Since the general election there has been a lot of negative coverage in the press of the new Scottish National Party MPs.
The 2015 general election saw fifty-six MPs returned for the SNP, and possibly as many as forty-nine of those had never previously served as MPs. The SNP is now the third largest party by representation in the House of Commons, and as such enjoys certain privileges. For example they are entitled to three opposition days each year - days on which they choose the topic for debate.
The allegations against them include that some of them have been breaking parliamentary rules by taking photographs in the House of Commons chamber, and that they have defied protocol by clapping. Clapping is apparently something MPs have traditionally agreed not to do, although it is fair to point out that MPs of most if not all allegiances have a long history being very noisy when other people are addressing the chamber. (I remember a teacher at school remarking to us once that he felt frightened to think that Britain's legislators were given to rowdy behaviour.)
Another allegation is that they have robbed veteran MP Dennis Skinner of what is widely perceived as his rightful seat in the chamber. Skinner is one of just four MPs who were first elected to parliament in 1970, and has tended to sit on the front bench for many years now. There are however no rules as to who sits where in the Commons chamber, other than that the government sits on one side and the opposition on the other.
Over the years, many members of the House of Commons have either been paedophiles, or else have covered up acts of paedophilia by other members of the establishment (or by Muslim grooming gangs). To suggest that taking selfies in the Commons chamber is somehow more worthy of our disapproval is a gross insult to the victims of child abuse.
Update: since writing this post, I have become aware of the allegation that a woman called Esther Baker was routinely abused by a VIP paedophile gang in the 1980s and 1990s, and that officers from Staffordshire Police supervised the abuse.
Tuesday, 26 May 2015
Friday, 22 May 2015
Reflections on Britain First and the UAF
Britain First recently held a demonstration in Dudley in the Black Country to protest a new mega mosque that is to be built there. Britain First have said that they organised the demonstration because local people did not want the mega mosque, but that local councillors had approved it regardless.
At the recent general election, just short of eighty percent of all votes case in Dudley (which has two parliamentary constituencies) were cast for political parties which actively encourage the proliferation of Islam in this country. The remaining votes were cast for UKIP, which is a rather lame protest party.
Of course thousands of people in Dudley did not vote at all, but why not? If they did not vote because not one party which was standing was robustly opposed to the spread of Islam, then maybe they should join a political party which is actually deserving of public support.
Much as I admire the determination of Britain First activists, I can only conclude that the people of Dudley do in fact want the mega mosque to be built.
On a related point, Jayda Fransen of Britain First was asked by the BBC in advance of the demonstration about the disruption it might cause. I do not know how much disruption if any was caused on the day, but I do know that public demonstrations concerning Islam or anything connected with immigration is often met by counter protests from communist thugs, not necessarily connected with Unite Against Fascism.
When such counter protests do take place - or even when they are expected - the police will turn out in force. This inevitably takes valuable police resources away from other duties. If communist thugs did not organise counter protests, then the police would be free to deploy their officers elsewhere.
Communist thugs care about many things, but law and order is not one of them.
Related previous posts include:
Britain First and the fiction of a free country
A tale of two demos
At the recent general election, just short of eighty percent of all votes case in Dudley (which has two parliamentary constituencies) were cast for political parties which actively encourage the proliferation of Islam in this country. The remaining votes were cast for UKIP, which is a rather lame protest party.
Of course thousands of people in Dudley did not vote at all, but why not? If they did not vote because not one party which was standing was robustly opposed to the spread of Islam, then maybe they should join a political party which is actually deserving of public support.
Much as I admire the determination of Britain First activists, I can only conclude that the people of Dudley do in fact want the mega mosque to be built.
On a related point, Jayda Fransen of Britain First was asked by the BBC in advance of the demonstration about the disruption it might cause. I do not know how much disruption if any was caused on the day, but I do know that public demonstrations concerning Islam or anything connected with immigration is often met by counter protests from communist thugs, not necessarily connected with Unite Against Fascism.
When such counter protests do take place - or even when they are expected - the police will turn out in force. This inevitably takes valuable police resources away from other duties. If communist thugs did not organise counter protests, then the police would be free to deploy their officers elsewhere.
Communist thugs care about many things, but law and order is not one of them.
Related previous posts include:
Britain First and the fiction of a free country
A tale of two demos
Saturday, 9 May 2015
The aftermath of the general election
The
general election is over, and the Conservatives are the clear winners, while
the opinion pollsters are being portrayed in the national press as losers . It appears that nobody predicted the late
surge in support for the Conservatives, although I’m pleased to say that I was
not too far out.
The parliamentary constituency of Chatham and
Aylseford is the closest I can find to a barometer constituency. At the
last general election it returned a Conservative MP with Labour in second
place, the Liberal Democrats in third place, and with UKIP and BNP candidates
on roughly equal votes.
Based on the logic of retained votes, the
next general election will see a Labour MP returned in Chatham and Aylseford
with a majority of at least two thousand votes. UKIP will take third
place from the LibDems ... It is almost certain therefore that Ed Miliband will
be our next Prime Minister.
As
it turns out, the Conservatives held the seat, although I was right about UKIP
taking third place. My analysis was
based on retained votes in parliamentary byelections up to that point in time,
but the Conservative Party’s retained vote increased thereafter, and so I was
aware that a Conservative victory was a real possibility.
Another
clear winner in the general election was the Scottish National Party, which
secured nearly all the seats in Scotland, leaving the Labour and Conservative
and Liberal Democrat parties with just one seat each. It has been argued that the Conservative
victory was largely owing to people in England not wanting to be governed by a
minority Labour government supported by the SNP. Nevertheless I am not sure that anyone is
suggesting this was the cause of the late surge.
The
British National Party is claiming to be responsible for the late surge in
Conservative support. They credit it to
their Punish Labour onslaught in the last forty-eight hours of the
campaign. While I am not at all
convinced that a party with fewer than 200,000 Facebook followers could have
achieved such a coup, I am nevertheless not aware that anyone has come up with
a more plausible explanation.
One
of the more memorable events of the election was the failure of Labour
front-bencher Ed Balls to be re-elected to parliament, and I will concede that
the Conservative victory – by a margin of less than one percent of the vote –
could perhaps have been influenced by BNP activity.
It appears
that a lot of people in the patriotic community are ridiculing the claims of
the British National Party, but it is fair to point out that people who have
left the BNP to support other parties are perhaps unlikely to want to credit
the BNP with any success.
Another
interesting feature of the general election was the rise of UKIP support. Although they won only one seat, this was an
improvement on the zero seats they won in every previous general election that
they have contested. It is reported also
that UKIP now has 120 second places, and I am prepared to believe that. After the results were published, I chose a
cluster of seven constituencies in the north of England pretty much at random,
and it turns out that UKIP is in third place in six of them.
The
big losers in the general election appear to be the Liberal Democrats, who were
outpolled by UKIP across the country.
While this could result in a situation in which UKIP permanently replace
the Liberal Democrats as the third party in British politics, a note of caution
should be sounded. The Liberal Democrats
currently have more than six times as many councillors as UKIP.
Here
is a quote from the website of the British National Party concerning their campaign strategy for the general election (which saw them contest just eight
seats):
It has
resulted in the BNP being the only political party in this country to come out
of this election DEBT FREE.
The comparison to five years ago could not be more stark.
We had the
strength to resist the pressure of standing hundreds of candidates in seats
that could not be won at this time – which Ukip have found to their detriment.
Ukip went in
to this election with two MPs having thrown away £millions fighting hundreds of
unwinnable seats.
Not only
have they lost one of their only two MPs, but Ukip leader Nigel Farage has been
forced to resign in humiliation.
This not
only demonstrates the political naivety of Ukip, but highlights the political
maturity of the BNP and the advantage gained from our years of fighting
elections at every level.
The British National Party did not poll well in any of the eight seats in contested, but I for one am not prepared to write them off. After all, I seem to remember that I was inclined to write off UKIP this time five years ago. I can also remember people trying to write off the Labour Party in the late 1980s.
There are two reasons why the recent general election can be seen to have changed the political landscape in the UK. The first is that Scotland may soon be an independent country, in which case the Conservative Party should find it easier to win a majority in the remainder of what had previously been the UK.
There are two reasons why the recent general election can be seen to have changed the political landscape in the UK. The first is that Scotland may soon be an independent country, in which case the Conservative Party should find it easier to win a majority in the remainder of what had previously been the UK.
The second is
that the government is now free to alter the constituency boundaries so as to end the advantage the Labour Party has traditionally enjoyed from its relatively small constituencies.
Another significant change is that UKIP has shown that it can not only win a seat in a parliamentary byelection, but also hold onto it in the subsequent general election. Maybe the next few years will see more MPs defect to UKIP.
Another significant change is that UKIP has shown that it can not only win a seat in a parliamentary byelection, but also hold onto it in the subsequent general election. Maybe the next few years will see more MPs defect to UKIP.
Finally,
a lot of people are complaining about the unfairness of an electoral system
which allocated just one seat to UKIP, eight to the LibDems, and fifty-six to
the SNP - despite the fact that UKIP polled far more votes than either the
LibDems or the SNP. I am however reminded
of the words of Shakespeare:
The
fault ... is not in our stars, But in ourselves (Julius Caesar Act 1 scene two)
I
did not vote in the general election, because not one of the parties which
contested my home constituency had policies which aligned with my strongly held
beliefs. Had there been a candidate with
similar beliefs to my own, however, then he or she would have had my vote.
If
you want at the next general election to be able to vote for a political party
whose policies you support, then find such a party this year and join it – or at
least donate some money to it. If you
cannot do that, then maybe the fault is in yourself.
Related previous posts include:
Sunday, 3 May 2015
Communism in the USA: North Charleston and Baltimore
The deaths of two black men in the USA have dominated the news in recent weeks. The first is the fatal shooting of Walter Scott by a white police officer called Michael Slager in the city of North Charleston in South Carolina. The second is the death in police custody of Freddie Gray in the city of Baltimore in Maryland.
The death of Walter Scott appears to have no justification in law, and Slager has been charged with first degree murder. There does not appear to be any racial dimension to the shooting, however, as Slager was assisted by a fellow officer called Clarence Habersham, who is black.
Freddie Gray died apparently as a result of injuries sustained during an unlawful arrest, and six officers have been charged with various crimes in connection with his death. Three of these officers are non-white, and so once again there does not appear to be a racial dimension to the death.
I find it curious that the communist troublemaker Al Sharpton has said that the death is not a matter of black versus white, but has also called for more black police officers in South Carolina.
I also find it disturbing that many black people took part in a riot in Baltimore following the death of Freddie Gray. Apparently a lot of black people in that city feel it proper to react to the injustice of a black man's death by trashing a grocery store and stealing lots of junk food. If someone can explain the logic ...
Related previous posts include:
Communism in the USA: Ferguson
The death of Walter Scott appears to have no justification in law, and Slager has been charged with first degree murder. There does not appear to be any racial dimension to the shooting, however, as Slager was assisted by a fellow officer called Clarence Habersham, who is black.
Freddie Gray died apparently as a result of injuries sustained during an unlawful arrest, and six officers have been charged with various crimes in connection with his death. Three of these officers are non-white, and so once again there does not appear to be a racial dimension to the death.
I find it curious that the communist troublemaker Al Sharpton has said that the death is not a matter of black versus white, but has also called for more black police officers in South Carolina.
I also find it disturbing that many black people took part in a riot in Baltimore following the death of Freddie Gray. Apparently a lot of black people in that city feel it proper to react to the injustice of a black man's death by trashing a grocery store and stealing lots of junk food. If someone can explain the logic ...
Related previous posts include:
Communism in the USA: Ferguson
Sunday, 26 April 2015
The destruction of Kathmandu
More than two thousand people have been killed by an earthquake in Nepal, and the aftershocks may claim yet more lives. Many buildings in the capital city of Kathmandu have been reduced to rubble, and many more are unsafe.
A young Nepalese woman - a nurse - has reported on Facebook how she helped evacuate the hospital where she works, and has since returned to her duties. She claims she is serving her country, and yes she is. Compare this with the revolting lie that is perpetuated in far too many western countries that soldiers are serving their country when they take part in illegal wars.
After Japan was struck by a far more destructive earthquake in 2011, the Japanese people moved swiftly to rebuild their country, and the people of Nepal would be well advised to follow their example. By contrast, if London were to be devastated by an earthquake, then any rebuilding work would be delayed by bureaucracy and completed at far more than the budgeted price.
In one of my previous posts I included a clip from the film How The West Was Won, in which Gregory Peck praises the city of San Francisco. He claims that it burns down about every five minutes, but each time they keep on rebuilding it a little bigger and better than before.
Where the white man once led the way, now the Japanese are leading the way. Over to you, people of Nepal. Show us whether you have the mettle of the nineteenth century white man or of the twenty-first century white man.
Related previous posts include:
Black violence: a black woman speaks out
A young Nepalese woman - a nurse - has reported on Facebook how she helped evacuate the hospital where she works, and has since returned to her duties. She claims she is serving her country, and yes she is. Compare this with the revolting lie that is perpetuated in far too many western countries that soldiers are serving their country when they take part in illegal wars.
After Japan was struck by a far more destructive earthquake in 2011, the Japanese people moved swiftly to rebuild their country, and the people of Nepal would be well advised to follow their example. By contrast, if London were to be devastated by an earthquake, then any rebuilding work would be delayed by bureaucracy and completed at far more than the budgeted price.
In one of my previous posts I included a clip from the film How The West Was Won, in which Gregory Peck praises the city of San Francisco. He claims that it burns down about every five minutes, but each time they keep on rebuilding it a little bigger and better than before.
Where the white man once led the way, now the Japanese are leading the way. Over to you, people of Nepal. Show us whether you have the mettle of the nineteenth century white man or of the twenty-first century white man.
Related previous posts include:
Black violence: a black woman speaks out
Monday, 20 April 2015
Musings on the general election
It is a folly common to perhaps all political commentators that they make predictions and then realise that those predictions might not come true.
Just over a year ago, I opined that UKIP would not win a single seat in the 2015 general election, and yet now I must face up to the possibility that I might be proven wrong. Fortunately I am not worried about it. UKIP will not have my vote, but well done them if they can persuade other people to vote for them.
It is widely predicted now that the Scottish National Party will win almost all of the parliamentary seats in Scotland, and this is not surprising. Forty-five percent of the vote in last year's referendum was for independence, and if the SNP obtains forty-five percent of the vote across Scotland in the general election, then it could possibly win every seat.
The United Kingdom is traditionally governed by the political party which enjoys more than half the seats in parliament, although this is not the same as having more than half the votes. Therefore if the SNP win most of the seats in Scotland, then that would surely be a mandate for independence.
So confident am I that Scotland will be leaving the United Kingdom in due course that I recently changed my profile picture to one of the English flag.
It is also widely reported in the national press that many supporters of the SNP have been intimidating their political opponents and also employees of the BBC.
This the same BBC which for many years excluded the British National Party from Question Time, while at the same time not excluding parties which had less evidence of popular support. This is the same BBC which sent a lying scumbag called Jason Gwynne to pretend to be a supporter of the British National Party so that they could make a documentary about how the BNP in those days was full of people who objected to child abuse. (Judging by its website, it still is.)
I do not know to what extent the Scottish National Party is responsible for the actions of some of its members, but it appears that it condones the direct action taken by those members who shout at senior figures in the Scottish Labour Party when they are trying to engage with members of the public. Will the Labour Party reassure the public that not one of its members has ever shouted at people who campaign for other political parties?
It is also widely reported that SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon is seeking a coalition government in which her party will provide the Labour Party with a parliamentary majority. While many commentators have argued that it would be unfair of the SNP to vote in parliament on issues which affect England but not Scotland, it has to be said that the entire history of British politics is largely a history of exploiting unfair advantages.
The simple solution is for the English MPs to demand a second referendum on Scottish independence at a very early date. Would the SNP have a problem with that?
Related previous posts include:
Devolution: a very British disaster
Sensational news: people can be nasty
Just over a year ago, I opined that UKIP would not win a single seat in the 2015 general election, and yet now I must face up to the possibility that I might be proven wrong. Fortunately I am not worried about it. UKIP will not have my vote, but well done them if they can persuade other people to vote for them.
It is widely predicted now that the Scottish National Party will win almost all of the parliamentary seats in Scotland, and this is not surprising. Forty-five percent of the vote in last year's referendum was for independence, and if the SNP obtains forty-five percent of the vote across Scotland in the general election, then it could possibly win every seat.
The United Kingdom is traditionally governed by the political party which enjoys more than half the seats in parliament, although this is not the same as having more than half the votes. Therefore if the SNP win most of the seats in Scotland, then that would surely be a mandate for independence.
So confident am I that Scotland will be leaving the United Kingdom in due course that I recently changed my profile picture to one of the English flag.
It is also widely reported in the national press that many supporters of the SNP have been intimidating their political opponents and also employees of the BBC.
This the same BBC which for many years excluded the British National Party from Question Time, while at the same time not excluding parties which had less evidence of popular support. This is the same BBC which sent a lying scumbag called Jason Gwynne to pretend to be a supporter of the British National Party so that they could make a documentary about how the BNP in those days was full of people who objected to child abuse. (Judging by its website, it still is.)
I do not know to what extent the Scottish National Party is responsible for the actions of some of its members, but it appears that it condones the direct action taken by those members who shout at senior figures in the Scottish Labour Party when they are trying to engage with members of the public. Will the Labour Party reassure the public that not one of its members has ever shouted at people who campaign for other political parties?
It is also widely reported that SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon is seeking a coalition government in which her party will provide the Labour Party with a parliamentary majority. While many commentators have argued that it would be unfair of the SNP to vote in parliament on issues which affect England but not Scotland, it has to be said that the entire history of British politics is largely a history of exploiting unfair advantages.
The simple solution is for the English MPs to demand a second referendum on Scottish independence at a very early date. Would the SNP have a problem with that?
Related previous posts include:
Devolution: a very British disaster
Sensational news: people can be nasty
Friday, 10 April 2015
Drunken teens at a peace festival
Two recent news items strike me as worthy of comment. One is that an immigrant called Jafar Adeli has been convicted of grooming a teenage girl for sex.
Adeli is one of many victims of online vigilantes who pose as girls under the age of sixteen in a bid to snare paedophiles. Adeli contacted one such vigilante, and - thinking he was exchanging messages with a girl aged fourteen - asked her to meet him for sex. He turned up at a bus station expecting to meet the non-existent girl, but was arrested instead. He has since been imprisoned.
The second news item is that a judge has expressed regret at sentencing an eighteen year old boy called Connor O'Keefe for having sex with a girl who was only fifteen at the time. O'Keefe met the girl at a peace festival, and they both drank heavily. Later on they had sex in a car park.
There are two things I find disturbing about this. The first is that the comments on the Daily Mail website are broadly supportive of the judge. The second is that young people should see a peace festival as an opportunity to drink to excess.
What O'Keefe did was only slightly less heinous than what Jafar Adeli had in mind, and I am glad he was prosecuted. People who drink heavily in public deserve to be arrested and then spend the night in a police cell. As for peace festivals, I wonder what purpose they are realistically expected to serve.
Related previous posts include:
Peace for more than one day
Adeli is one of many victims of online vigilantes who pose as girls under the age of sixteen in a bid to snare paedophiles. Adeli contacted one such vigilante, and - thinking he was exchanging messages with a girl aged fourteen - asked her to meet him for sex. He turned up at a bus station expecting to meet the non-existent girl, but was arrested instead. He has since been imprisoned.
The second news item is that a judge has expressed regret at sentencing an eighteen year old boy called Connor O'Keefe for having sex with a girl who was only fifteen at the time. O'Keefe met the girl at a peace festival, and they both drank heavily. Later on they had sex in a car park.
There are two things I find disturbing about this. The first is that the comments on the Daily Mail website are broadly supportive of the judge. The second is that young people should see a peace festival as an opportunity to drink to excess.
What O'Keefe did was only slightly less heinous than what Jafar Adeli had in mind, and I am glad he was prosecuted. People who drink heavily in public deserve to be arrested and then spend the night in a police cell. As for peace festivals, I wonder what purpose they are realistically expected to serve.
Related previous posts include:
Peace for more than one day
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)