More Greenpeace lies and BBC complicity

The BBC is reporting a story from The Independent that up to 60% of the UK could be subjected to fracking operations for shale gas.

The BBC quotes:

The Energy department  spokesman said: "There is a big difference between the amount of shale gas that might exist and what can be technically and commercially extracted.
"It is too early to assess the potential for shale gas but the suggestion more than 60% of the UK countryside could be exploited is nonsense.

John Sauven of Greenpeace is quoted as follows:

"We have commissioned the British Geological Survey to do an assessment of the UK's shale gas resources, which will report its findings next year."

The government is currently considering a report by an independent panel of experts published in April on the future of fracking in the UK.
The report recommended fracking should continue, but under stricter regulations.
Environmental campaign group Greenpeace has said its own analysis shows the extent of potential shale sites is widespread.
Greenpeace Executive director John Sauven said: "Two thirds of England, including large swathes of countryside, is now under active consideration for a risky, polluting, expensive form of fossil fuel extraction.

"The potential for shale gas to bring down bills is overhyped, while experts agree local opposition is a serious threat to the industry's viability. (my italics)

Overhyped?

The only meaningful study of the economic effects of fracking and shale gas production requires a review of what is occurring in the World's largest energy user, the USA.  

Consider these statistics from the US Department of Energy - Energy Information Administration (which boasts of providing Independent Statistics and Analysis).

Price per Thousand Cubic Feet of Natural Gas

February 2003   $7.98

July 2008    $ 15.64

September 2012  $8.17

I don't know about you but a reduction of more than 47% doesn't look like 'overhyped' to me.

Between January 2010 and September 2012, the US increased its daily production of Shale gas from 11 billion cubic feet to around 26 billion feet.  This dramatic increase is only made possible by fracking - be very clear on this - and it is leading the US to lower energy prices and greater energy independence.

These facts are very easily available on the US Department of Energy site.  We can expect that Greenpeace won't check things out and they certainly have no interest or requirement to present a balanced story.  The BBC though, does.

Simple thing is, Greenpeace are not being truthful about the positive economic consequences of shale gas because they are obsessed with a renewables- only policy.   They also don't care that the UK energy users are suffering more and more fuel poverty because of these ridiculous and excessive 'green taxes'.

Votes and Leveson

Another week and more messages from the public for the main party leaders.

For David Cameron, the recurring theme is UKIP.  The easiest solution (and yes this really is easy) is for Cameron to state,  unequivocally, unambiguously or any other way that clearly demonstrates that, within 90 days of the next election, a Conservative led government would hold a referendum on the UK's continued membership of the EU.  A simple In or Out poll.

For Ed Miliband the message may, at first sight be a good one - three resounding victories out of three - but consider.  These are stronghold seats for Labour and yet in these so called times of austerity with an allegedly 'Tory toffs' led government, the Labour voters could barely be bothered to vote and register their 'disgust' at the government's policies.  Voter turnout at Rotherham was just under 34%  and Midllesborough and Croydon, just 26%.  So hardly a ringing endorsement of Miliband's leadership or policies.  If Labour can't get them off of their couches now, when can they?

So take the messages a stage further and consider the results of the Leveson enquiry.  While you do so, consider that if this judge has his way, there will come  time, in the no too distant future, when blogs like this and comments on Twitter, will also be subject to control (or as he puts it regulation).

Labour have instinctively jumped in and demanded that Leveson's recommendations be implemented in full.  Those who accuse them of rank hypocrisy, given their earlier very close ties to the media, miss the point.  Labour is all about winning and like all 'left' parties down the years, see control of the free press as an ideal way to make sure that the right' message is the only one that people get.  Also, a free press is a danger to all politicians and those that rule us because it can ,and sometimes does,  shine a light into the dark areas where these people steal from us.  I cannot believe, for one minute, that the MPs expenses scandal would have been exposed under Leveson.

I think that the Conservatives have almost got it right, in taking a more considered view and opposing a statutory regulator approach.

My own view has hardened around there not being any need for more legislation.  Remember what sparked this?  Phone hacking.  Particularly when it was alleged that the phone of murdered schoolgirl, Milly Dowler, was hacked.

Leave aside, for a moment the morality of such a thing and just know that this was a violation of the law.  How would a press regulator be any more able to enforce the law than the lack of enforcement that already existed?  That surely is the fundamental question.  We don't need more laws, especially one that puts power over the press in the hands of politicians, we do need enforcement of the laws we have.

Rightly or wrongly, I would suggest that most people put the victims of hacking into two categories.  The first is what I would call 'true victims'.  The Dowler family for example.  The hacking that is said to have occurred was a gross violation of decency and should be punished to the full extent of the law.  The second category are what I would call 'celebrities'  People in the public eye and those who want to remain in the public eye.  These people use the print media to promote themselves and their personal agendas but then don't like it when their own craving for public adulation leads them into areas which they then wouldn't like to see publicized.

I have much sympathy for the people like the Dowlers.  The intrusion that they endured was and is, unspeakable.

I have no sympathy for the celebrities that seek to control what it is they show and don't show.  Now they are rushing forward to jump on the 'shackle the free press' bandwagon and so to push their ' we know best because we are famous' routine.  What makes a book writer more qualified to be widely quoted as supporting restrictive laws than other members of the public?  Has the UK really come to the state that we will be lectured on morality by people that get caught in flagrante paying for  and having oral sex performed by a prostitute or those who think that the drug laws don't apply to them?

And what of the BBC?  They have pushed and pushed the Leveson story.  Think though, under Leveson, does anyone think that we would now be talking about Jimmy Saville and his odious crimes?  

Leveson should not be implemented, just pulped.  The laws that we have should be enforced.

EU Budget

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Think about the challenges facing the Conservatives

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

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

Corby messages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not good times for the Conservative leadership. 

Must Republicans change?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The US election - a foreigner's perspective

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

Deficit?  Need I say anything?

So that's Obama then.  What about Romney?

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

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

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

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

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


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

Stonewall, Cardinal O'Brien and free speech

Wikipedia, a reasonable enough source,  defines bigotry as

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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