry, we will scrap the HS2 and we will use the money saved to fund a tax cut for married people and to promote more and more Free Schools. 

The tax cut will be two fold - firstly to allow the sharing of unused tax allowances, between married couples and then to provide a specific deduction for married couples.  We, in the Conservative Party, recognise marriage as the bedrock of a stable society.

Free Schools?  Michael Gove has quietly led a revolution and people are seeing that we can have an education system that delivers quality teaching without the constraints of local control - local control that more often than not pays more attention to political correctness and the teaching unions than it does to parents.

We have heard the people and we will act accordingly! (Pause for applause).

Remember all those ads about the NHS isn't safe under the Conservatives?  History will judge whether they were right.  What we do know is that the PEOPLE using the NHS weren't safe under Labour.  People died, unnecessarily because the layer upon layer of management fostered a culture of hiding from the truth.  They were so focused on statistics and charts and status and their own compensation, that they forgot about the people they were hired to serve.  People died in appalling and shaming conditions.  That can never happen again, never!

Safe in their hands?  I don't think so and neither do the British people!

We have heard the people and we will act accordingly! (Pause for applause).

Finally Conference,  three things.

Firstly, I want to congratulate all of the Conservative members of the Coalition.  Listening to our Coalition Partner's recent conference, you might get the idea that THEY did everything either pushing this or that policy through parliament or stopping the Conservatives pushing a policy through but the fact is, that we have got on with doing the job.  Coalition isn't easy.  I won't pretend it isn't frustrating when changes to electoral boundaries are sacrificed in a petulant fit of pique but the great British people want us to get the country right, so we just have to suck it up and do the bigger job!

We have heard the people and we will act accordingly! (Pause for applause).

Secondly, I want to address the voters in Scotland.  You need to know that all of the people of Britain and at this  Conference passionately hope that you will vote No in next year's referendum.  Together we are better - better-off, better placed in the world and better able to enjoy our shared history and a prosperous future.

Thirdly, I want to talk about something that everyone says I shouldn't discuss - UKIP.  More specifically I want to talk to people that are considering supporting UKIP.  Simply put, I want you to think about which party can really give you a voice on Europe?  Which party can really address welfare abuse and has already introduced a benefits cap?  Which party can continue the curbs that the Conservatives have introduced on immigration?   Which party is most concerned about repatriating powers from Brussels?

Ask yourselves these questions and you will know that it is only the Conservative Party that can and will deliver what you want.

Conference,
The great British people have made sacrifices and together we have turned back from the edge of economic ruin.  We have started to address welfare and make the great British tradition of honest and hard work pay again.  We make no apology for not wanting to reward fecklessness.  We will, just as the great British people have always done, continue to help those in need.  We will continue to put Britain's interests at the forefront of our international dealings and in the EU.

Why?

Because that is what we are about and that is what the great British people want us to be about.


We have heard the people and we will act accordingly! (Pause for applause).

Syria again

Following on from my recent post.

The British media seems dumbfounded that the House of Commons voted against British participation in any military intervention in Syria.

Let me help them understand.

Firstly, there are all those memories of Iraq and the sexed-up dossier.  Sadly, the UN weapons inspector, Dr David Kelly, wasn't the only person to lose his life over this.  100,000's of Iraqis lost their lives too.  As did UK, US and troops from other nations.  And still the heartache continues for the Iraqi people.

Linked to the above, the most oft-cited criticism of the 2003 invasion was the lack of any coherent plan for the next stage.  Everyone wanted rid of Saddam Hussein but no one gave thought to what or who would replace him.  The Iraqi people are still suffering the effects.

Ordinary people in the UK and US (overwhelmingly opposed to intervention, polls suggest) know, that without some kind of plan for the post-Assad era, then the current regional instability will only increase.  The business author/guru has one of his Seven Habits of Successful People as 'start with the end in mind'.  I can't believe that the aim here is just to remove Assad.

I suspect that the people of the UK also have two over-riding thoughts on Syria.

Yes the pictures and events are truly horrible but what is it to do with us?  Why should the UK get involved?  The US sets itself as the 'world's policeman' so let them stick their nose in, keep ours out!

Secondly, why should the UK spend money it doesn't have, interfering in another country? Such interference will only lead to negative consequences for the UK economy.  The UK simply cannot afford to intervene - financially so.  How can we spend millions on bombs and jet fuel while preaching the need for austerity at home?  If there are millions of £ to spare, how about putting that by and giving it back to taxpayers?  Or, since government simply chokes on the idea of reducing taxes, how about paying out to people suffering from fuel poverty as a result of idiotic green policies?

I think that it comes down to that.  I don't think that most people look to the regional instability that is now in play and the tremendous uncertainty that we all face, as a consequence.  Perhaps they do see Syria as the proxy war battleground between Saudi Arabia and Iran but the questions remain - what is this to do with the UK? 

There are of course humanitarian reasons to intervene but these reasons have prevailed in many other places and the West has closed its eyes.  I think though, that this time the scales have fallen from the eyes of the UK people and, fortunately from the eyes of UK parliamentarians.  

Oh and I won't be misled (and I suspect neither will the British public) by so called American intelligence reports.  These presumably come from the CIA?  The same CIA that couldn't protect the US Ambassador and three fellow Americans at Benghazi, Libya, last September 11? 

Ask yourself this.  Suppose that there is military intervention - we know this will only involve bombing or missiles - how will the interventionists ensure only the 'guilty' are targeted?  Then ask yourself, what's next?  I don't have the answer and I suspect that neither do our so called leaders.

Syria - The Vote! Questions for the Syrian opposition.

Well done to the UK Parliament! 

The opposition of the Labour Party to the UK Coalition government's motion was entirely predictable.  Though the performance of Labour's leader, Ed Miliband, lacked any passion and consisted of more froth than a bad latte! 

What was very encouraging, indeed heartening, was the 30 Tory MPs that voted against their own government.  And, to be fair,the 9 Lib Dem MPs who did the same.

Here is my 'take' on Syria and those chemical weapon attacks.

At best the House of Commons vote was premature.  The UN inspection team has not yet reported on the latest attacks but the UK and US government have both jumped-in and stated that they know this is the work of the Assad regime. 

Consider though, what did the Assad regime have to gain by such an action?  By most accounts, the regime were in the ascendancy in the civil war.  The fractious 'rebels' had been indulging in internecine squabbling and murder within the areas that they controlled and their lack of a serious 'government in waiting' (more in a moment on this) as well as seeming, at times, more focused on gaining localised advantages (see the stories about the attacks on Syria's non-Shiite people) rather than on regime change surely must put on the table the possibility that it was the 'rebels' that carried out the attacks. 

Just think about it!  They are losing.  They have heard the ever more foolish Obama speak of 'red lines', they have heard France's Hollande and Britain's Cameron and Hague talk of the need to stop the carnage caused by the Assad regime (the deaths caused by the 'rebels' somehow are always overlooked), so what to do?  How about finding a means to convince the world that the 'red lines' have been crossed?  A way to suck in the media obsessed Obama with shots of children, suffering hideously, on TV

In a dirty war such as Syria, no bets are off of the table.  And frankly, I would be very sceptical of any evidence produced by either side or the UN.  Everything is tainted. 

The 'rebels', heavily infiltrated by Al Qaeda, know the value of dragging-in the 'West', both in the short term by bolstering their own failing military efforts and in the medium/longer term in showing the 'infidel West' as forever interfering in the region and pursuing a pro-Israel policy etc.. 

The Assad regime is of course, beyond the Pale.  Their subjugation of their own people and inhumane treatment, has been going on for years though.  David Cameron alleges that this latest chemical attack was number eleven, by the Syrian government, on its own people.  So why did the previous ten  attacks not warrant action or comment? 

I don't have the 'answer' to Syria but I do believe that military intervention by the 'West' will be akin to pouring petrol onto a fire rather than water. 

The 'water' needed must come from the Russian inspired political process which seeks to get people talking rather than killing.  It is galling that the odious Putin is leading the right way for a resolution!  That though is one outcome of Syria.  Strange bed-fellows abound.  Just look at the Syrian 'rebels'.  This includes people and groups who have a long history of opposition to Assad and to his father, before him.  Then you have the allegedly religiously inspired jihadists who are happy to latch on to any cause that promotes their ideal of foment and religious cleansing as well as an anti-West agenda.  These groups include Al Qaeda and its affiliates.  However, this opposition is fractured and is struggling to come together to present a united front and to coalesce around an agreed negotiating team and policy.  Exactly what do the 'rebels' want?  Obviously, the overthrow of Assad but then?  

So Obama feeds those 'conspiracy nuts' by allying the US with a group that includes the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks!   Allowing the likes of the, surely certifiably mad, British MP George Galloway, to make mendacious statements which nevertheless have a patina of plausibility.  And all the time, Obama, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, is preparing for war - and make no mistake, the USA unilaterally attacking Syria, will be a declaration of war, there will be no cover of a UN resolution, no 'coalition of the willing', indeed, since Obama isn't even consulting the US Congress, no local democratic mandate.

I find it incredibly ironic that the Nobel Committee manages to give the Peace Prize to both Obama and later the European Union and both are increasingly belligerent as regards Syria.  To say the prize is devalued by such is to forget that Yasser Arafat was also a recipient!

So 'jaw jaw not war war' wins the day in the UK.  And, at a fundamental level, despite David Cameron's short term 'discomfort' (as it will be portrayed by the Labour Party and their media allies), democracy, in the UK is stronger today!

Well done to the Thirty and the Nine!

Incidentally, opinion polls suggested that public support for military intervention, in both the UK and USA was found to be 11%

Over to you, President Obama and the US Congress!

The new censors and the rule of law

Don't you feel at all troubled, these days?  Something bothering you?  Have you maybe read a news story or seen an item on TV that concerns you?

Well, keep quiet about it!  Shut up!  Stay silent, say nothing because if just maybe your view doesn't conform to the latest orthodoxy, then you will be pilloried.

Don't believe me?  Consider Yelena Isinbayeva.  The Russian Pole Vault champion was reported to have voiced support for the laws of her motherland or rather one law in particular.  The law that makes it a criminal offence to promote homosexuality to those less than 18 year's of age. 

Cue squeals of outrage from the pink mafia and their slavish followers.

Isinbayeva has now qualified her remarks to say that what she really meant to say, and maybe it got mangled in her use of the English language, was that all people should respect the laws of the country that they are in, at any given time.  So, if you are in Russia and they have a law that says what you can do and say about homosexuality, to an under 18, then follow that law.  She didn't go on to say that in Russia you must also not kill people or steal or set fire to buildings or other stuff but I suspect that she meant all of those laws should also be followed, as well.

I guess it's kind of like when foreigners come to visit the UK, we have this tendency to require them to follow our laws , I understand the same applies in France, the USA and, come to think of it, the whole world over.  Imagine what it would be like to drive in the UK, if Americans could simply ignore the law and drive on the side of the road with which they are familiar.

Personally, I don't have a problem with what I understand of the new law in Russia.  However, if I did, I guess I wouldn't go to that country and if I were a Winter Olympics athlete and felt very strongly about it, I would boycott the Sochi games.  I don't think it would be right for me to expect my fellow athletes to follow me in a boycott, after all, maybe they have their own views which are not totally in synch with mine.  At the moment, people are still allowed to have their own opinions since the new censors haven't yet managed to get their control of 'group think' to be total.  Right now these new censors can only use their minor celebrity status and acolytes to push their views through a like-minded main stream media.

Problem is though, the new censors don't yet control Twitter and blogs like this.  They want to control it though.  Recently, in the UK, some people posted hateful messages on the sites of some women.  Now in respect of some of these messages, they would seem to have been hateful enough that they contravened laws.  In these cases then, the law should be enforced but the new censors want to go after Twitter, instead.  To me' it's a bit like prosecuting knife manufacturers because someone was stabbed or Toyota because a Corolla was involved in a fatal accident.

The real truth though is that these new censors go after Twitter simply because they cannot stand to allow people a medium that they do not control.  They control main stream media - the biased BBC
is riddled with a 'right-on' metropolitan elite that knows better than the people that pay their wages and simply don't process stories that don't fit their agenda.

So if you are at all concerned, either shut up or keep on pushing Twitter and other social media to stay censor free.  Other than the privacy of our own minds (even Big Brother couldn't really get inside Winston Smith's), we have few outlets where we can freely express ourselves.

Advice for visitors to Britain

I wouldn't normally give advice to visitors to Britain.  Preferring instead to let people find there way around and discover the beauties of our lovely and history-filled island. 

However, recent events lead me to warn people of the perils that they may come across. 

The thing is, you may see people in certain rural idylls mimicking ostriches.  Yes, that's right, you will see the rear ends (most will hopefully be clothed) of country dwellers with their heads buried in the sand. 

Many of these people reside in the southern counties of England and enjoy the natural beauty while at the same time commuting into London where they can earn the salaries that afford them and their families, this lifestyle.  These people are truly fortunate because they are able to manage this lifestyle and yet not need any hydro-carbon based energy to do so. 

How do I know this?  Well, it must be so.  It must be that these people travel by foot or pedal power and light and heat their houses using personal solar power panels.  All that lovely country food must get cooked on solar powered stoves or open wood-burning fires.  These fortunate  people must also be blessed with an absence of internet and TV interfering with their lives and those pesky mobile phones don't blight their life, either.  And of course, they never, ever holiday abroad!

This has to be so because otherwise they wouldn't be opposing onshore drilling.  They would understand that the 4x4s that they drive require hydro-carbons, that the electricity that is used comes mostly from gas-fired stations.  They would have read, in a carbon-environment newspaper, that the UK is facing a severe energy crisis and within 2 years the country will face power outages.  They will have heard and read stories about the high energy taxes that are causing the death of old people who simply cannot afford to heat their homes, in the winter.  

Knowing all this though, they oppose exploratory drilling which just might provide solutions to the country's energy needs.  To say nothing of the fiscal benefits which might accrue to the country!

Why do they oppose?  There is some that twaddle on about the drilling rigs being an eyesore.  In this they are supported by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.  All though are content to see wind turbines, despoil the countryside.  These wind turbines will be around for 25 years, unless they burn-up before (as some have already done so).  The drilling rigs will be there for a couple of months, at most,  and then they will be removed to be replaced, if the well is successful, with a low profile pumping system - think nodding donkey - that can be hidden by a stand of conifer hedges.  Don't believe me?  Go look in Lincolnshire around Welton, Nettleham and Keddington and see the extent of despoilation (and when you don't see any, you will know what I mean !).

A further fear relates to 'fracking'.  Understand first that the drilling activity that is currently being opposed, includes zero as in no, fracking activity.  None, nada, zilch!

If hydro-carbons are found, they are likely to be in gas form and will most likely require fracking to facilitate extraction.  So, what about fracking?  Based on the mendacious stories from Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth and the totally discredited Gasland movie from Josh Fox, you would expect aquifer pollution - the actual fact that these wells drill through and beyond the water-table and then 'case-off' the aquifer zone, isn't allowed to get in the way of the lie that pollution occurs - it doesn't pure and simple.  Don't take my word for it.  Do your own research on the USA's Environmental Protection Agency website.  See how many instances of groundwater pollution they have recorded, during the ongoing shale drilling boom, indeed since 'fracking' first started in the mid 1940s.  Oh and don't be concerned at the talk of secret chemical recipes being pumped into the ground.  Lots of companies have 'secret recipes'.  Ever heard of Coca Cola or KFC's coating mix?

Then, talking of booms we get to seismic activity - that is the accusation that fracking causes earthquakes to occur.  This will cause country churches to topple and houses to develop cracks, just prior to falling over and killing all of the inhabitants and, perish the thought, school roofs to fall and smother children.  Again, do your own research.  Find out how many homes and buildings have been devastated by fracking in America, where thousands of wells have been fracked.  Tip - you won't find any data because there isn't any but Greenpeace and FoE don't want facts or the truth to get in the way of driving us all back to a non-carbon environment where we can sit in un-heated homes and work just down the road from our hovel.

So dear traveler, don't be surprised by any sighting  of the 'lesser brained nimbyist'  These selfish animals, when not burying their head in the sand and chirping their 'not in my back yard' mating call can sometimes be found communing with their local, usually Conservative, MP.  This creature comes from the genus money-grubbing hypocratus and when not concerned with feathering its nest has the uncanny ability to talk out of its rear-end while moving its lips.  These MPs are characterised by self-interest and such short-termism that would make a City trader blush!

So dear traveler, come visit, close your ears to the whining and eco-lies and instead enjoy this green and pleasant land.  Visit those churches that have stood for hundreds of years and marvel at the landscape.  Try also to picture that landscape before parts of it were ruined by loony eco-policies that heavily subsidise the installation of wind turbines.