A national newspaper has just reported that the Christmas truce between the British and Germans in 1914 was far removed from what we have traditionally been led to believe. Other popular misconceptions about war concern the Dunkirk evacuation, the great escape, and the dam busters.
Something which is not shown in the 1963 film The Great Escape is that many British POWs refused to take part in the escape because they were happy to be no longer taking an active part in the war. Life in Stalag Luft III was far from luxurious, but those who escaped ran the very serious risk of being returned to active service, with a risk of death or injury.
Likewise the 1955 film The Dam Busters overstates the willingness of bomber crews to take part in dangerous missions, and does not mention that many civilians died or were made homeless as a result of the floods caused by the bombings.
I accept that films are primarily about entertainment rather than historical accuracy, but it is also fair to point out that some misconceptions are more harmful than others.
Sunday 21 December 2014
Tuesday 9 December 2014
The communist-loving "right wing" tabloids
I often read tabloid newspapers which have a reputation for being right wing, whatever that actually means in practice. I read these newspapers online, however, as I refuse to pay to read them.
The attitude of these papers and their comment writers can be fairly accurately summarised as follows.
First, immigration is harming Britain. This may seem an entirely reasonable point of view, except that the tendency is to lay the blame for our immigration-related horrors squarely at the door of previous Labour governments. It seems that Tory governments are never to blame.
Nevertheless it is still acceptable to vote Labour, and yet you should never vote for any political party which actually wants to reverse the trend in immigration.
Second, the BBC is unfairly biased. This too may seem like a reasonable point of view, but I wonder how many tabloid journalists have no television, thereby exempting them from having to pay to support the biased BBC.
Third, the government's austerity programme is entirely justified, and criticism of it - whether from Labour MPs or from church leaders or from foul-mouthed comedians - is misguided. To be fair, the tabloids do sometimes come close to the truth on this issue. They report, for example, that the welfare budget has not fallen, and they allow comments which mention the money we pay to the EU, or the pay rises that MPs vote themselves.
The fact is that the Conservative-led government squanders billions of pounds of our money on things like illegal wars and EU membership, which they would not do if they had any dedication to sound management of the nation's finances.
Meanwhile, many ordinary people continue to queue for the food banks.
The truth is that our political masters - whether Labour or Conservatives - are vicious communists (is that a tautology?), while the supposedly right wing tabloids are fellow travellers.
Related previous posts include:
Our fellow-travelling national press
The Daily Mail defames the EDL
The Daily Express must try harder
Starvation Britain
The attitude of these papers and their comment writers can be fairly accurately summarised as follows.
First, immigration is harming Britain. This may seem an entirely reasonable point of view, except that the tendency is to lay the blame for our immigration-related horrors squarely at the door of previous Labour governments. It seems that Tory governments are never to blame.
Nevertheless it is still acceptable to vote Labour, and yet you should never vote for any political party which actually wants to reverse the trend in immigration.
Second, the BBC is unfairly biased. This too may seem like a reasonable point of view, but I wonder how many tabloid journalists have no television, thereby exempting them from having to pay to support the biased BBC.
Third, the government's austerity programme is entirely justified, and criticism of it - whether from Labour MPs or from church leaders or from foul-mouthed comedians - is misguided. To be fair, the tabloids do sometimes come close to the truth on this issue. They report, for example, that the welfare budget has not fallen, and they allow comments which mention the money we pay to the EU, or the pay rises that MPs vote themselves.
The fact is that the Conservative-led government squanders billions of pounds of our money on things like illegal wars and EU membership, which they would not do if they had any dedication to sound management of the nation's finances.
Meanwhile, many ordinary people continue to queue for the food banks.
The truth is that our political masters - whether Labour or Conservatives - are vicious communists (is that a tautology?), while the supposedly right wing tabloids are fellow travellers.
Related previous posts include:
Our fellow-travelling national press
The Daily Mail defames the EDL
The Daily Express must try harder
Starvation Britain
Friday 5 December 2014
Stamp duty reform is nothing to celebrate
The news at the moment is dominated by the government's reform of stamp duty on house purchases. At least one national newspaper is reporting this as a good thing for people who want to buy a house, which just shows how idiotic its editorial staff are.
Quite simply, the reform does not make life better for people looking to buy a house, although it probably makes life better for people looking to sell a house.
Economics is the study of supply and demand, and we live in a country where the demand for housing greatly outstrips supply. One consequence of this is that there are thousands of people living rough on the streets, with maybe as many as a million people living in garden sheds and outhouses. Another consequence is that many people who want to buy a house struggle to find enough money for the asking price.
Broadly speaking, there are only two ways in which to address this housing crisis. Either we reduce demand or increase supply. Reducing demand could for example take the form of removing foreign nationals from the country, but this is unlikely to happen until the British people stop voting for Labour and Conservative politicians and start voting instead for political parties which support large scale repatriation - in other words, never.
Another method for reducing demand would be to discourage people from owning (or renting) more than one home, but we need to be realistic. How many members of parliament are content with just one home? Our political masters cannot be trusted to encourage restraint if they themselves cannot first bring themselves to practise it.
Our zero option for resolving the housing crisis is therefore to increase supply, and yet even that is something of a forlorn hope. Quite simply we cannot build new houses in this country fast enough to keep pace with demand, and that is why many people struggle to find the money to buy their first home.
And so to stamp duty. Suppose you buy a house costing £200,000, and you pay stamp duty of £4000. The bill for the £200,000 property is therefore £204,000 - and that is before we add in the cost of legal fees.
Suppose the government abolishes stamp duty altogether, which has not actually happened. You are now able to spend £204,000 instead of just £200,000 on buying a property. You might think that this gives you more spending power, but in reality it gives everyone in the housing market more spending power.
Reducing stamp duty provides you with an advantage in the housing market only if you alone have your stamp duty reduced. When everyone else in the housing market enjoys the same reduction, then it merely allows everyone to spend more money on the same property. People who sell houses are the winners; buyers are not.
Stamp duty is a very efficient form of taxation. Non-collection is pretty well non-existent. Therefore it should perhaps be the last form of taxation that any sensible government looks to reduce.
Quite simply, the reform does not make life better for people looking to buy a house, although it probably makes life better for people looking to sell a house.
Economics is the study of supply and demand, and we live in a country where the demand for housing greatly outstrips supply. One consequence of this is that there are thousands of people living rough on the streets, with maybe as many as a million people living in garden sheds and outhouses. Another consequence is that many people who want to buy a house struggle to find enough money for the asking price.
Broadly speaking, there are only two ways in which to address this housing crisis. Either we reduce demand or increase supply. Reducing demand could for example take the form of removing foreign nationals from the country, but this is unlikely to happen until the British people stop voting for Labour and Conservative politicians and start voting instead for political parties which support large scale repatriation - in other words, never.
Another method for reducing demand would be to discourage people from owning (or renting) more than one home, but we need to be realistic. How many members of parliament are content with just one home? Our political masters cannot be trusted to encourage restraint if they themselves cannot first bring themselves to practise it.
Our zero option for resolving the housing crisis is therefore to increase supply, and yet even that is something of a forlorn hope. Quite simply we cannot build new houses in this country fast enough to keep pace with demand, and that is why many people struggle to find the money to buy their first home.
And so to stamp duty. Suppose you buy a house costing £200,000, and you pay stamp duty of £4000. The bill for the £200,000 property is therefore £204,000 - and that is before we add in the cost of legal fees.
Suppose the government abolishes stamp duty altogether, which has not actually happened. You are now able to spend £204,000 instead of just £200,000 on buying a property. You might think that this gives you more spending power, but in reality it gives everyone in the housing market more spending power.
Reducing stamp duty provides you with an advantage in the housing market only if you alone have your stamp duty reduced. When everyone else in the housing market enjoys the same reduction, then it merely allows everyone to spend more money on the same property. People who sell houses are the winners; buyers are not.
Stamp duty is a very efficient form of taxation. Non-collection is pretty well non-existent. Therefore it should perhaps be the last form of taxation that any sensible government looks to reduce.
Sunday 30 November 2014
Communism in the world of science
The word science derives from the Latin word meaning knowledge. Aristotle famously defined law as reason free from passion, and so it ought to be with science.
Sadly we often find nowadays that the world of science is dominated by people who take the opposite point of view, even though they might be unwilling to admit it.
It is reported that the emininent scientist James Watson plans to sell the Nobel prize he was awarded in 1962. Scientific discoveries are often made over many years by more than one scientist, and Nobel prizes reflect this. Thus Watson was one of three scientists who shared the prize for discovering the nature of DNA.
He then went on to cause controversy many years later, and I quote from The Daily Mail:
In an interview with The Sunday Times Magazine on 14 October 2007, Dr Watson was quoted as saying he is 'gloomy about the prospect of Africa' because 'all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours whereas all the testing says not really'.
It has often been claimed that Damadian was denied the Nobel prize because he does not believe in evolution. By contrast, Watson does believe in evolution. Unfortunately for him, he dares to take it seriously.
Related previous posts include:
Black violence: a black woman speaks out
See also my essay on the Western Spring site.
Sadly we often find nowadays that the world of science is dominated by people who take the opposite point of view, even though they might be unwilling to admit it.
It is reported that the emininent scientist James Watson plans to sell the Nobel prize he was awarded in 1962. Scientific discoveries are often made over many years by more than one scientist, and Nobel prizes reflect this. Thus Watson was one of three scientists who shared the prize for discovering the nature of DNA.
He then went on to cause controversy many years later, and I quote from The Daily Mail:
In an interview with The Sunday Times Magazine on 14 October 2007, Dr Watson was quoted as saying he is 'gloomy about the prospect of Africa' because 'all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours whereas all the testing says not really'.
He said he hoped everyone was equal, but added: 'People who have to deal with black employees find this not true.'
The
views were also included in a book, published that week, in which he
wrote that 'there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual
capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should
prove to have evolved identically'.
He
said: 'Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal
heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.'
Four days later, the scientist was banned from speaking at London's Science Museum.
If Watson is wrong about race and average intelligence, then maybe his detractors could explain why he is wrong, instead of treating him like a pariah - but of course we cannot expect reasonable behaviour from communists.
It has often been claimed that Damadian was denied the Nobel prize because he does not believe in evolution. By contrast, Watson does believe in evolution. Unfortunately for him, he dares to take it seriously.
Related previous posts include:
Black violence: a black woman speaks out
See also my essay on the Western Spring site.
Tuesday 25 November 2014
The demonisation of two women
Two women, both known for their support of the Labour Party, have been demonised in the press and elsewhere in the past couple of weeks.
Emily Thornberry MP resigned from the shadow cabinet after she tweeted a photo of a house in Strood, Kent, during the recent by-election campaign. The house was adorned with St George's cross flags, and had a white van parked outside. Many people claimed the photo was intended to be disrespectful, and maybe it was, but so far as I am aware there is no clear evidence that it was intended to be anything other than an innocent tweet.
Nevertheless Ed Miliband was among those who expressed disapproval, and she resigned. So far as I am aware, the only media figure who has even hinted that her tweet might not have been disrespectful is Peter Hitchens.
As I write, The Daily Mail has published two comments which condemn cookery writer Jack Monroe for remarks she made about David Cameron and his disabled son (who passed away in 2009). The first is by Sarah Vine, the wife of an evil government minister; the other is by Richard Littlejohn.
I will not condone what Monroe said about the Prime Minister, but neither do I condone the way she has been treated in the press.
Vine makes an issue about Monroe having a child outside wedlock, and then giving up her job to raise him on benefits. She never married her son's father, but instead realised that she is a lesbian. Vine comments that:
Fact is, there are lots of young women like her out there who long to start a family. But, because they are responsible individuals who think hard about the consequences of their actions and know that they can’t expect someone else to pick up the tab, they don’t. Why should Monroe know the joy of motherhood when they don’t?
I am curious. Is Vine arguing that women should not lose their virginity until they are financially secure? She doesn't say. It is a fact however that no contraception is totally effective. I do not know whether Monroe became pregnant by accident or design, but I do know that a lot of women in this country - whether or not they are married - have abortions rather than proceed with an unplanned pregnancy.
I do not know if Monroe has ever had an abortion, but I do know that she continued with one pregnancy. Does Sarah Vine condone the wanton destruction of innocent human life which is perpetrated in Britain's abortion clinics? Her husband serves in a government which does.
By contrast, Littlejohn seems to have a problem with Monroe expecting poor people to eat kale pesto pasta. Has he tried it? I haven't, and so will reserve judgement.
He also accuses the left of dancing on the graves of Ivan Cameron and Margaret Thatcher. No one, so far as I am aware, has expressed pleasure at the death of Ivan Cameron. As for Margaret Thatcher, I wonder if Littlejohn would have felt pleasure at her demise if he had suffered as millions of ordinary people did during her reign of incompetence.
The truth is that Richard Littlejohn is as much an obnoxious lefty as Monroe, and the same is probably true of Sarah Vine. The one small difference is that Monroe is young, and may mature with the passing years.
I would be interested to see either Littlejohn or Vine say something positive about any political party which wants to close our borders to further immigration. If they will not, then perhaps they could explain why not.
The establishment has nothing but contempt for anyone who is opposed to immigration. Some establishment figures will try to pretend otherwise from time to time, but I for one am not fooled.
Related previous posts include:
The Daily Express must try harder
Our fellow-travelling national press
Pompous claptrap from Tory veterans
Emily Thornberry MP resigned from the shadow cabinet after she tweeted a photo of a house in Strood, Kent, during the recent by-election campaign. The house was adorned with St George's cross flags, and had a white van parked outside. Many people claimed the photo was intended to be disrespectful, and maybe it was, but so far as I am aware there is no clear evidence that it was intended to be anything other than an innocent tweet.
Nevertheless Ed Miliband was among those who expressed disapproval, and she resigned. So far as I am aware, the only media figure who has even hinted that her tweet might not have been disrespectful is Peter Hitchens.
As I write, The Daily Mail has published two comments which condemn cookery writer Jack Monroe for remarks she made about David Cameron and his disabled son (who passed away in 2009). The first is by Sarah Vine, the wife of an evil government minister; the other is by Richard Littlejohn.
I will not condone what Monroe said about the Prime Minister, but neither do I condone the way she has been treated in the press.
Vine makes an issue about Monroe having a child outside wedlock, and then giving up her job to raise him on benefits. She never married her son's father, but instead realised that she is a lesbian. Vine comments that:
Fact is, there are lots of young women like her out there who long to start a family. But, because they are responsible individuals who think hard about the consequences of their actions and know that they can’t expect someone else to pick up the tab, they don’t. Why should Monroe know the joy of motherhood when they don’t?
I am curious. Is Vine arguing that women should not lose their virginity until they are financially secure? She doesn't say. It is a fact however that no contraception is totally effective. I do not know whether Monroe became pregnant by accident or design, but I do know that a lot of women in this country - whether or not they are married - have abortions rather than proceed with an unplanned pregnancy.
I do not know if Monroe has ever had an abortion, but I do know that she continued with one pregnancy. Does Sarah Vine condone the wanton destruction of innocent human life which is perpetrated in Britain's abortion clinics? Her husband serves in a government which does.
By contrast, Littlejohn seems to have a problem with Monroe expecting poor people to eat kale pesto pasta. Has he tried it? I haven't, and so will reserve judgement.
He also accuses the left of dancing on the graves of Ivan Cameron and Margaret Thatcher. No one, so far as I am aware, has expressed pleasure at the death of Ivan Cameron. As for Margaret Thatcher, I wonder if Littlejohn would have felt pleasure at her demise if he had suffered as millions of ordinary people did during her reign of incompetence.
The truth is that Richard Littlejohn is as much an obnoxious lefty as Monroe, and the same is probably true of Sarah Vine. The one small difference is that Monroe is young, and may mature with the passing years.
I would be interested to see either Littlejohn or Vine say something positive about any political party which wants to close our borders to further immigration. If they will not, then perhaps they could explain why not.
The establishment has nothing but contempt for anyone who is opposed to immigration. Some establishment figures will try to pretend otherwise from time to time, but I for one am not fooled.
Related previous posts include:
The Daily Express must try harder
Our fellow-travelling national press
Pompous claptrap from Tory veterans
Monday 17 November 2014
The story of a private toll road
There has been a lot of coverage in the national press this year about a private toll road at Kelston in Somerset.
The story began in February of this year, when a section of the A431 had to be closed owing to damage caused by a landslip. The necessary repair work was not initially scheduled to be completed before Christmas, which prompted a local businessman to rent a nearby field from a farmer, and build his own road to bypass the closed section of the A431.
The Kelston Toll Road took ten days to build, and was soon open to anyone wanting to pay £2 for the privilege of not having to take a lengthy detour. It looked likely that the road would eventually make a profit, but it is now reported that the council has found the money to complete the repairs five weeks earlier than planned, and the toll road is expected to close before it can show any profit. It is however expected to break even.
While the businessman behind the toll road has received a lot of praise, he has also attracted a lot of negative comment from people who accuse him of trying to profit from a bad situation for motorists.
My first comment is that many people in Britain vote in elections for politicians who would rather spend money on such things as illegal wars and EU membership than on road maintenance. If Britain were run by decent politicians, then maybe the A431 could have been repaired within days of the cracks first appearing.
Second, I wonder whether or not the local council ever thought about renting a field and creating a road to bypass the closed section of road. Had they done so, then the entire bill could have been met from tax revenues, without any need to impose a toll on anyone.
Third, while I admire Mike Watts for building the toll road, it is fair to point out that many business ventures are motivated as much by a sense of community spirit as by a desire to make a profit. Likewise, many business ventures end up making a loss, whereas Mr Watts currently expects to break even and thereby make no loss at all.
Update: it has since been reported that Mr Watts did in fact make a loss.
The story began in February of this year, when a section of the A431 had to be closed owing to damage caused by a landslip. The necessary repair work was not initially scheduled to be completed before Christmas, which prompted a local businessman to rent a nearby field from a farmer, and build his own road to bypass the closed section of the A431.
The Kelston Toll Road took ten days to build, and was soon open to anyone wanting to pay £2 for the privilege of not having to take a lengthy detour. It looked likely that the road would eventually make a profit, but it is now reported that the council has found the money to complete the repairs five weeks earlier than planned, and the toll road is expected to close before it can show any profit. It is however expected to break even.
While the businessman behind the toll road has received a lot of praise, he has also attracted a lot of negative comment from people who accuse him of trying to profit from a bad situation for motorists.
My first comment is that many people in Britain vote in elections for politicians who would rather spend money on such things as illegal wars and EU membership than on road maintenance. If Britain were run by decent politicians, then maybe the A431 could have been repaired within days of the cracks first appearing.
Second, I wonder whether or not the local council ever thought about renting a field and creating a road to bypass the closed section of road. Had they done so, then the entire bill could have been met from tax revenues, without any need to impose a toll on anyone.
Third, while I admire Mike Watts for building the toll road, it is fair to point out that many business ventures are motivated as much by a sense of community spirit as by a desire to make a profit. Likewise, many business ventures end up making a loss, whereas Mr Watts currently expects to break even and thereby make no loss at all.
Update: it has since been reported that Mr Watts did in fact make a loss.
Tuesday 11 November 2014
Independent praises immigration
The Independent newspaper has published on its website a list of ten supposed benefits of immigration to this country. I will not list all of them, but I will open with the comment that it would be surprising if Britain did not benefit at all from immigration. Nevertheless we are allowed to ask whether or not the benefits of immigration outweigh the negatives.
One of the supposed benefits is Marxism, which is akin to a sick joke. How many millions of people around the world have died as victims of communism? Another supposed benefit is a truly atrocious building called the ArcelorMittal Orbit.
Also on the list is the contribution that foreign nurses have made to the NHS, but The Independent does not explain why Britain has proved unable to train a sufficient number of nurses within our frontiers. (Maybe because we are too busy training people in such vital subjects as sociology and media studies.) The Independent also fails to explain how Britain can justify stealing talent from impoverished countries.
The list does not include Sir Charles Hallé, who founded both an orchestra and a college in Manchester. In spite of his achievements, I cannot deny that he came to Britain as an entirely bogus asylum seeker.
It also appears that of all the immigrants who have come to this country in the past two hundred years, the ones who have proven the most beneficial - such as Alec Issigonis and Sir Charles Hallé - have been white.
I merely observe the fact.
One of the supposed benefits is Marxism, which is akin to a sick joke. How many millions of people around the world have died as victims of communism? Another supposed benefit is a truly atrocious building called the ArcelorMittal Orbit.
Also on the list is the contribution that foreign nurses have made to the NHS, but The Independent does not explain why Britain has proved unable to train a sufficient number of nurses within our frontiers. (Maybe because we are too busy training people in such vital subjects as sociology and media studies.) The Independent also fails to explain how Britain can justify stealing talent from impoverished countries.
The list does not include Sir Charles Hallé, who founded both an orchestra and a college in Manchester. In spite of his achievements, I cannot deny that he came to Britain as an entirely bogus asylum seeker.
It also appears that of all the immigrants who have come to this country in the past two hundred years, the ones who have proven the most beneficial - such as Alec Issigonis and Sir Charles Hallé - have been white.
I merely observe the fact.
Tuesday 4 November 2014
Should we demonise the holiday pay ruling?
A recent ruling by the Employment Appeal Tribunal may prove expensive for many employers. The ruling is that holiday pay should reflect regular overtime in addition to the contracted hours of work.
On the one hand, this ruling is based on EU law, and so any employers who fear the consequences are free to reflect upon the fact that this ruling would never have materialised if successive Labour and Tory governments had not taken this country further and further along the road of surrender to EU imperialism.
Nevertheless the EU is not always wrong, and this is a ruling which can benefit a lot of working people. As for those employers who are worried by the financial impact, maybe they should try blaming someone other than their own workers for their financial misfortunes.
Companies pay tax on their profits and on their payrolls. These taxes are used to meet the cost of the billions of pounds the British government squanders each year on such frivolities as EU membership.
Maybe British employers should blame Tory and Labour misrule for their financial misfortunes before they blame a legal ruling which benefits the common man.
On the one hand, this ruling is based on EU law, and so any employers who fear the consequences are free to reflect upon the fact that this ruling would never have materialised if successive Labour and Tory governments had not taken this country further and further along the road of surrender to EU imperialism.
Nevertheless the EU is not always wrong, and this is a ruling which can benefit a lot of working people. As for those employers who are worried by the financial impact, maybe they should try blaming someone other than their own workers for their financial misfortunes.
Companies pay tax on their profits and on their payrolls. These taxes are used to meet the cost of the billions of pounds the British government squanders each year on such frivolities as EU membership.
Maybe British employers should blame Tory and Labour misrule for their financial misfortunes before they blame a legal ruling which benefits the common man.
Saturday 25 October 2014
Devolution: a very British disaster
I am not opposed in principle to devolution. It may work well in other countries, but in this country it has been a disaster.
A Labour administration in Wales and a Scottish Nationalist administration in Scotland enjoy power without responsibility. They know that many voters will blame their failings on the Westminster government, and in a sense they are right.
The Westminster government knew earlier this year that Scotland wanted independence, albeit by a narrow margin. With just a few days left before the independence referendum, the government - with a lot of support from the media - issued lots of promises as well as lots of threats, and managed to pull the vote back from the brink.
Why? If the union is such a fragile entity that it needs to be held together with a combination of threats and promises, then it is probably not worth saving. Let it go.
As the Welsh NHS descends further into failure, the Westminster government has a simple remedy. It should expel Wales from the United Kingdom with immediate effect. The advantage would be that the Welsh people would pretty soon realise that they have nothing to gain by electing idiots to rule over them.
Neither the Scottish Parliament nor the Welsh Assembly has yet managed to produce a great politician, and I'm not sure either of them will while the United Kingdom remains intact. However I am confident that an independent Scotland and an independent Wales could produce politicians of considerable merit.
A culture change is needed, and that is why the United Kingdom must come to an end.
Related previous posts include:
Independence versus devolution
Independence: Scotland must vote yes
A Labour administration in Wales and a Scottish Nationalist administration in Scotland enjoy power without responsibility. They know that many voters will blame their failings on the Westminster government, and in a sense they are right.
The Westminster government knew earlier this year that Scotland wanted independence, albeit by a narrow margin. With just a few days left before the independence referendum, the government - with a lot of support from the media - issued lots of promises as well as lots of threats, and managed to pull the vote back from the brink.
Why? If the union is such a fragile entity that it needs to be held together with a combination of threats and promises, then it is probably not worth saving. Let it go.
As the Welsh NHS descends further into failure, the Westminster government has a simple remedy. It should expel Wales from the United Kingdom with immediate effect. The advantage would be that the Welsh people would pretty soon realise that they have nothing to gain by electing idiots to rule over them.
Neither the Scottish Parliament nor the Welsh Assembly has yet managed to produce a great politician, and I'm not sure either of them will while the United Kingdom remains intact. However I am confident that an independent Scotland and an independent Wales could produce politicians of considerable merit.
A culture change is needed, and that is why the United Kingdom must come to an end.
Related previous posts include:
Independence versus devolution
Independence: Scotland must vote yes
Thursday 16 October 2014
The power of the people
As the dust settles on the Clacton by-election, there is definitely a mood of change in Westminster.
Our evil Prime Minister David Cameron has been talking about restricting immigration; former government minister Owen Paterson has talked about the need to ditch supposedly green energy policies; and Conservative MP Philip Hollobone has been talking of the need to repatriate foreign criminals. It would of course be better not to let foreign criminals into the country in the first place.
We cannot be certain to what extent the Conservative Party is serious about wanting to change its policies, but we do know that there is another by-election due in Rochester and Strood, which like Clacton is also a Conservative seat (although it has had a Labour MP in recent years).
It is curious however that the near loss of a parliamentary seat to UKIP has led to virtually no change of rhetoric on the part of the Labour Party.
A major problem in British politics over the years has been the persistence of millions of voters in staying loyal to political parties which do not deserve any support whatever. Much as I despise UKIP, I will admit that the recent surge in their support may have a partially beneficial outcome. Nevertheless far more could be achieved if the people of this country made just a little more effort.
We are not all privileged to be able to vote in by-elections, but surely we are all capable of joining a political party. If a million people across the country were to join a political party with sensible policies, then imagine how the two main parties might react.
I don't expect it will happen though.
Our evil Prime Minister David Cameron has been talking about restricting immigration; former government minister Owen Paterson has talked about the need to ditch supposedly green energy policies; and Conservative MP Philip Hollobone has been talking of the need to repatriate foreign criminals. It would of course be better not to let foreign criminals into the country in the first place.
We cannot be certain to what extent the Conservative Party is serious about wanting to change its policies, but we do know that there is another by-election due in Rochester and Strood, which like Clacton is also a Conservative seat (although it has had a Labour MP in recent years).
It is curious however that the near loss of a parliamentary seat to UKIP has led to virtually no change of rhetoric on the part of the Labour Party.
A major problem in British politics over the years has been the persistence of millions of voters in staying loyal to political parties which do not deserve any support whatever. Much as I despise UKIP, I will admit that the recent surge in their support may have a partially beneficial outcome. Nevertheless far more could be achieved if the people of this country made just a little more effort.
We are not all privileged to be able to vote in by-elections, but surely we are all capable of joining a political party. If a million people across the country were to join a political party with sensible policies, then imagine how the two main parties might react.
I don't expect it will happen though.
Sunday 12 October 2014
Rutland: the search continues
I don't know who Matthew Engel is, but he has written a nostalgic book about England which I have no intention of reading. He is also promoting it with an essay in the national press which, while rich in factual detail, does not impress me.
He laments the passing of many of England's old counties, which was the topic of my very first entry on this blog. England's county boundaries have changed many time over the years, and former counties have included Hallamshire and Bedlingtonshire. I have no interest at all in reviving those old counties, and I don't expect that many other people do as well.
England is a very different country from how it was in 1974 when our county boundaries were vastly reshaped. The engines of change include immigration and technology.
Technology tends to enrich our lives, whereas immigration has caused far more problems than it could ever hope to solve. Does Matthew Engel deny that at some point in our future we will have to cover all of England's green fields with new housing estates so that immigrants have somewhere to live?
Or maybe he has a plan to prevent that from happening. If so, maybe he could share it with the rest of us.
Previous related posts include:
In search of Rutland
He laments the passing of many of England's old counties, which was the topic of my very first entry on this blog. England's county boundaries have changed many time over the years, and former counties have included Hallamshire and Bedlingtonshire. I have no interest at all in reviving those old counties, and I don't expect that many other people do as well.
England is a very different country from how it was in 1974 when our county boundaries were vastly reshaped. The engines of change include immigration and technology.
Technology tends to enrich our lives, whereas immigration has caused far more problems than it could ever hope to solve. Does Matthew Engel deny that at some point in our future we will have to cover all of England's green fields with new housing estates so that immigrants have somewhere to live?
Or maybe he has a plan to prevent that from happening. If so, maybe he could share it with the rest of us.
Previous related posts include:
In search of Rutland
Sunday 5 October 2014
The Clacton by-election
The Clacton by-election is just a few days away, and a UKIP victory is widely predicted. This would make Douglas Carswell the first ever MP to be elected for UKIP. If I've got it right, it would also be the first time since October 1990 that a political party has seen its first ever MP to be elected under its banner. (At the start of that month, all of the Liberal Democrat MPs had been elected for other parties.)
The Conservatives are certainly acting up. As well as making some very insulting remarks about UKIP voters - apparently including one about vacuum cleaners - there has been talk of ignoring at least some rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.
The European Court of Human Rights is an agency of the Council of Europe, which is distinct from the European Union. Like the European Union, it is undemocratic.
While I have no problem in principle with what is being outlined, it is fair to point out that not everyone regards David Cameron as someone who can be trusted to deliver on his promises.
I will never vote UKIP, but I will nevertheless be not the slightest bit surprised if Douglas Carswell returns to the House of Commons next week.
Update: I have since found out that the government is also planning to tackle the EU on immigration. Perhaps they could explain why they did not make this a condition of coalition government back in the summer of 2010.
A related post offsite: The Clacton Rebellion
The Conservatives are certainly acting up. As well as making some very insulting remarks about UKIP voters - apparently including one about vacuum cleaners - there has been talk of ignoring at least some rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.
The European Court of Human Rights is an agency of the Council of Europe, which is distinct from the European Union. Like the European Union, it is undemocratic.
While I have no problem in principle with what is being outlined, it is fair to point out that not everyone regards David Cameron as someone who can be trusted to deliver on his promises.
I will never vote UKIP, but I will nevertheless be not the slightest bit surprised if Douglas Carswell returns to the House of Commons next week.
Update: I have since found out that the government is also planning to tackle the EU on immigration. Perhaps they could explain why they did not make this a condition of coalition government back in the summer of 2010.
A related post offsite: The Clacton Rebellion
Sunday 28 September 2014
Dave's apprenticeships
David Cameron has said that he wants further cuts to benefits so as to fund more apprenticeships for young people without jobs. This is at the same time as leading Britain into another war in the middle east which could cost billions of pounds and yet achieve nothing.
It appears however that David Cameron's plan is actually for young people on benefits to pick up litter. Does this really deserve to be called an apprenticeship? In times of old, an apprenticeship was an arrangement whereby a young boy learned a skill - usually a craft - which ideally would allow him to earn a living for the whole of his working life. Nowadays however the word appears to be almost devoid of meaning.
Meanwhile, Ed Miliband wants to tax bank bonuses so as to fund a jobs programme for young people. He seems to forget that Tony Blair's Labour government in the late 1990s used a windfall tax to fund a rehash of failed Conservative policies known as the New Deal. Have Labour learned anything from their time in opposition?
Related previous posts include:
Ed's apprenticeships
LibLabCon failure on youth unemployment
It appears however that David Cameron's plan is actually for young people on benefits to pick up litter. Does this really deserve to be called an apprenticeship? In times of old, an apprenticeship was an arrangement whereby a young boy learned a skill - usually a craft - which ideally would allow him to earn a living for the whole of his working life. Nowadays however the word appears to be almost devoid of meaning.
Meanwhile, Ed Miliband wants to tax bank bonuses so as to fund a jobs programme for young people. He seems to forget that Tony Blair's Labour government in the late 1990s used a windfall tax to fund a rehash of failed Conservative policies known as the New Deal. Have Labour learned anything from their time in opposition?
Related previous posts include:
Ed's apprenticeships
LibLabCon failure on youth unemployment
Friday 26 September 2014
Court victory on bank charges
I am impressed by this recent item in the national press:
Oliver
Foster-Burnell from Taunton, Somerset, went a few pounds over his £500
limit with Lloyds while he was in between jobs in 2008.
Within weeks, the 28-year-old received a letter saying for that every day since he had been charged £20 by the bank.
The fees spiralled to £750 before Mr Foster-Burnell was able to find a way out of his financial mess.
But,
after settling his debts, he took his case to county court where a
judge ordered the bank to pay back the fees with interest.
His
victory could pave the way for billions to be returned to customers in
similar situations if Mr Foster-Burnell is able to convince a High Court
Judge that his case could apply to others.
Wednesday 24 September 2014
Emma and Chris are veritaphobic
Actress Emma Watson has recently made a speech to the United Nations about gender equality. A video of this speech is included below. Meanwhile, the Daily Express has published an essay by Chris Roycroft-Davies, who if I've got it right is or used to be a speechwriter for the war criminal David Cameron. His essay can be read here.
Emma Watson makes some good points, whereas Chris Roycroft-Davies makes hardly any.
He begins by quoting Otto von Bismarck about blood and iron, although I'm not sure that Bismarck is the best possible role model for humane government. In fact I'm quite sure he isn't.
Roycroft-Davies then asserts that Britain will soon be joining in the war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, although my understanding is that that is subject to a vote in parliament which has not yet taken place.
He argues that Britain has no choice but to enter the war, but he is wrong. Last year British MPs voted against entering a war against Syria in order to remove President Assad, but now they are expected to vote to go to war against the enemies of Assad.
Perhaps the only truth he utters is that we are faced with an enemy fighting a war without borders.
In recent years, Britain has gone to war against Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and each of those wars has made the world a more dangerous place. This new war is unlikely to be any different.
And so to my central point: Emma Watson and Chris Roycroft-Davies are united in their veritaphobia - the fear of the truth. Emma Watson does not mention the fact that Islam is a huge obstacle to gender equality. Islam is after all founded on a book which says that Muslim men may beat and rape their wives. Chris Roycroft-Davies does not mention the fact that Islam is fundamentally belligerent.
I am proud of the fact that I maintain a high standard of factual accuracy with this blog, but I will admit to having been wrong about ISIS. I have previously argued that Muslims killing other Muslims cannot be explained in terms of The Koran. I am indebted to David Woods for pointing out that Muslims are commanded to strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them (9:73).
Unbelievers are non-Muslims, whereas hypocrites are fake Muslims. Any Muslim is free to regard any other Muslim as a fake, and of course the true Muslim is required to be belligerent.
It is highly unlikely that Islamic terrorism cannot be defeated while Islam exists. The Muslim who is sweetness and light today could be a soldier of ISIS tomorrow. Missiles can kill individual Muslims, but the war will never be won by missiles alone.
As well as being veritaphobic, Chris Roycroft-Davies is devoted to the cause of open door immigration. If the British government wants to protect the British people from Islamic terror, then it should close our borders to Muslims, and seek to persuade Muslims in this country to abandon Islam. I say persuade and not coerce, as coercion rarely works.
I am sure that a lot of people would happily demonise me for holding that point of view, but surely closing our borders to Muslims is more humane than bombing other countries.
Related previous posts include:
Your Muslim faith - really?
Now study Islam
Now ban The Koran
Bacon does not kill Muslims
Chris Roycroft-Davis
He begins by quoting Otto von Bismarck about blood and iron, although I'm not sure that Bismarck is the best possible role model for humane government. In fact I'm quite sure he isn't.
Roycroft-Davies then asserts that Britain will soon be joining in the war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, although my understanding is that that is subject to a vote in parliament which has not yet taken place.
He argues that Britain has no choice but to enter the war, but he is wrong. Last year British MPs voted against entering a war against Syria in order to remove President Assad, but now they are expected to vote to go to war against the enemies of Assad.
Perhaps the only truth he utters is that we are faced with an enemy fighting a war without borders.
In recent years, Britain has gone to war against Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and each of those wars has made the world a more dangerous place. This new war is unlikely to be any different.
And so to my central point: Emma Watson and Chris Roycroft-Davies are united in their veritaphobia - the fear of the truth. Emma Watson does not mention the fact that Islam is a huge obstacle to gender equality. Islam is after all founded on a book which says that Muslim men may beat and rape their wives. Chris Roycroft-Davies does not mention the fact that Islam is fundamentally belligerent.
I am proud of the fact that I maintain a high standard of factual accuracy with this blog, but I will admit to having been wrong about ISIS. I have previously argued that Muslims killing other Muslims cannot be explained in terms of The Koran. I am indebted to David Woods for pointing out that Muslims are commanded to strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them (9:73).
Unbelievers are non-Muslims, whereas hypocrites are fake Muslims. Any Muslim is free to regard any other Muslim as a fake, and of course the true Muslim is required to be belligerent.
It is highly unlikely that Islamic terrorism cannot be defeated while Islam exists. The Muslim who is sweetness and light today could be a soldier of ISIS tomorrow. Missiles can kill individual Muslims, but the war will never be won by missiles alone.
As well as being veritaphobic, Chris Roycroft-Davies is devoted to the cause of open door immigration. If the British government wants to protect the British people from Islamic terror, then it should close our borders to Muslims, and seek to persuade Muslims in this country to abandon Islam. I say persuade and not coerce, as coercion rarely works.
I am sure that a lot of people would happily demonise me for holding that point of view, but surely closing our borders to Muslims is more humane than bombing other countries.
Related previous posts include:
Your Muslim faith - really?
Now study Islam
Now ban The Koran
Bacon does not kill Muslims
Friday 19 September 2014
Independence versus devolution
The outcome of yesterday's referendum on Scottish independence is bad news.
I had previously argued that Scotland should seek independence so that its soldiers are no longer used as cannon fodder in illegal wars. That opportunity has now been lost. Nevertheless I still believe that independence is now inevitable. It is just a matter of when the next referendum will take place.
The situation now is that the government is expected to deliver on promises for more devolution to Scotland. This is problematic, however, and it appears that many English MPs will either oppose it or else demand devolved powers for England - maybe even for English regions.
Devolution has little to commend it. Whatever arguments can be made for it in principle, the fact remains that in practice it tends to be disastrous. Consider the Holyrood Parliament in Edinburgh. Completed in 2007, it cost over £414million. By contrast, the Shropshire Women and Children's Centre at the Princess Royal Hospital in Telford was completed in 2014 at a cost of £28million. In other words, the money spent on the Holyrood Parliament could possibly have funded as many as fifteen specialist centres at hospitals around Scotland.
If Scotland were independent, then the Holyrood Parliament would be its only parliament, and it would no longer have to contribute to the costs of the Westminster parliament. If its legislators were smart, it would also no longer contribute to the costs of the European Parliament, and neither would it fund illegal wars.
Independence is definitely the way forward.
Related previous posts include:
Independence: Scotland must vote yes.
Read the full article at: http://www.shropshirelive.com/2014/09/04/shropshire-women-and-childrens-centre-set-for-open-weekend/
I had previously argued that Scotland should seek independence so that its soldiers are no longer used as cannon fodder in illegal wars. That opportunity has now been lost. Nevertheless I still believe that independence is now inevitable. It is just a matter of when the next referendum will take place.
The situation now is that the government is expected to deliver on promises for more devolution to Scotland. This is problematic, however, and it appears that many English MPs will either oppose it or else demand devolved powers for England - maybe even for English regions.
Devolution has little to commend it. Whatever arguments can be made for it in principle, the fact remains that in practice it tends to be disastrous. Consider the Holyrood Parliament in Edinburgh. Completed in 2007, it cost over £414million. By contrast, the Shropshire Women and Children's Centre at the Princess Royal Hospital in Telford was completed in 2014 at a cost of £28million. In other words, the money spent on the Holyrood Parliament could possibly have funded as many as fifteen specialist centres at hospitals around Scotland.
If Scotland were independent, then the Holyrood Parliament would be its only parliament, and it would no longer have to contribute to the costs of the Westminster parliament. If its legislators were smart, it would also no longer contribute to the costs of the European Parliament, and neither would it fund illegal wars.
Independence is definitely the way forward.
Related previous posts include:
Independence: Scotland must vote yes.
Read the full article at: http://www.shropshirelive.com/2014/09/04/shropshire-women-and-childrens-centre-set-for-open-weekend/
Sunday 14 September 2014
The three hostages
Some readers of my blog may be aware that I took my online name from a novel by John Buchan, although not the one entitled The Three Hostages.
If we believe the press, then three hostages have recently been killed by beheading - James Foley, Steven Sotloff, and David Haines. In each case the killer is supposedly an ISIS combatant from the United Kingdom who is known to the press as Jihadi John.
It has already been pointed out that the videos which purport to show the beheadings of these three men do not necessarily show any such thing. Likewise one national newspaper is publishing a photo of a woman holding up a severed head. As the severed head is obscured by a black rectangle, however, I cannot know for certain that she is not in fact holding up her new handbag. As she is wearing a burqa, I cannot even be sure who she is. The person holding up the severed head (or handbag) could in fact be a man wearing a burqa.
When Britain entered the First World War illegally in 1914, it was reported that German soldiers in Belgium were murdering babies. It is now widely accepted that this was never true. When Britain entered the Second World War illegally in 1939, it was not widely reported that the British government was effectively supporting the genocide of ethnic Germans in the Danzig corridor, even though it was true.
I do not know what exactly is going on in either Syria or Iraq because I am not convinced that I can trust what is reported in the press, and because I can have no confidence in what I am told by either the British or American governments.
Maybe these three hostages are dead, but equally they may be still alive. If they are dead, then their deaths may not be recent, and may not be the work of ISIS. Can anyone think of a reason why the so-called beheading videos should not have been produced by the American government?
If we believe the press, then three hostages have recently been killed by beheading - James Foley, Steven Sotloff, and David Haines. In each case the killer is supposedly an ISIS combatant from the United Kingdom who is known to the press as Jihadi John.
It has already been pointed out that the videos which purport to show the beheadings of these three men do not necessarily show any such thing. Likewise one national newspaper is publishing a photo of a woman holding up a severed head. As the severed head is obscured by a black rectangle, however, I cannot know for certain that she is not in fact holding up her new handbag. As she is wearing a burqa, I cannot even be sure who she is. The person holding up the severed head (or handbag) could in fact be a man wearing a burqa.
When Britain entered the First World War illegally in 1914, it was reported that German soldiers in Belgium were murdering babies. It is now widely accepted that this was never true. When Britain entered the Second World War illegally in 1939, it was not widely reported that the British government was effectively supporting the genocide of ethnic Germans in the Danzig corridor, even though it was true.
I do not know what exactly is going on in either Syria or Iraq because I am not convinced that I can trust what is reported in the press, and because I can have no confidence in what I am told by either the British or American governments.
Maybe these three hostages are dead, but equally they may be still alive. If they are dead, then their deaths may not be recent, and may not be the work of ISIS. Can anyone think of a reason why the so-called beheading videos should not have been produced by the American government?
Friday 12 September 2014
Is Britain the puppet of the USA?
The former Conservative MP and government minister Neil Hamilton - now the Deputy Chairman of UKIP - has written an essay in a national newspaper about the ISIS threat.
What interests me particularly about it is this quote:
From the 1930s the US was determined to destroy the British Empire and then enmesh us in the EU, seeing Atlanticist Britain as the agent of US foreign policy and free market economics.
I am not sure I have ever heard an establishment figure make such a remark before.
Britain has changed a lot since the 1930s. In those days, Britain had an empire, and so far as I can make out no one minded. Not one political party in this country supported abolishing the empire - apart from the Labour Party very briefly - and neither am I aware of any public clamour for abolition. Britain seemed also to be its own country in those days, entering both the First World War and the Second World War before the Americans did.
Nowadays we have long since let go of our empire, and we seem to be obsessed with following the USA into illegal wars.
I am not sure about Hamilton's reference to free market economics. So far as I am aware, successive governments in the USA have thrown one subsidy after another at their biggest companies, and yet in a genuine free market there would be no subsidies whatever.
As for the EU, I am not sure I have ever before heard anyone argue for the involvement of the Americans in its foundation and development. I had always understood that countries like Germany and Holland and Belgium were the guiding lights.
If Britain is a puppet of the USA, as Hamilton seems to imply, then why has Britain long since abolished the death penalty while most states of the USA have not? Why has Britain never adopted a written constitution like that of the USA? Why are our senior judges not appointed on a blatantly partisan basis?
Either way, the policy objectives of both the United Kingdom and the USA in recent decades seem to me to have been riddled with inconsistency, and it is hard to discern an underlying logic. Maybe that is part of the reason why they now seem impotent in the face of the ISIS threat. It is not that they no longer know what to do, but rather that they never had a clue in the first place.
Related previous posts include:
MH17 and Gaza: more lives lost to western imperialism
Air strikes against Iraq are wrong
What interests me particularly about it is this quote:
From the 1930s the US was determined to destroy the British Empire and then enmesh us in the EU, seeing Atlanticist Britain as the agent of US foreign policy and free market economics.
I am not sure I have ever heard an establishment figure make such a remark before.
Britain has changed a lot since the 1930s. In those days, Britain had an empire, and so far as I can make out no one minded. Not one political party in this country supported abolishing the empire - apart from the Labour Party very briefly - and neither am I aware of any public clamour for abolition. Britain seemed also to be its own country in those days, entering both the First World War and the Second World War before the Americans did.
Nowadays we have long since let go of our empire, and we seem to be obsessed with following the USA into illegal wars.
I am not sure about Hamilton's reference to free market economics. So far as I am aware, successive governments in the USA have thrown one subsidy after another at their biggest companies, and yet in a genuine free market there would be no subsidies whatever.
As for the EU, I am not sure I have ever before heard anyone argue for the involvement of the Americans in its foundation and development. I had always understood that countries like Germany and Holland and Belgium were the guiding lights.
If Britain is a puppet of the USA, as Hamilton seems to imply, then why has Britain long since abolished the death penalty while most states of the USA have not? Why has Britain never adopted a written constitution like that of the USA? Why are our senior judges not appointed on a blatantly partisan basis?
Either way, the policy objectives of both the United Kingdom and the USA in recent decades seem to me to have been riddled with inconsistency, and it is hard to discern an underlying logic. Maybe that is part of the reason why they now seem impotent in the face of the ISIS threat. It is not that they no longer know what to do, but rather that they never had a clue in the first place.
Related previous posts include:
MH17 and Gaza: more lives lost to western imperialism
Air strikes against Iraq are wrong
Wednesday 10 September 2014
LibLabCon failure in schools
Sarah Smith used to be a teacher. She has now written an essay in a national newspaper about how she was one of countless state school teachers who were paid salaries well above the minimum wage despite being barely literate.
If you do not have time to read her essay in full, she observes that:
The products of a liberal education system that eschewed the ‘rules’ of the English language for trendy educational methods, we were as bemused as the children we taught. So how on earth are teachers going to deliver the Government’s demanding new school curriculum with its emphasis on grammar?
If you do not have time to read her essay in full, she observes that:
The products of a liberal education system that eschewed the ‘rules’ of the English language for trendy educational methods, we were as bemused as the children we taught. So how on earth are teachers going to deliver the Government’s demanding new school curriculum with its emphasis on grammar?
Friday 5 September 2014
The bedroom tax and the nasty LibDems
The Affordable Homes Bill, sponsored by a Liberal Democrat MP, has passed a critical hurdle in The House of Commons. If it becomes law in its unamended form, then it will implement changes to the under-occupation rules, also known as the bedroom tax.
The bedroom tax is a reduction in housing benefit entitlement for social housing tenants who are deemed to have at least one spare bedroom.
According to the BBC, the bill would mean people who could not be found a smaller home would be exempt, as well as disabled people who need a spare bedroom or who have adapted homes.
Victims of the bedroom tax, who are all of working age, can respond in various ways.
They can make up the shortfall in housing benefits from other income - or at least some of them can.
They can find a job (if they are unemployed) or secure extra hours (if they work short hours). That is to say that they can find a job or secure extra hours if they are lucky, which not everyone is. Job opportunities remain scarce in this once-proud country.
They can move to a home with fewer bedrooms, but only if a home with fewer bedrooms is available locally, and also there is no help available with the cost of moving. Also, many people might not want to move to a smaller home.
Imagine your teenage son leaves home to start university. Your house is no longer his primary place of residence, and so his bedroom is now deemed to be a spare room, and your housing benefit is reduced accordingly. If you move to a property with one less bedroom, however, then your son might not be able to stay with you outside of term time as you will no longer have a bedroom for him.
Sadly a lot of bedroom tax victims have to go hungry, or rely on food banks, and yet the government still does not take the matter seriously.
The government is happy to save money by further impoverishing people on benefits, but sees no reason to save money by not going to war. It seems that the United Kingdom can afford military action against the Islamic State, but cannot afford to reverse the bedroom tax, and this is a state of affairs which the Liberal Democrats do not oppose.
Related previous posts include:
Another victim of the bedroom tax
Bedroom tax fiasco
The bedroom tax is a reduction in housing benefit entitlement for social housing tenants who are deemed to have at least one spare bedroom.
According to the BBC, the bill would mean people who could not be found a smaller home would be exempt, as well as disabled people who need a spare bedroom or who have adapted homes.
Victims of the bedroom tax, who are all of working age, can respond in various ways.
They can make up the shortfall in housing benefits from other income - or at least some of them can.
They can find a job (if they are unemployed) or secure extra hours (if they work short hours). That is to say that they can find a job or secure extra hours if they are lucky, which not everyone is. Job opportunities remain scarce in this once-proud country.
They can move to a home with fewer bedrooms, but only if a home with fewer bedrooms is available locally, and also there is no help available with the cost of moving. Also, many people might not want to move to a smaller home.
Imagine your teenage son leaves home to start university. Your house is no longer his primary place of residence, and so his bedroom is now deemed to be a spare room, and your housing benefit is reduced accordingly. If you move to a property with one less bedroom, however, then your son might not be able to stay with you outside of term time as you will no longer have a bedroom for him.
Sadly a lot of bedroom tax victims have to go hungry, or rely on food banks, and yet the government still does not take the matter seriously.
The government is happy to save money by further impoverishing people on benefits, but sees no reason to save money by not going to war. It seems that the United Kingdom can afford military action against the Islamic State, but cannot afford to reverse the bedroom tax, and this is a state of affairs which the Liberal Democrats do not oppose.
Related previous posts include:
Another victim of the bedroom tax
Bedroom tax fiasco
Wednesday 3 September 2014
How important is manufacturing?
It is reported that Britain's manufacturing sector is expanding but only at a slow rate.
Manufacturing is critical to prosperity, because most of us measure our personal prosperity very much in terms of our ability to acquire manufactured goods such as mobile phones or mountain bikes. Of course we can also measure our personal prosperity in terms of our ability to buy tickets to concerts or football matches, but which one of us does not value manufactured goods?
Another reason why manufacturing is important is because manufacturing jobs tend to pay good wages. By contrast, the retail and catering sectors tend to pay little more than the minimum wage to many of their employees.
The things we buy can be manufactured here or abroad. Goods produced abroad are often cheaper than goods made in Britain, but most of us like to think that at least some of the things we buy are made here in this country by our fellow countrymen.
I refuse however to lecture anyone about buying British. If we buy British goods, it should be because British goods represent quality at a fair price.
Having said that, I do think it is fair to judge governments by the success of our manufacturing sector. Any government with any sense will look for ways to help British factories to compete internationally. The fact that Britain's manufacturing sector is expanding at only a modest rate is yet one more reason why I have no regard for David Cameron.
Manufacturing is critical to prosperity, because most of us measure our personal prosperity very much in terms of our ability to acquire manufactured goods such as mobile phones or mountain bikes. Of course we can also measure our personal prosperity in terms of our ability to buy tickets to concerts or football matches, but which one of us does not value manufactured goods?
Another reason why manufacturing is important is because manufacturing jobs tend to pay good wages. By contrast, the retail and catering sectors tend to pay little more than the minimum wage to many of their employees.
The things we buy can be manufactured here or abroad. Goods produced abroad are often cheaper than goods made in Britain, but most of us like to think that at least some of the things we buy are made here in this country by our fellow countrymen.
I refuse however to lecture anyone about buying British. If we buy British goods, it should be because British goods represent quality at a fair price.
Having said that, I do think it is fair to judge governments by the success of our manufacturing sector. Any government with any sense will look for ways to help British factories to compete internationally. The fact that Britain's manufacturing sector is expanding at only a modest rate is yet one more reason why I have no regard for David Cameron.
Saturday 30 August 2014
Respect MP assaulted
George Galloway has been an MP almost continuously since 1987. Originally a Labour MP, he is currently the only MP for the Respect Party. It is reported that he has been assaulted in public by a man who shouted something about the holocaust.
Galloway has long been known to be critical of Israel, and he has recently taken his views one step further, calling for a boycott of anything connected with Israel, as this video demonstrates.
I do not condone the assault on George Galloway, but it is fair to point out that he has never spoken out against acts of violence where the victims were supporters of the British National Party or the English Defence League.
It is also fair to point out that Galloway owes his current tenure in parliament to the large Muslim community in his Bradford West constituency. So far as I am aware, he has never admitted that Islam is founded upon a book which says what The Koran says.
Perhaps he would like to condemn all of the belligerent passages in The Koran. If he will not, then he should reflect that his cowardice on this issue is not entirely unconnected with the belligerent attitude of the man who attacked him.
Update: Mr Galloway has since described his attacker as a thug from an extreme right-wing group. I am not sure what his evidence is for this, other than that as a communist he possibly regards anyone who dislikes him as extreme right-wing.
He also wants police protection in future, although I wonder if he is really any more deserving of police protection than anyone else who has ever been attacked in the street. For example, I wonder if he thinks that the thousands of victims of Muslim paedophile gangs should enjoy police protection.
Galloway has long been known to be critical of Israel, and he has recently taken his views one step further, calling for a boycott of anything connected with Israel, as this video demonstrates.
I do not condone the assault on George Galloway, but it is fair to point out that he has never spoken out against acts of violence where the victims were supporters of the British National Party or the English Defence League.
It is also fair to point out that Galloway owes his current tenure in parliament to the large Muslim community in his Bradford West constituency. So far as I am aware, he has never admitted that Islam is founded upon a book which says what The Koran says.
Perhaps he would like to condemn all of the belligerent passages in The Koran. If he will not, then he should reflect that his cowardice on this issue is not entirely unconnected with the belligerent attitude of the man who attacked him.
Update: Mr Galloway has since described his attacker as a thug from an extreme right-wing group. I am not sure what his evidence is for this, other than that as a communist he possibly regards anyone who dislikes him as extreme right-wing.
He also wants police protection in future, although I wonder if he is really any more deserving of police protection than anyone else who has ever been attacked in the street. For example, I wonder if he thinks that the thousands of victims of Muslim paedophile gangs should enjoy police protection.
Wednesday 27 August 2014
The outdated concept of treason
What is treason? Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines it as: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow
the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to
kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family.
Here are three historical examples of alleged treason.
William Wallace was executed for treason in 1305 on the orders of the King of England. Wallace argued that as a Scotsman he owed no allegiance to the King of England, and so could not be guilty of treason, but he was convicted regardless.
Michel Ney was executed for treason against France in 1815, even though he pointed out that he had fought a hundred battles for France and not one against her.
John Amery was executed for treason against the United Kingdom in 1945. He pleaded guilty at his trial, and the reason for his guilty plea remains a mystery. Nevertheless he had never attacked his own country, and neither had he sought to do so.
In short, the above cases are arguably not genuine examples of treason, but rather of victimisation for political advantage.
As I write, the major preoccupation of the national press is the ongoing crisis in Iraq. At least one newspaper is urging military action. I feel compelled to comment on an essay by the evil Conservative MP David Davis in which he remarks:
Imagine that in my youth during the Cold War, I had gone off to join the Soviet Army with the intent of taking action against NATO, or that my father had gone to join the Nazis in the Second World War. Those actions would quite properly have been viewed as treason.
It seems to me that the traditional concept of treason is essentially a form of nationalisation. It is the nationalisation of conscience. Suppose your country is at war, but you are convinced that your country is on the wrong side. If you then go and fight for the other side, then you are a traitor. The state owns your conscience.
There is also a stench of hypocrisy about the notion of treason. During the Second World War there were instances of Germans fighting with the Allies against their own nation. (For example, Major Sepp Gangl fought alongside the Allies at the battle of Schloss Itter.) Surely the Allies should have rejected this assistance on the grounds that it was tantamount to treason.
If the United Kingdom were to go to war against Iraq yet again, then I would not fight on either side. I would have a low opinion of any British citizen who took part in that war on either side, but I am not sure I would regard any of them as traitors.
Surely it is time to discard the outdated view of treason, and replace it with something meaningful. Treason should be defined in ways such as leading the country into an illegal war, or signing a treaty which is not in the national interest.
Rather than seeking another war against Iraq, we should be seeking to address the root cause of the problem. Consider this quote from Lord Carey:
The menacing advance of the Islamic State in Iraq should not prejudice Western people against Muslim people and the Islamic faith.
Here are three historical examples of alleged treason.
William Wallace was executed for treason in 1305 on the orders of the King of England. Wallace argued that as a Scotsman he owed no allegiance to the King of England, and so could not be guilty of treason, but he was convicted regardless.
Michel Ney was executed for treason against France in 1815, even though he pointed out that he had fought a hundred battles for France and not one against her.
John Amery was executed for treason against the United Kingdom in 1945. He pleaded guilty at his trial, and the reason for his guilty plea remains a mystery. Nevertheless he had never attacked his own country, and neither had he sought to do so.
In short, the above cases are arguably not genuine examples of treason, but rather of victimisation for political advantage.
As I write, the major preoccupation of the national press is the ongoing crisis in Iraq. At least one newspaper is urging military action. I feel compelled to comment on an essay by the evil Conservative MP David Davis in which he remarks:
Imagine that in my youth during the Cold War, I had gone off to join the Soviet Army with the intent of taking action against NATO, or that my father had gone to join the Nazis in the Second World War. Those actions would quite properly have been viewed as treason.
It seems to me that the traditional concept of treason is essentially a form of nationalisation. It is the nationalisation of conscience. Suppose your country is at war, but you are convinced that your country is on the wrong side. If you then go and fight for the other side, then you are a traitor. The state owns your conscience.
There is also a stench of hypocrisy about the notion of treason. During the Second World War there were instances of Germans fighting with the Allies against their own nation. (For example, Major Sepp Gangl fought alongside the Allies at the battle of Schloss Itter.) Surely the Allies should have rejected this assistance on the grounds that it was tantamount to treason.
If the United Kingdom were to go to war against Iraq yet again, then I would not fight on either side. I would have a low opinion of any British citizen who took part in that war on either side, but I am not sure I would regard any of them as traitors.
Surely it is time to discard the outdated view of treason, and replace it with something meaningful. Treason should be defined in ways such as leading the country into an illegal war, or signing a treaty which is not in the national interest.
Rather than seeking another war against Iraq, we should be seeking to address the root cause of the problem. Consider this quote from Lord Carey:
The menacing advance of the Islamic State in Iraq should not prejudice Western people against Muslim people and the Islamic faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)