Debate comment

I managed to watch most of last night's 'Leaders debate' via Sky News.  Hmm!

Is it me or was it basically 6 against one?

We had the leader of the SNP, who isn't even standing for parliament (see here) simply stirring the pot.  She was mainly there to make sure that Red Ed Miliband knows who he will be reporting to, should he enter into any kind of alliance with the SNP.

We had the leader of the Welsh Nationalists who, given a perfect opportunity to attack Labour, over its criminally inept running of the NHS, in Wales, chose not to do so.

We also had the Greens leader, the Australian Natalie Bennett, whose nasal twang failed to hide her extreme left-wing views.  James Delingpole, writing in Watermelons, his brilliantly written expose of the environmentalist movement, called 'greens' Watermelons - green on the outside and red on the inside but Nuttalie Bennett managed to be red all the way through.  Out of politeness, no one mentioned that Brighton town council, the only one run by the Greens, in the UK, now has a worse record on environmental recycling than under the previous regime.

Nigel Farage, from UKIP managed to make every issue link back to immigration and he successfully managed to get across the point that while the UK remains in the European Union, we can do very little to curb immigration from within the EU.

Nick Clegg, until recently, sitting around the Cabinet table with Conservative leader, David Cameron, sought to distance himself from the Tories and make claims of bravery, for the good of the country, etc..

Ed Miliband  pushed his economic idiocy - spend more, borrow more but we won't tax more - and as was to be expected, wrapped himself in the NHS.  As said earlier, he wasn't punished on the shocking state of the NHS in Labour-run Wales and banged on about spending more on the NHS, again and again.  Miliband mentioned the situation where one NHS hospital was treating or assessing people in an emergency tent, erected in a car park.  My own view is that I would rather be examined in a tent in a car park than treated in the Labour run Mid Staffs hospitals where people died unnecessarily because of Labour policy.

David Cameron was located on the edge, both literally and policy-wise.  He was standing on the economic competence of the Conservatives and had a good story to present - tellingly, none of the other parties managed to attack the Tory successes.  Cameron made some good points about all of the other parties wanting to tax, borrow and spend more and, addressing Nick Clegg, his propensity to 'pick and mix' which for Coalition policies he now  professes public support.

The Guardian newspaper, according to the BBC Today programme, (I would never buy the newspaper, I much prefer Andrex) referring to the debates spoke of  UK politics being 'fractured'.  I disagree with the newspaper.  UK politics are not fractured they are split.  We have the Conservatives on one side, providing a right of centre platform and then we have the other six parties, mentioned above, all pushing a platform of more spending - that's what less austerity means - more borrowings and higher taxes.  They all know, even the looniest Green, that taxing the 'rich' will never raise enough tax to pay for all of their welfare policies, and so taxes on the middle classes will have to increase.

This General Election presents the UK with a stark choice - continue taking the Conservative economic medicine which has done much to restore the health of the UK economy or go for any one of the others which will spend , borrow and tax more and will continue to impoverish our children and grandchildren.

There is almost only one choice - vote Conservative or perhaps vote UKIP where they have a chance against Labour.

Conservative campaigning

Like some others reading this, I received an e-mail yesterday, from the Conservative Party.  They wanted me to take part in a quick survey seeking my views about what was important to me and my family and what was important to the country on a range of subjects.

I responded in what I think is a conservative way and am not shy to share them with others.

The issues facing me and my family - the level of taxes, government deficit and debt and opportunities for the next generation.  I could only choose three!

Those issues (don't you just hate that word - issues?  Sounds so Tony Benn and 1960/70s socialism ) that are most important to the country tax levels, deficit and debt and the EU.

Who would I prefer as Prime Minister?  The choice is Ed Miliband or David Cameron - so no real choice, then. 

Then, I submitted the survey and received a thank you and an appeal for a donation.

The latter made me think of why I don't donate to the Conservative Party and then to wonder why I was asked these questions.

Firstly, the poll results are rarely published - and I think that there is a reason for that.  I believe that those people that bother to respond - the 'saddos' like myself - will do so along the lines I have answered.  That is, following and supporting 'traditional' Conservative values. 

One of the choices offered was 'the environment and  climate change.'  Do I care about these?  Of course I do but do I put these above the needs of my family or my country?  No!  Do I agree that the British people should be impoverished  on some less than half-baked policy that says Canute-like,  that Britain can single-handedly reduce so called green-house gas emissions in any meaningful way?  No!  Especially when we seek to do so while importing ever higher levels of mass produced Chinese goods that are made in an increasingly carbon-energy based environment!   

PS Note how it is now called 'climate change' and no longer 'man-made global warming'!  Initially I thought that this was a good sign - that science was returning to a fact-based approach to climate and, recognizing that there has been no appreciable actual warming, in recent years and that they had been hood-winked by a bunch of watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside - read James Delingpole's book of the same name - highly entertaining and informative!) but no, the charlatans that eschew scientific practice and doctor test results and data to fit a pre-conceived premise still hold sway.  'They' have just realized that even 'they' can't get away with fooling all of the people, all of the time.  So don't change the fundamental lie, just change some of the words!

Anyway, green rage rant over.

So, I suspect that the actual purpose of the survey was to rekindle my conservative views and then seek to get me to make a donation to the Conservative Party, on the basis that this party supports the views that I have just endorsed.

That might work, if, for one minute, I actually believed that the Conservative Party did support  and share my views on low taxes or deficit and debt reduction.  But they don't.  As evidence, I offer the last 4 years.  Neither taxes nor the deficit are appreciably reduced from the levels left by the outgoing Labour party, in 2010.  Directionally, Britain is still left-leaning.

The leftist approach to politics is to push the socialist agenda, ever leftwards.  They do this by taking a great stride in that direction.  If there is concerted opposition to the extent of the leftward thrust, then they move back a little but the net position is that the policy/country has moved to the left - they step a yard to the left and retreat six inches, if you like. 

The UK Conservatives, since before the downfall of Margaret Thatcher, have been afraid to do likewise in a right-ward direction.  Since they are effectively 'professional' politicians, and the same applies, maybe even more so, to the other parties, there whole raison d'etre is about getting elected and re-elected.  So the question isn't that personal taxes are too high, the argument rages around the top rate, which actually doesn't affect too many people (and of, course doesn't raise that much income!).  The whole premise of the discussion is not about the iniquity of taxes (or theft/confiscation by the state, to give it its right name) and how they should be minimized but rather about a small and inconsequential sub-sub-part of taxation.  One, incidentally on which you might see some Conservatives wavering, on the grounds that someone earning £1M  a year can better afford to suffer higher taxes for the common good!

The Conservatives need to offer a radical platform based on traditional Conservative values.  This would require stepping a yard or two to the right - moving the ground on which the arguments are held, to the right. 

Consider Britain in 1979.  The country was very close to collapse and to the anarchy that would have followed a left-wing victory in the election.  However, Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives were elected and set about re-taking power from the union-bosses that had brought the country to the brink.  These Conservatives didn't do so in some kind of cosy and conciliatory way.  They large-stepped to the right and said this is they way the problem with unions will be addressed.  How effective was this?  Well along with the failed Miner's strike of 1984/5 the whole landscape changed.  Unions in Britain are now largely confined to the remaining state bastions - the civil service, local government and the NHS and barely present in private industry.  It is also interesting to note that having loosened the grip of the leftist unions, there has since been no mandate to undo the reforms that  the first Thatcher government brought in, nor the enhancements that they enacted, subsequently.
So in this field, at least, the leftward direction of the union agenda was halted and then moved to the right and has remained there. 

The same needs to happen in other areas but I don't get the sense that the current crop of Conservatives are the ones to do it.  It is almost that we need to experience some of the economic convulsions that have affected Greece and Italy before we can expect to see a mainstream party offering Conservative solutions.

It is quite depressing that we  might need to see riots on the streets and very high unemployment and real and deep austerity being imposed (from outside!), before we can get a Conservative view put forward - one that says, we are going to take not one but two or more steps to the right and restore the UK.  We will take back sovereignty from the EU, we will scrap green taxes that are asinine and dis-proportionately punish poorer people, we will create a wealth-generating economy that allows the individual to keep a far higher portion of what they earn and so on.   You can read more here  http://bit.ly/1lFufJL and here http://bit.ly/MCuYMt


Donate to the Conservative Party?  I think not.  To them I am just a 'swivel-eyed loony'.  They will get my vote but only because the alternatives are even more ghastly but they won't get my money!


By the way.  Read the bit about Margaret Thatcher and what the Conservatives did, again.  

These Conservatives didn't do so in some kind of cosy and conciliatory way.  They large-stepped to the right and said this is they way the problem with unions will be addressed.

See how much better it is when an 'issue' is honestly called what it is? 
 

2012 Books read

In this I include Kindle versions.  I love the 'feel' of real books but Kindle is just so practical when I have to travel so much in connection with my job.

Here are some of the books I have read in 2012, and comments.

Watermelons - James Delingpole - Excellent expose of the scare-mongering and downright lies at the heart of the  so called Global Warming industry.  Delingpole delves into the organizations that are milking this manufactured 'scare' and exposes the hidden agenda of control and the inherent socialist 'principles' behind this scam.  He does this with a light touch and manages to convey complex information and facts in a not too serious and never dull manner.  Hopefully he will stick with the mission and maybe look at Fracking next?

The Hunger Games triology - Suzanne Collins - Read these and skip the very poor movie adaptation of the first book.  These books really do 'grip' and one gets the sense of despair and isolation - something that is so missing in the movie.

Jack Reacher series - Lee Child.  Not meaning to be disrespectful but these are good 'airport' books (even if read on Kindle!)  They are not deeply challenging intellectual books but a good yarn about someone with a strong moral compass who seems to attract trouble and who knows how to deal with it! Oh!  I have just heard there is a Jack Reacher movie!  Tom Cruise in the title role - why oh why would you make a parody?  Because the lightweight and vertically challenged Cruise could never seriously be cast as Reacher.  Does Hollywood ever read books?  Or are they too busy making caring ads seeking to control other peoples' lives?

Jerusalem - Simon Sebag Montefiore  This is a 'biography' of a city.  For me it sounds an unusual concept but this works and one does get a sense of the character of the city and how it has developed, over such a long time.  My only complaint is that the most recent history seemed to be the least explored.  I found myself at the end of the book before I realized I was close!  The % counter on the Kindle misled because of all of the notes and, a Kindle drawback, one doesn't get that visual check that one does, from a real book.

Our Culture - What's left of it - Theodore Dalrymple - Always enjoyed his columns for The Spectator and this books carries on the tradition of observations on a world that most of us don't see - the under-belly of British (or maybe that's just English) society.  The writing is clear and precise.  This really should be required reading for all of the 'ology' students at universities.  All those who aspire to rule us should understand what exists out there in the real world rather than what they believe exists in their welfare- dependent Utopia.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo series  - Stieg Larsson - Again, better than the film version.  Gripping and the way that this history unfolds?  Brilliant.

Eye of the Needle and others - Ken Follett -  Good yarns, well written and researched and well worth re-visiting.

Blood Hunt and Doors Open - Ian Rankin.  There really isn't much to say - Rankin, as always, is simply superb.

Shibumi, Satori and The Loo Sanction - Trevanian - I first read Shibumi and the Loo Sanction something like 30 years ago.  The return to this much under-rated author was well-rewarded.  I urge you to find out the quality, for yourself.

Energy hypocrisy - not to be missed

The UK utility companies have all now, save for e on, issued announcements of significant and way above inflation increases in fuel prices. 

The latest was French giant EDF which announced increase which average out at 10.8%.  Naturally the media rigorously investigated the cause or need for such a large increase - oh wait!  They didn't.

EDF stated that the reason that this increase was necessary was because wholesale gas prices had risen by 4%, oh, and the rest was caused by power users needing to subsidize renewable energy costs and the vulnerable.

I do not have a problem with EDF making a profit, reported to be £ 1.6 billion, last year.  This, on a turnover of more than £52 billion doesn't seem excessive.  Anyway, isn't Ofgem there to see that the utility companies are not gouging us?

I do though have a problem with having to subsidize the ugly and inefficient renewables power sector.  And to be subsidizing them in such a great way but also in such a concealed way.  Why are political parties not shouting, loudly and often, that the greater portion of our energy costs are being used to sustain an otherwise totally unsustainable industry?  Where is the media outrage at this wholesale daylight and nighttime robbery?

I am afraid you won't see it because to do so would be to attack two of the greatest of modern day myths - The EU and the 'man-made Global warming' lie.

The EU is pushing for and legislating for carbon emission reductions - the UK is in the forefront of closing down coal fired power stations.  So much in the front that Ofgem predict we will experience wide-spread power outages within a couple of years.  Not because we can't afford the fuel or because it isn't available but simply because we are choosing to follow idiotic and half-baked (and certainly un-joined-up) Green policies.

The James Delingpole book, Watermelons, does a far better job than I could ever do at exposing the sham and shaming so called 'science' about 'man-made Global warming'.  I strongly recommend this as a must-read.  Delingpole painstakingly and convincingly confronts the myths being perpetrated  and exposes them for the lies that they are.

 Then there is the other purported reason for the higher than wholesale price increase - namely that the energy providers are now taking on the social responsibility of subsidizing the 'vulnerable in society'.  Yes that's right!  Energy prices now act as a re-distributive tax to take from some and give to others.

What's next?  Mothercare or Tesco charging higher prices for disposable nappies and then subsidizing those poor teenage mums who made the wrong 'career choice'?

Surely if these 'vulnerable members of society' needed help in paying their bills then the state's welfare programmes should be used?  Not some hidden 'poor tax' in our energy prices.

Oh, and think again about those wholesale gas price increases.  Where in the world have they decreased rather than increased?  The good old US of A.  Why?  Because the USA has embraced shale gas and is full-on exploiting it.  In  the UK and EU though, this is something that the 'greens' simply can't allow.  A hair shirt is only effective if it hurts make it from angora and it just doesn't achieve the redistributive goal!

Don't let anyone tell you that these price increases couldn't be avoided!  And, when you and your family are sitting around a candle, wrapped up in sweaters and overcoats, remember it is the 'greens' that pushed us to this and consider that, if they have their way, those man-made fibres that are barely keeping you warm, will have to go as well!         

David Cameron must know about this con game, he must.  Apparently his father-in-law is a major beneficiary of the wind-power subsidy.  Why the pretend that he wants to do something about energy prices?  Did someone mention hypocrisy?