The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he wants Britain to have the highest employment rate of any of the world's leading economies.
Here are some helpful suggestions:
Abolish the Work Programme, and give the money back to employers in lower taxes.
Abolish overseas aid, and keep the money in this country.
Ensure that steps are taken to assist those on low wages.
Do not allow any foreign national to enter Britain to claim benefits.
Do not allow any foreign national to enter Britain to look for work unless that foreign national is capable of work which cannot reasonably be undertaken by a British national.
Take reasonable steps to minimise the likelihood that a job will exist which a British national cannot undertake.
As I currently expect that the government will implement not one of the above suggestions, then I also do not expect that the government will come close to achieving full employment.
Related previous posts include:
The Work Programme - still not working
The lawsuit of Mr O (As an update, this lawsuit has now been granted legal aid.)
Dyson wants immigrants
The betrayal of the low paid
You pay for foreign crooks
Monday, 31 March 2014
Saturday, 29 March 2014
A new dawn - but not for the Tories
What to write about today? Homosexual marriages are now legal in this country. Nigel Farage is widely perceived to have won his televised debate with Nick Clegg. The Conservative Party appears to be rising in the opinion polls at the expense of Labour.
I have already made clear my distrust of opinion polls. I prefer to base my expectations of electoral success on the outcomes of real elections, and in the most recent parliamentary by-election the Conservative Party's retained vote did not rise. Neither did that of the Liberal Democrats. The British National Party did see a significant rise in its retained vote, although it remains below fifty percent.
I am not aware of any parliamentary by-elections pending at the moment, and so the next big test of electoral fortunes appear to be the European and local elections in late May.
I have already argued that the rise in support for UKIP may not last. Maybe it will. One thing I am certain of is that the Conservative Party could be enjoying far more support at the moment if it were not for the legalisation of homosexual marriage. There are two reasons for this.
A lot of people are opposed to homosexual marriage. Opinion polls suggest about one third. The point is that people who oppose it may well decide not to vote Conservative as a result, whereas people who support it are not necessarily going to vote Conservative as a result.
The second reason is that parliamentary time given to the legalisation of homosexual marriage is time that cannot be given to something more important - and it is hard to think of anything less important. Can't afford to pay your gas bill? Homosexual marriage is the answer. Is your neighbourhood blighted by vandalism? Homosexual marriage is the solution - or so it seems.
Conservative Party supporters who fear an electoral meltdown in May should reflect that David Cameron's support for homosexual marriage is arguably a major cause of that meldown. As for UKIP, they will not have my vote in May, but I expect they will manage pretty well without it.
Related previous posts include:
The return of the UKIP hamster
The weather, dear boy, the weather
I have already made clear my distrust of opinion polls. I prefer to base my expectations of electoral success on the outcomes of real elections, and in the most recent parliamentary by-election the Conservative Party's retained vote did not rise. Neither did that of the Liberal Democrats. The British National Party did see a significant rise in its retained vote, although it remains below fifty percent.
I am not aware of any parliamentary by-elections pending at the moment, and so the next big test of electoral fortunes appear to be the European and local elections in late May.
I have already argued that the rise in support for UKIP may not last. Maybe it will. One thing I am certain of is that the Conservative Party could be enjoying far more support at the moment if it were not for the legalisation of homosexual marriage. There are two reasons for this.
A lot of people are opposed to homosexual marriage. Opinion polls suggest about one third. The point is that people who oppose it may well decide not to vote Conservative as a result, whereas people who support it are not necessarily going to vote Conservative as a result.
The second reason is that parliamentary time given to the legalisation of homosexual marriage is time that cannot be given to something more important - and it is hard to think of anything less important. Can't afford to pay your gas bill? Homosexual marriage is the answer. Is your neighbourhood blighted by vandalism? Homosexual marriage is the solution - or so it seems.
Conservative Party supporters who fear an electoral meltdown in May should reflect that David Cameron's support for homosexual marriage is arguably a major cause of that meldown. As for UKIP, they will not have my vote in May, but I expect they will manage pretty well without it.
Related previous posts include:
The return of the UKIP hamster
The weather, dear boy, the weather
Thursday, 27 March 2014
Police failure on domestic violence
It is reported that thousands of people are in danger of assault or even murder because many police forces in the United Kingdom are not doing enough to deal with domestic abuse.
I will say nothing of the specific allegations, but I do have some points to make about domestic abuse.
First, I would be interested to know how many incidents of domestic violence are committed by immigrants. What I know for certain is that I can remember a time when I had never heard the term honour killing. I am not exactly sure what an honour killing actually is, although it does tend to be the murder of an immigrant by another immigrant. In fact I'm not sure it is ever anything else.
Second, there has to be a link to the activities of evil communists. (Is there such a thing as a non-evil communist?) I have known of cases of British National Party members being attacked by communists in public, and in some cases while police officers stood by and do nothing. I have also known of many cases where English Defence League marches or static demonstrations have been disrupted by violent communists. In one case I can think of, the cost of policing the march was £800,000. If communist thugs stayed away from EDL events, then the cost of policing them would presumably be much lower.
Police officers deployed to keep communists away from the EDL are police officers who cannot investigate domestic violence at the same time. Communist thugs are the wife-beaters' best friends.
One thing that does stand out from the above link is that it quotes police chiefs as saying that domestic violence is a priority. What exactly is a priority? Surely the only way one thing can be a priority is if something else is not a priority. My priorities do not include fat cat salaries for any police officers, not even the chief constables.
I will say nothing of the specific allegations, but I do have some points to make about domestic abuse.
First, I would be interested to know how many incidents of domestic violence are committed by immigrants. What I know for certain is that I can remember a time when I had never heard the term honour killing. I am not exactly sure what an honour killing actually is, although it does tend to be the murder of an immigrant by another immigrant. In fact I'm not sure it is ever anything else.
Second, there has to be a link to the activities of evil communists. (Is there such a thing as a non-evil communist?) I have known of cases of British National Party members being attacked by communists in public, and in some cases while police officers stood by and do nothing. I have also known of many cases where English Defence League marches or static demonstrations have been disrupted by violent communists. In one case I can think of, the cost of policing the march was £800,000. If communist thugs stayed away from EDL events, then the cost of policing them would presumably be much lower.
Police officers deployed to keep communists away from the EDL are police officers who cannot investigate domestic violence at the same time. Communist thugs are the wife-beaters' best friends.
One thing that does stand out from the above link is that it quotes police chiefs as saying that domestic violence is a priority. What exactly is a priority? Surely the only way one thing can be a priority is if something else is not a priority. My priorities do not include fat cat salaries for any police officers, not even the chief constables.
Monday, 24 March 2014
Cameron is no better than Miliband
I have just read a newspaper comment about Ed Miliband. I don't need to supply a link, because there isn't enough substance in it to make that worthwhile. Basically, the government has delivered its budget, which contains certain measures which the press consider to be laudable - and let's face it, it is highly unlikely that there would be absolutely nothing good to say about it.
So far as I can make out though, the only really good thing that the press can find in the budget is the fact that the government is allowing pensioners to take control of their own pensions. Some press commentators are pointing to recent falls in the level of unemployment as evidence of the government delivering, but then consider this news item about fifteen hundred people chasing just forty jobs.
If my arithmetic is correct, then each one has just under a three percent chance of success. Anyone who thinks that unemployment is caused by people not wanting to work should consider that these forty jobs are poorly paid supermarket jobs, and that nearly forty people are chasing each vacancy.
Meanwhile the government continues to hurl billions of pounds of our money each year at overseas aid, which basically means taking money from the British public and putting it into Swiss bank accounts. Anyone who has any doubts on this matter should reflect upon the fact that I am quoting Imran Khan.
If it is a good idea for British people to control their own pensions, then why can we not also be trusted to control our own charitable giving? If Cameron's government of lunatics were to abolish overseas aid, then they could give the money saved back to the people in tax cuts. We could then decide for ourselves how much of our money we want to give to charity to help develop the third world, and could even choose which charities - if any - will benefit from our donated money.
The national press are absolutely correct when they deride Ed Miliband as an incompetent politician. They are wrong however if they suggest that David Cameron is any better. David Cameron is a clown, and I confidently expect that he will be seeking a change of career after the next general election.
Previous related posts include:
LibLabCon failure on youth unemployment
Shapps and the northern renaissance
So far as I can make out though, the only really good thing that the press can find in the budget is the fact that the government is allowing pensioners to take control of their own pensions. Some press commentators are pointing to recent falls in the level of unemployment as evidence of the government delivering, but then consider this news item about fifteen hundred people chasing just forty jobs.
If my arithmetic is correct, then each one has just under a three percent chance of success. Anyone who thinks that unemployment is caused by people not wanting to work should consider that these forty jobs are poorly paid supermarket jobs, and that nearly forty people are chasing each vacancy.
Meanwhile the government continues to hurl billions of pounds of our money each year at overseas aid, which basically means taking money from the British public and putting it into Swiss bank accounts. Anyone who has any doubts on this matter should reflect upon the fact that I am quoting Imran Khan.
If it is a good idea for British people to control their own pensions, then why can we not also be trusted to control our own charitable giving? If Cameron's government of lunatics were to abolish overseas aid, then they could give the money saved back to the people in tax cuts. We could then decide for ourselves how much of our money we want to give to charity to help develop the third world, and could even choose which charities - if any - will benefit from our donated money.
The national press are absolutely correct when they deride Ed Miliband as an incompetent politician. They are wrong however if they suggest that David Cameron is any better. David Cameron is a clown, and I confidently expect that he will be seeking a change of career after the next general election.
Previous related posts include:
LibLabCon failure on youth unemployment
Shapps and the northern renaissance
Friday, 21 March 2014
The death of a hated man
Amidst the press coverage of the death of a fashion designer, it is pleasing to note that at least some coverage has been given to the recent death of Fred Phelps. What I find distasteful however is the bile and hypocrisy surrounding his demise.
For those who do not know about him, Phelps was a church minister, and for many years was involved with the Westboro Baptist Church in the city of Topeka, Kansas. Over many years this church has organised huge numbers of public demonstrations, often targetting funerals. Their message has been one of hatred. If I've got it right, one of their central beliefs is that the deaths of American soldiers in foreign wars are God's punishment of the USA for daring to tolerate sodomy.
Press reports tend to be restrained in their criticism of him, but the comments are another matter, with people wishing him in hell. Nevertheless Phelps was a far better example of a Christian minister than most of the vermin who pass for clergy in Britain today. I suspect that that comment probably applies equally to clergy in the USA and many other countries as well.
I do not agree with the message preached by Phelps, and it is quite possible that surviving members of the Westboro Baptist Church would regard me as hell fodder. Nevertheless The Bible does condemn sodomy, and anyone who dares to mention that is arguably a better Christian that someone who tries to gloss over that fact.
Millions of people in the USA - and the United Kingdom - vote in elections for warmongers. Who are they to judge Fred Phelps? At least some church leaders in this country have been known to appear in public standing shoulder to shoulder with Muslim leaders. Does The Bible exhort Christians to respect the beliefs of non-Christians? Does it? Can anyone supply a reference?
Also, Muslims are required by The Koran to destroy Christians (9:30) and to regard them as the worst of creatures (98:6).
A man who described Barack Obama as the antichrist must have been doing something right, and I for one will not join in the condemnation of the late Fred Phelps.
Related previous posts include:
Christians could do more
David Cameron on Islam
Your Muslim faith - really?
For those who do not know about him, Phelps was a church minister, and for many years was involved with the Westboro Baptist Church in the city of Topeka, Kansas. Over many years this church has organised huge numbers of public demonstrations, often targetting funerals. Their message has been one of hatred. If I've got it right, one of their central beliefs is that the deaths of American soldiers in foreign wars are God's punishment of the USA for daring to tolerate sodomy.
Press reports tend to be restrained in their criticism of him, but the comments are another matter, with people wishing him in hell. Nevertheless Phelps was a far better example of a Christian minister than most of the vermin who pass for clergy in Britain today. I suspect that that comment probably applies equally to clergy in the USA and many other countries as well.
I do not agree with the message preached by Phelps, and it is quite possible that surviving members of the Westboro Baptist Church would regard me as hell fodder. Nevertheless The Bible does condemn sodomy, and anyone who dares to mention that is arguably a better Christian that someone who tries to gloss over that fact.
Millions of people in the USA - and the United Kingdom - vote in elections for warmongers. Who are they to judge Fred Phelps? At least some church leaders in this country have been known to appear in public standing shoulder to shoulder with Muslim leaders. Does The Bible exhort Christians to respect the beliefs of non-Christians? Does it? Can anyone supply a reference?
Also, Muslims are required by The Koran to destroy Christians (9:30) and to regard them as the worst of creatures (98:6).
A man who described Barack Obama as the antichrist must have been doing something right, and I for one will not join in the condemnation of the late Fred Phelps.
Related previous posts include:
Christians could do more
David Cameron on Islam
Your Muslim faith - really?
Wednesday, 19 March 2014
Paxman on war, Hastings on Russia
Once again I find myself writing about war, and once again I am sure that a lot of people will disagree with me. Some may even be offended, as if I care.
Jeremy Paxman has recently argued that our present society is too hedonistic for Britain to be able to mobilise the kind of army it sent to war in 1914. Doubtless there is something in that. Back in 1914 it was a different world. Pretty well everyone, including the upper classes, lived in poorly insulated homes, with the result that pretty well everyone froze in winter. Tough lives produced tough men. Nowadays it is easy to go jogging on a cold day, knowing that you have a nice warm home to return to. It is even easier to be a couch potato.
I like to think that Britain will never again go to war on the scale of some of our past wars, but at the same time I hope that Britain will never again take part in any war that does not concern us. The Great War and the Second World War did not concern us. We entered both wars without good reason. We were the aggressors.
Britain did not take part in the Franco-Prussian War. The death toll in that war nudged two hundred thousand, and yet the death toll in the Great War was approximately ONE HUNDRED TIMES GREATER. That difference is surely due in part to British involvement.
At the moment, Britain has no plans to go to war against Russia, and yet Max Hastings argues for an attitude of belligerence towards the government of Vlad Putin. I do not like Putin, but I will not condemn him for seeking to incorporate the Crimea into Russia. There has after all just been a referendum in the Crimea in which ordinary people voted for such an incorporation - or reincorporation, seeing as how the Crimea was part of Russia within living memory.
Hastings is doubtless right when he talks about the fragile state of our armed forces, but we should all be clear that our armed forces exist to defend us from aggression. They do not exist to take part in illegal wars for the benefit of global capitalism.
Related previous posts include:
A reasoned approach to war
Questions for the warmonger Gove
The west should stay out of Ukraine
Jeremy Paxman has recently argued that our present society is too hedonistic for Britain to be able to mobilise the kind of army it sent to war in 1914. Doubtless there is something in that. Back in 1914 it was a different world. Pretty well everyone, including the upper classes, lived in poorly insulated homes, with the result that pretty well everyone froze in winter. Tough lives produced tough men. Nowadays it is easy to go jogging on a cold day, knowing that you have a nice warm home to return to. It is even easier to be a couch potato.
I like to think that Britain will never again go to war on the scale of some of our past wars, but at the same time I hope that Britain will never again take part in any war that does not concern us. The Great War and the Second World War did not concern us. We entered both wars without good reason. We were the aggressors.
Britain did not take part in the Franco-Prussian War. The death toll in that war nudged two hundred thousand, and yet the death toll in the Great War was approximately ONE HUNDRED TIMES GREATER. That difference is surely due in part to British involvement.
At the moment, Britain has no plans to go to war against Russia, and yet Max Hastings argues for an attitude of belligerence towards the government of Vlad Putin. I do not like Putin, but I will not condemn him for seeking to incorporate the Crimea into Russia. There has after all just been a referendum in the Crimea in which ordinary people voted for such an incorporation - or reincorporation, seeing as how the Crimea was part of Russia within living memory.
Hastings is doubtless right when he talks about the fragile state of our armed forces, but we should all be clear that our armed forces exist to defend us from aggression. They do not exist to take part in illegal wars for the benefit of global capitalism.
Related previous posts include:
A reasoned approach to war
Questions for the warmonger Gove
The west should stay out of Ukraine
Sunday, 16 March 2014
Sensational news: people can be nasty
There have been a couple of items in the national press today about Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP. I do not care to repeat these allegations, as I am not in a position to comment on their veracity, but this is nevertheless a good opportunity to inform the reader of a few basic facts.
Politics can be a very dirty business, as I know from my own first-hand experiences. Time and again I hear stories about politicians - usually famous ones - being bullies or womanisers or even crooks. I cannot know for certain whether or not specific allegations are true, but they do not surprise me.
For most politicians, nothing matters more than winning elections. Winning puts you in power, and can often be lucrative for the person who is lucky enough to be elected. Councillors nowadays often receive salary-type allowances, while MPs and MEPs are paid large salaries and also have access to expense accounts.
When you are the leader of a political party, you are under pressure to achieve results, and it is only to be expected that occasionally you will be tempted to cut corners, cheat, lie, cajole, threaten - or indeed do all of the above. The general public are unlikely to object, because the general public are unlikely to find out what you are up to.
Of course the allegations about Nigel Farage are all part of an ongoing smear campaign against UKIP in the run-up to the elections in May. I confidently expect that UKIP will poll well in those elections, regardless of what is printed about them in the meantime. I expect also however that their support may not last long. I may be wrong, but I do not expect that they will win a single seat in parliament in next year's general election, and I expect also that their support will largely evaporate thereafter.
For many people, a UKIP vote in May will be a protest vote, and that is perhaps the main reason why the smear campaign against UKIP is unlikely to dent their support.
Looking ahead, there will doubtless many times in the future when rumours circulate about politicians being crooks or bullies or whatever. When you hear such rumours, do not rush to believe them. They could be malicious. Equally though, do not be surprised. Even outwardly friendly people can behave badly at times, and politics is an occupation which has an uncanny ability to bring out the worst in people.
Update: in case any reader of this site is having difficulties with regard to membership of a political party which is poorly led, then the most helpful thing I can do is to point out that the last line of accountability in any party is to resign if you are unhappy with the way things are going.
Time and again when writing this blog I have urged readers to join a political party, but I am careful never to recommend a political party. This is intentional. Maybe the best political party for you to join is one that does not yet exist.
Related previous posts include:
Demon words aimed at UKIP
Nigel Farage is still a coward
A tale of two scumbags
Politics can be a very dirty business, as I know from my own first-hand experiences. Time and again I hear stories about politicians - usually famous ones - being bullies or womanisers or even crooks. I cannot know for certain whether or not specific allegations are true, but they do not surprise me.
For most politicians, nothing matters more than winning elections. Winning puts you in power, and can often be lucrative for the person who is lucky enough to be elected. Councillors nowadays often receive salary-type allowances, while MPs and MEPs are paid large salaries and also have access to expense accounts.
When you are the leader of a political party, you are under pressure to achieve results, and it is only to be expected that occasionally you will be tempted to cut corners, cheat, lie, cajole, threaten - or indeed do all of the above. The general public are unlikely to object, because the general public are unlikely to find out what you are up to.
Of course the allegations about Nigel Farage are all part of an ongoing smear campaign against UKIP in the run-up to the elections in May. I confidently expect that UKIP will poll well in those elections, regardless of what is printed about them in the meantime. I expect also however that their support may not last long. I may be wrong, but I do not expect that they will win a single seat in parliament in next year's general election, and I expect also that their support will largely evaporate thereafter.
For many people, a UKIP vote in May will be a protest vote, and that is perhaps the main reason why the smear campaign against UKIP is unlikely to dent their support.
Looking ahead, there will doubtless many times in the future when rumours circulate about politicians being crooks or bullies or whatever. When you hear such rumours, do not rush to believe them. They could be malicious. Equally though, do not be surprised. Even outwardly friendly people can behave badly at times, and politics is an occupation which has an uncanny ability to bring out the worst in people.
Update: in case any reader of this site is having difficulties with regard to membership of a political party which is poorly led, then the most helpful thing I can do is to point out that the last line of accountability in any party is to resign if you are unhappy with the way things are going.
Time and again when writing this blog I have urged readers to join a political party, but I am careful never to recommend a political party. This is intentional. Maybe the best political party for you to join is one that does not yet exist.
Related previous posts include:
Demon words aimed at UKIP
Nigel Farage is still a coward
A tale of two scumbags
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)