I give up. There's no use. The world's gone mad. The US economy is built on a towering mountain of debt, made possible by the monopoly that the US dollar enjoys for the trade in oil and gas. The US has 47% of the world's military.
Russia was rumoured to have developed a deep oil drilling technology that relies on the fact that oil is not in fact organic in origin, but is a purely chemical product produced by the earth's magma.
We have yet again today more bullshit about salt and saturated fat. Right in the middle of a heat wave, telling people to cut down on salt. I mean, for fuck sake, insufficient salt is a bigger cause of dehydration than insufficient water - the kidneys regulate the salinity of the blood first and foremost, and a person's thirst depends on signals that their blood is too saline. In other words, eat too much salt, you'll be very thirsty, drink more water and piss the lot of it down the toilet. Get dehydrated however and you'll run low on salt. Your kidneys will still be removing water from the blood to keep the salinity up, at the same time you'll be getting thumping headaches and muscle cramps and yet you still won't be thirsty. Drinking plain water will only alleviate the situation temporarily until the kidneys do their job and bring the salinity of the blood back in balance by dumping water into your bladder. Salt salt and more salt, it's the great big silver key that I have used to lock up dehydration for over a year now. If I'm ever out in hot weather for a few hours and find I'm not thirsty, that's a warning sign. Out comes a pack of ready salted crisps, or better still, a home made "isotonic" drink (orange squash with a shake of salt in it).
We now have the self-proclaimed Heir To Blair in 10 Downing Street, in a coalition with the dark forces of secular liberalism.
Government departments are getting their budgets slashed while at the same time they are continuing to throw money at wind farms and electric cars which will both do a great deal to guarantee brown-outs in Britain within the next 10-15 years.
At the same time, our armed forces are pathetically weak, as week in week out some of our finest servicemen get blown up as part of the political war in Afghanistan.
So much wrong with the world, and with this country.
However, as I read Peter Hitchens, Simon Heffer, David Aaronovitch, Janet Daley, Christopher Brooker and other conservative journalists making similar points with far greater humour, power and articulation than I can muster, I can no longer see the point of running this blog.
Not only that but there is no evidence of anyone reading it on a regular basis, so it's time to pull my prehistoric reptilian body back into the dark waters, keeping well out of the way while the human race self destructs.
One thing's for sure, when you're all gone, alligators will still be here.
Good night.
Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Monday, 31 May 2010
10. Energy and climate change
Energy and what? Never before in the history of politics has a whole government department changed its very name to reflect such a ridiculous, unproven, hotly contested argument. Never before have we had all 3 political parties in such unanimous agreement over the use of a piece of Newspeak.
Anyway, down to details. This country has an ageing power generation infrastructure. Our nuclear power plants have not been replaced because of two things. Firstly, the Labour government published this disgraceful white paper in which the actual business of power generation was left until 75 pages into the paper. So what were the first 74 pages talking about? Climate change myths of course. This highlighted the first problem in acute detail. The politicians believe that "alternative" and "green" and "renewable" sources can replace conventional power plants and that this is essential to avoid a global catastrophe. They can't and it isn't.
The second problem was the same one that led to Labour wrecking the economy, and that is their mindset that involves living for today and not tomorrow. Enjoying the spending spree and not planning for the future. It comes from a background of socialist ideology and economic irresponsibility. It comes from a party that is, as Janet Daley commented recently in the Daily Torygraph, the natural party of opposition, not of government. Labour have always had the Tories to come in and clean up their mess for them. They have never lasted in government long enough to be forced to clean it up by themselves. A 5th Labour term would have been the best thing that could have happened to politics in this country, because it would have meant the utter destruction of the Labour Party. Instead, they escaped to the opposition benches in the nick of time, to elect a new supreme leader and re-arm for their next spell in government, in 5 or 10 years time.
The difference now is that on matters of energy and "climate change" the new liberal government is signed up to exactly the same agenda as the outgoing government was - blind faith in new technology, ignorance of the facts about wind turbines and unwillingness to actually solve the bigger problem, namely keeping the lights on in Britain.
The first item on this section of the manifesto isn't anything to do with securing Britain's energy needs. It's about the need to combat "climate change". Listen, the problem is that while we're wringing our hands about man made climate change, we are weakening our country. When the oil does start to run out, when rain forests and national parks are being razed to the ground to make way for biofuel crops, when people in moderately wealthy countries start starving because there's no food, when meat production becomes uneconomical and when cancer rates start rising and people finally realise the link between agricultural diet and degenerative disease - then you will have World War III.
So what's this got to do with Britain's energy and climate change policy? Well, it's got everything to do with it. Climate change might or might not be happening in the way the zealots claim, and might or might not be influenced by man's activities, but what is sure is that the world will become overcrowded long before a few inches of rising sea levels become a serious issue. If we're worried about food production we should be more worried about the projected doubling of the world's population in my lifetime than we should about some poorly researched, junk science fairy tale about global warming causing a disaster. The sheer size of human population is itself the disaster. If there's oil in the ground, we'll find it, exploit it, then fight wars over it when it starts to run out. That is what Iraq was about. That is the nasty, unpalatable truth about the world. Like a virus that eventually kills its host, the human race will eventually kill the planet and itself in the process.
But, and this is the most important bit, some of that virus always survives and finds a new host. We're not all about to board the Starship Enterprise and head off to brave new worlds, but what we will end up with is a post-apocalyptic world where the strongest will have survived. Nature will take over again, fuelled by the energy from the sun, re-stocking the oceans with fish and the land with flora and fauna. We will not put ourselves in a position to survive this holocaust by erecting wind turbines and spending billions on researching carbon capture schemes. We will survive by building a good mix of power generation infrastructure, by keeping our armed forces strong, and by never letting the USA forget who its best friend is.
Of course, no government can publish this sort of thing. What they can do however is concentrate on the tangible, short term problems like the lights going out in the 2020's due to lack of power generation capacity, or energy bills going up to the level where the average British family will be living in fuel poverty. This will happen in our lifetimes and no amount of energy saving light bulbs, smart meters or carbon capture schemes will stop it from happening.
The coalition government will do nothing to address the problems we face, because they're trying to solve problems that might not exist and certainly don't matter, whilst ignoring the real problems. Where are the conservatives when you need them?
Anyway, down to details. This country has an ageing power generation infrastructure. Our nuclear power plants have not been replaced because of two things. Firstly, the Labour government published this disgraceful white paper in which the actual business of power generation was left until 75 pages into the paper. So what were the first 74 pages talking about? Climate change myths of course. This highlighted the first problem in acute detail. The politicians believe that "alternative" and "green" and "renewable" sources can replace conventional power plants and that this is essential to avoid a global catastrophe. They can't and it isn't.
The second problem was the same one that led to Labour wrecking the economy, and that is their mindset that involves living for today and not tomorrow. Enjoying the spending spree and not planning for the future. It comes from a background of socialist ideology and economic irresponsibility. It comes from a party that is, as Janet Daley commented recently in the Daily Torygraph, the natural party of opposition, not of government. Labour have always had the Tories to come in and clean up their mess for them. They have never lasted in government long enough to be forced to clean it up by themselves. A 5th Labour term would have been the best thing that could have happened to politics in this country, because it would have meant the utter destruction of the Labour Party. Instead, they escaped to the opposition benches in the nick of time, to elect a new supreme leader and re-arm for their next spell in government, in 5 or 10 years time.
The difference now is that on matters of energy and "climate change" the new liberal government is signed up to exactly the same agenda as the outgoing government was - blind faith in new technology, ignorance of the facts about wind turbines and unwillingness to actually solve the bigger problem, namely keeping the lights on in Britain.
The first item on this section of the manifesto isn't anything to do with securing Britain's energy needs. It's about the need to combat "climate change". Listen, the problem is that while we're wringing our hands about man made climate change, we are weakening our country. When the oil does start to run out, when rain forests and national parks are being razed to the ground to make way for biofuel crops, when people in moderately wealthy countries start starving because there's no food, when meat production becomes uneconomical and when cancer rates start rising and people finally realise the link between agricultural diet and degenerative disease - then you will have World War III.
So what's this got to do with Britain's energy and climate change policy? Well, it's got everything to do with it. Climate change might or might not be happening in the way the zealots claim, and might or might not be influenced by man's activities, but what is sure is that the world will become overcrowded long before a few inches of rising sea levels become a serious issue. If we're worried about food production we should be more worried about the projected doubling of the world's population in my lifetime than we should about some poorly researched, junk science fairy tale about global warming causing a disaster. The sheer size of human population is itself the disaster. If there's oil in the ground, we'll find it, exploit it, then fight wars over it when it starts to run out. That is what Iraq was about. That is the nasty, unpalatable truth about the world. Like a virus that eventually kills its host, the human race will eventually kill the planet and itself in the process.
But, and this is the most important bit, some of that virus always survives and finds a new host. We're not all about to board the Starship Enterprise and head off to brave new worlds, but what we will end up with is a post-apocalyptic world where the strongest will have survived. Nature will take over again, fuelled by the energy from the sun, re-stocking the oceans with fish and the land with flora and fauna. We will not put ourselves in a position to survive this holocaust by erecting wind turbines and spending billions on researching carbon capture schemes. We will survive by building a good mix of power generation infrastructure, by keeping our armed forces strong, and by never letting the USA forget who its best friend is.
Of course, no government can publish this sort of thing. What they can do however is concentrate on the tangible, short term problems like the lights going out in the 2020's due to lack of power generation capacity, or energy bills going up to the level where the average British family will be living in fuel poverty. This will happen in our lifetimes and no amount of energy saving light bulbs, smart meters or carbon capture schemes will stop it from happening.
The coalition government will do nothing to address the problems we face, because they're trying to solve problems that might not exist and certainly don't matter, whilst ignoring the real problems. Where are the conservatives when you need them?
9. Deficit reduction
I don't often blog about the economy. Partly this is because like most members of the public (and for that matter, most MPs) I am ignorant of the facts. I also do not profess to understand how the "creation of credit" cycle actually creates any real money. For every penny borrowed, there is a penny owed. For every penny received, there is a penny given up by someone else. If debt grows in an economy, for that equation to balance the economy must grow.
The thing is though, economies to not operate in isolation. They are interlinked with one another. For every action there is a reaction. So, when India and China grow dramatically, what happens to us in Britain?
Labour often repeated a phrase that the Tories would "take £6billion out of the economy". So, what does that actually mean? Cutting spending by £6bn in order to reduce taxes and reduce our debt isn't a case of putting money into the economy or taking it out, it's a case of choosing how fast the money is recycled.
Of course, we need to reduce our deficit, but the point is that we shouldn't have been running a deficit in the good years anyway. Labour used massive debt, sale of gold reserves and stealth taxes as a way of bribing us with our own money. Yet again Labour have left the country in a dreadful mess and yet again they still returned a very substantial number of MPs. The cheers in Sunderland as the first results were declared on election night had something of an aura about them. It was mass self-delusion, hundreds of cheering supporters hoping to see the dishonest and incompetent Labour government returned for a 5th term in office.
All the waste-cutting sounds good in principle but it is easy for a new government to do this. Once they've been in power a while, they will start making their own quangos to implement their own wonderful ideas, and the normal state of high spending will be restored.
£6bn is just a start, the trouble is that choosing to spend money or debt reduction rather than on the public sector (both in terms of public sector jobs and in contracts for goods and services from the private sector) they will inevitably slow the economy down. This shouldn't be seen as a Bad Thing. Even now we have the illusion of being better off than we really are. We have the illusion of higher employment.
We need to cut drastically, right now, and protect the industries and jobs that generate wealth for the nation. This means concentrating on high tech manufacturing, intellectual property, vocational education, and in forming partnerships with India and China in the private sector. The private sector generates wealth for the nation by exporting goods and services, the public sector merely recycles money from taxation through public spending and back again by taxation.
Deficit reduction is essential but must be part of a bigger plan to push this country in the right direction. The trade union movement including the Labour party should now be consigned to history.
The thing is though, economies to not operate in isolation. They are interlinked with one another. For every action there is a reaction. So, when India and China grow dramatically, what happens to us in Britain?
Labour often repeated a phrase that the Tories would "take £6billion out of the economy". So, what does that actually mean? Cutting spending by £6bn in order to reduce taxes and reduce our debt isn't a case of putting money into the economy or taking it out, it's a case of choosing how fast the money is recycled.
Of course, we need to reduce our deficit, but the point is that we shouldn't have been running a deficit in the good years anyway. Labour used massive debt, sale of gold reserves and stealth taxes as a way of bribing us with our own money. Yet again Labour have left the country in a dreadful mess and yet again they still returned a very substantial number of MPs. The cheers in Sunderland as the first results were declared on election night had something of an aura about them. It was mass self-delusion, hundreds of cheering supporters hoping to see the dishonest and incompetent Labour government returned for a 5th term in office.
All the waste-cutting sounds good in principle but it is easy for a new government to do this. Once they've been in power a while, they will start making their own quangos to implement their own wonderful ideas, and the normal state of high spending will be restored.
£6bn is just a start, the trouble is that choosing to spend money or debt reduction rather than on the public sector (both in terms of public sector jobs and in contracts for goods and services from the private sector) they will inevitably slow the economy down. This shouldn't be seen as a Bad Thing. Even now we have the illusion of being better off than we really are. We have the illusion of higher employment.
We need to cut drastically, right now, and protect the industries and jobs that generate wealth for the nation. This means concentrating on high tech manufacturing, intellectual property, vocational education, and in forming partnerships with India and China in the private sector. The private sector generates wealth for the nation by exporting goods and services, the public sector merely recycles money from taxation through public spending and back again by taxation.
Deficit reduction is essential but must be part of a bigger plan to push this country in the right direction. The trade union movement including the Labour party should now be consigned to history.
8. Defence
Trident. How can the liberals be so opposed to it in opposition and then capitulate on this issue as soon as they get a sniff of power? Either they are willing to sell their grannies to get a ministerial Jag and a red box, or they have been taken into a quiet room in Whitehall and told the facts of life by someone fairly senior from military intelligence... Either way when all hell breaks loose in the next 50-100 years on overcrowded planet earth, we'll at least have a few real weapons to defend ourselves.
I really worry about the plan to put ex-servicemen into classrooms as schoolteachers. Coming from a background of discipline, respect and professionalism, I can't see how they will cope when faced with a mob of bubblegum chewing. ill-disciplined, rude, disrespectful, lazy, disruptive little toerags when they have no sanctions with which to deter bad behaviour. What they should be doing is helping to run boot camps for first time young offenders. Not borstals, and not national service, but a proper chance for wayward teenage boys to receive some much-needed discipline from some positive male role models.
I really worry about the plan to put ex-servicemen into classrooms as schoolteachers. Coming from a background of discipline, respect and professionalism, I can't see how they will cope when faced with a mob of bubblegum chewing. ill-disciplined, rude, disrespectful, lazy, disruptive little toerags when they have no sanctions with which to deter bad behaviour. What they should be doing is helping to run boot camps for first time young offenders. Not borstals, and not national service, but a proper chance for wayward teenage boys to receive some much-needed discipline from some positive male role models.
7. Culture, media, olymics and sport
Oh please. Do we really have any time or money to spend on any of these things right now? Clearing out the liberal left wing from the BBC would be about the only thing worthwhile doing in this area, but why would a liberal government do such a thing?
Friday, 28 May 2010
6. Crime and policing
Good soundbite about removing the health and safety culture that stops coppers from doing their job, but what they really need to address is poltical correctness and the way the balance is complete against the police officer. Policemen need to be utterly restrained when faced with spitting, snarling scumbags every day of their working lives. One false move and they end up accused of police brutality, or even that most dreaded of accusations - "racist".
Get back to the days when telling a copper to "fuck off, pig" would earn you a right good kicking and you might start restoring some authority to the police. Eventually they might even be able to give up the stab vests and pepper sprays too.
Apparently they will double the fine for selling alcohol to underage children to £20k. That means it must be £10k at the moment, but as I discussed in a post some time back, it's more likely to be a similar amount to a minor parking offence. So, doubling the maximum will not make a damn bit of difference.
They promise to review the Extradition Act but don't say what's particularly wrong with it. What they also don't mention is the sinister European arrest warrant, which has taken an enormous bite out of our civil liberties. No extradition should be permitted for any crime committed abroad which would not be considered a crime in this country. Yet again, the total commitment to the European project is evident in the Liberal-Tory coalition.
Get back to the days when telling a copper to "fuck off, pig" would earn you a right good kicking and you might start restoring some authority to the police. Eventually they might even be able to give up the stab vests and pepper sprays too.
Apparently they will double the fine for selling alcohol to underage children to £20k. That means it must be £10k at the moment, but as I discussed in a post some time back, it's more likely to be a similar amount to a minor parking offence. So, doubling the maximum will not make a damn bit of difference.
They promise to review the Extradition Act but don't say what's particularly wrong with it. What they also don't mention is the sinister European arrest warrant, which has taken an enormous bite out of our civil liberties. No extradition should be permitted for any crime committed abroad which would not be considered a crime in this country. Yet again, the total commitment to the European project is evident in the Liberal-Tory coalition.
5. Consumer protection
Here we go, some hot air:
We will increase households’ control over their energy costs by ensuring that energy bills provide information on how to move to the cheapest tariff offered by their supplier, and how each household’s energy usage compares to similar households.
How about banning the practice of charging a fixed monthly amount based on an estimated meter reading, which allows energy companies hundreds of pounds of interest free credit at the expense of their customers? This is the biggest scam going and every energy provider is as guilty as every other.
We will increase households’ control over their energy costs by ensuring that energy bills provide information on how to move to the cheapest tariff offered by their supplier, and how each household’s energy usage compares to similar households.
How about banning the practice of charging a fixed monthly amount based on an estimated meter reading, which allows energy companies hundreds of pounds of interest free credit at the expense of their customers? This is the biggest scam going and every energy provider is as guilty as every other.
4. Communities and local government
Apparently they will "promote radical devolution of power and greater financial autonomy to local government and community groups". Quite what this means, I don't know.
Not a lot in here worth mentioning. Local government is a law unto itself. In my neighbourhood a Tory councillor elected some time back at the expense of an Unliberal Antidemocrat who cared more about shutting respectable public houses at 11pm than about doing something useful about the residents parking chaos. I haven't heard a single word from Ms Tory since. She won't be getting my vote next time.
Keep emptying the bins once a week, fill in the worst of the potholes in the road and keep sweeping the vomit and kebab wrappers off the pavement every Sunday morning and I can't ask much more.
Not a lot in here worth mentioning. Local government is a law unto itself. In my neighbourhood a Tory councillor elected some time back at the expense of an Unliberal Antidemocrat who cared more about shutting respectable public houses at 11pm than about doing something useful about the residents parking chaos. I haven't heard a single word from Ms Tory since. She won't be getting my vote next time.
Keep emptying the bins once a week, fill in the worst of the potholes in the road and keep sweeping the vomit and kebab wrappers off the pavement every Sunday morning and I can't ask much more.
3. Civil Liberties
Well, not a lot here other than good news. ID cards scrapped, New Labour's big brother schemes undermined without any delay or procrastination. More good intentions about keeping trial by jury, but sadly as they are completely pro-European there are no plans to abandon the European human rights legislation and put in its place a system of individual liberty under the rule of law.
Friday, 21 May 2010
2. Business
The most interesting claim in the Business section is the statement that they will "consider" implementing the findings of the Dyson review. A wholly admirable aim, I think, but one that is difficult to do in practice.
The Dyson review highlights one of the biggest problems: -
Many parents have no idea of the value and excitement of science, technology, engineering or maths careers – they assume that to succeed, their children must become bankers, lawyers or accountants (probably in that order). We must add engineers and scientists to that list.
The real problem is that these "parents" are largely correct. Engineering salaries are pitiful compared with bankers, lawyers or accountants with similar levels of responsibility. The engineering institutions like IMechE have been whinging for as long as I've been involved with engineering (half my lifetime) about the lack of recognition of the term "engineer".
At the moment, the local garage mechanic who changes my brake pads can use the same job title as the professional whose name appears on the patent for the braking mechanism: "Engineer". The two jobs are a world apart from each other yet they use the same job title. We do not hear nurses calling themselves doctors, legal clerks calling themselves barristers, or bank clerks calling themselves management accountants.
There needs to be legal protection for the term "engineer". That means all the boiler repair men and car mechanics will need to start using the perfectly respectable term reserved for their professions - "technician". We have a serious lack of recognition of professional technicians in this country as well. Theirs is a different job from that of an engineer with a vastly different skill set. I would go further and protect the term "technician" for those who are members of a recognised industry body.
The biggest shocker of the Dyson report is this one, which, in the current economic climate, with the tiger economies of India and China starting to become serious competitors, should worry us all immensely:
Patents filed in 2007:
330,000 – Japan
240,000 – US
17,000 – UK
Patents are the key to securing wealth. Patents mean nobody can copy an idea without reaching a commercial agreement with the patent holder. A lack of patents indicates an economy that is failing to generate intellectual property or failing to protect it adequately. Britain's performance is pathetic and urgent action is required.
Another theme running throughout the Dyson report is the lack of pupils studying Physics. Indeed, 1 in 4 schools don't have a dedicated Physics teacher. My school had 3 of them and lo and behold it was one of the best comprehensives in the country.
Physics is the bedrock of a good engineering education. I recently saw a GCSE cramming programme on the BBC, covering a product design course. Sorry, but why are teenagers studying product design before they have learned the fundamental science that underpins mechanical, electrical and electronic engineering? There shouldn't be a GCSE on such a specialised, complex vocational subject - this is something that can be learned in the 3rd year of an engineering degree at university. I always thought education was being dumbed down but this programme proved to me that the previous goverment understand nothing about how to educate children and prepare them for university.
Business is all about making things and exporting things, that's what contributes to our balance of payments, which has been negative since 1984. However, a little more reading uncovers a startling statistic. In 2001 our balance of payments with the rest of the EU was a slight surplus. Since then it has gone very negative, until 2008 when it returned almost to zero. In other words, our housing bubble and economic boom was better for our EU trading partners than it was for us. Now that it's all over, we're back to equality.
Oh, and the country with the greatest surplus was Switzerland. Which is landlocked by powerful EU countries but continues to maintain both sovereign independence and excellent trading relationships with other European countries. A little off-topic, but a good statistic the next time someone wheels out the argument that we have to be in the EU because so much of our trade is with Europe...
The Dyson review highlights one of the biggest problems: -
Many parents have no idea of the value and excitement of science, technology, engineering or maths careers – they assume that to succeed, their children must become bankers, lawyers or accountants (probably in that order). We must add engineers and scientists to that list.
The real problem is that these "parents" are largely correct. Engineering salaries are pitiful compared with bankers, lawyers or accountants with similar levels of responsibility. The engineering institutions like IMechE have been whinging for as long as I've been involved with engineering (half my lifetime) about the lack of recognition of the term "engineer".
At the moment, the local garage mechanic who changes my brake pads can use the same job title as the professional whose name appears on the patent for the braking mechanism: "Engineer". The two jobs are a world apart from each other yet they use the same job title. We do not hear nurses calling themselves doctors, legal clerks calling themselves barristers, or bank clerks calling themselves management accountants.
There needs to be legal protection for the term "engineer". That means all the boiler repair men and car mechanics will need to start using the perfectly respectable term reserved for their professions - "technician". We have a serious lack of recognition of professional technicians in this country as well. Theirs is a different job from that of an engineer with a vastly different skill set. I would go further and protect the term "technician" for those who are members of a recognised industry body.
The biggest shocker of the Dyson report is this one, which, in the current economic climate, with the tiger economies of India and China starting to become serious competitors, should worry us all immensely:
Patents filed in 2007:
330,000 – Japan
240,000 – US
17,000 – UK
Patents are the key to securing wealth. Patents mean nobody can copy an idea without reaching a commercial agreement with the patent holder. A lack of patents indicates an economy that is failing to generate intellectual property or failing to protect it adequately. Britain's performance is pathetic and urgent action is required.
Another theme running throughout the Dyson report is the lack of pupils studying Physics. Indeed, 1 in 4 schools don't have a dedicated Physics teacher. My school had 3 of them and lo and behold it was one of the best comprehensives in the country.
Physics is the bedrock of a good engineering education. I recently saw a GCSE cramming programme on the BBC, covering a product design course. Sorry, but why are teenagers studying product design before they have learned the fundamental science that underpins mechanical, electrical and electronic engineering? There shouldn't be a GCSE on such a specialised, complex vocational subject - this is something that can be learned in the 3rd year of an engineering degree at university. I always thought education was being dumbed down but this programme proved to me that the previous goverment understand nothing about how to educate children and prepare them for university.
Business is all about making things and exporting things, that's what contributes to our balance of payments, which has been negative since 1984. However, a little more reading uncovers a startling statistic. In 2001 our balance of payments with the rest of the EU was a slight surplus. Since then it has gone very negative, until 2008 when it returned almost to zero. In other words, our housing bubble and economic boom was better for our EU trading partners than it was for us. Now that it's all over, we're back to equality.
Oh, and the country with the greatest surplus was Switzerland. Which is landlocked by powerful EU countries but continues to maintain both sovereign independence and excellent trading relationships with other European countries. A little off-topic, but a good statistic the next time someone wheels out the argument that we have to be in the EU because so much of our trade is with Europe...
1. Banking
This is the first in a series of 31 posts on the coalition manifesto. First up, in alphabetical order (neutrality being the order of the day for both the coalition and the Alligator), it's Banking.
Well, apart from the common sense (easy with hindsight) there is one good bit in there, and that's a declaration that we will not join or prepare to join the Euro within the next parliament. Just as the Eurozone is collapsing around us, this too is little more than common sense. Even the most fervent Europhile could not conceive of Britain joining in the next 5 years.
So, nothing much there then.
Well, apart from the common sense (easy with hindsight) there is one good bit in there, and that's a declaration that we will not join or prepare to join the Euro within the next parliament. Just as the Eurozone is collapsing around us, this too is little more than common sense. Even the most fervent Europhile could not conceive of Britain joining in the next 5 years.
So, nothing much there then.
Thursday, 6 May 2010
BONG!!! BONG!!! BONG!!!
As Big Ben strikes 10pm the polls close, and the self-proclaimed Heir To Blair waits to see if he will win his seat on the throne. The best we can hope for it seems a hung parliament, maybe with Plane Crash winning in place of John Bercow so we can have a few proper conservative opinions floated in the house.
A high turnout, according to my local returning officer, means we might need to wait until 5am or later to get a result.
I won't be staying up...
A high turnout, according to my local returning officer, means we might need to wait until 5am or later to get a result.
I won't be staying up...
Monday, 26 April 2010
"Press ESC to exit full screen mode"
Yes, I think I know this by now after watching about a billion videos on the internet. Can I please see the first 5 seconds of an on-line video without having to suffer this fucking message plastered across the middle of the screen?
Green issues
Just as the parties are all trying to out-green each other, we have increasing hints that the tide of professional opinion may be following that of public opinion when it comes to climate change.
In all the quotations below, emphasis has been added by the Alligator.
Firstly, I hand the floor to John Pullin, editor of the Environmental Engineering magazine:
"Problems with data, and perhaps the coincidence of a cold winter, seem to have reignited debate about whether climate change is actually happening and the degree to which human activities can be held responsible. There are wildly divergent figures that you can get, depending on whom you talk to, for the amount that renewable technologies such as wind power might contribute to our energy mix in the future.
...
It's going to be interesting to see what answer [the politicians whom we elect] give to probing questions - and to see the degree to which all or any of them are willing to admit that they don't, as yet, have all the answers they need to make rational decisions on our behalf.
That's where environmental engineers come in, of course. On many of the questions that are proving so difficult to answer, there is a shortage of reliable data, or a plethora of conflicting information."
I remind you of the title that Mr Pullin edits. This is not a right-wing political magazine, nor it is a puppet of the "big oil" industry. It is the official magazine of the Society of Environmental Engineers.
Compare and contrast with the party manifestos. First of all, the Tories:
Firstly, that the commitment for the next 2 parliaments is identical between the three main parties, namely to adopt 15% renewable and/or 40% low carbon sources by 2020. Based on some of the Environmental Engineering comments, how can all three parties come to the same conclusion about such incomplete and conflicting information? Mr Pullin reckoned it would be interesting to see what answers they would give to questions on the environment. What he didn't consider was that the three main parties agree on just about everything - so why would this subject be any different?
Secondly, the absolute confidence the parties have, starting with the Tories being foolish and working up to the Lib Dems being completely off the planet, is absolutely breathtaking when compared to what an industry leading professional magazine says on the subject. None of the politicians can offer the slightest scrap of evidence to justify their claims or to underpin their plans for "low carbon" energy. The reason they don't have to is that they all spout the same drivel. There is no opposition, no debate and yet they still try to out-green each other with rhetoric and presentation. What utter nonsense and how typical of this election campaign.
It doesn't stop there however. An article in Engineering & Technology magazine (another professional publication, this time from the Institution of Engineering and Technology) titled "Climate change scepticism spreads in EU" goes on to explain how Germany in particular is starting to cast doubts on the climate change theories.
Der Spiegel is quoted as being "Germany's most respected news magazine" and has apparently run "a long article attacking leading climatologists and some of climate science itself". The IET article goes on to say that "the respected German Leibniz Association has become the first major scientific body in the world to call for IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri's resignation, and Germany's science minister has called in the country's IPCC reviewers for consultations".
Let's be clear about this - hearing the SEE and the Germany government starting to ask real questions about climate change is of profound importance. For this to happen at a time when the last hope for rational government in Britain (the Conservative Party) crank up the green agenda and make wild statements of policy on the environment and energy is not just ironic, it is verging on a national disgrace.
We have no major credible party that even acknowledges the gaps and inconsitencies in the science. We have no major credible party that questions the methods of the IPCC or that has an open mind on what may be happening and why.
We have lost all hope of having any debate on a great many subjects, but the failure to have a debate on "climate change" is probably the second most serious of the lot. The first, of course, is our continued membership of the EU.
In all the quotations below, emphasis has been added by the Alligator.
Firstly, I hand the floor to John Pullin, editor of the Environmental Engineering magazine:
"Problems with data, and perhaps the coincidence of a cold winter, seem to have reignited debate about whether climate change is actually happening and the degree to which human activities can be held responsible. There are wildly divergent figures that you can get, depending on whom you talk to, for the amount that renewable technologies such as wind power might contribute to our energy mix in the future.
...
It's going to be interesting to see what answer [the politicians whom we elect] give to probing questions - and to see the degree to which all or any of them are willing to admit that they don't, as yet, have all the answers they need to make rational decisions on our behalf.
That's where environmental engineers come in, of course. On many of the questions that are proving so difficult to answer, there is a shortage of reliable data, or a plethora of conflicting information."
I remind you of the title that Mr Pullin edits. This is not a right-wing political magazine, nor it is a puppet of the "big oil" industry. It is the official magazine of the Society of Environmental Engineers.
Compare and contrast with the party manifestos. First of all, the Tories:
- we need to generate 15 per cent of our energy from renewables by 2020
- we have the natural resources to generate wind and wave power
- Achieve around 40 per cent low-carbon electricity by 2020 and create 400,000 new green jobs by 2015
- We are committed to meeting 15 per cent of our energy demand from renewables by 2020
- To avert the catastrophe of unchecked climate change we have begun the shift to a different kind of economic future
- Climate change is the greatest challenge facing this generation. Liberal Democrats are unwavering in our commitment: runaway climate change must be stopped, and politicians must follow the science in order to make that happen
- Set a target for 40 per cent of UK electricity to come from clean, non-carbon-emitting sources by 2020, rising to 100 per cent by 2050, underpinned by guaranteed price support; and ensure that at least three-quarters of this new renewable energy comes from marine and offshore sources
- Reject a new generation of nuclear power stations; based on the evidence nuclear is a far more expensive way of reducing carbon emissions than promoting energy conservation and renewable energy
Firstly, that the commitment for the next 2 parliaments is identical between the three main parties, namely to adopt 15% renewable and/or 40% low carbon sources by 2020. Based on some of the Environmental Engineering comments, how can all three parties come to the same conclusion about such incomplete and conflicting information? Mr Pullin reckoned it would be interesting to see what answers they would give to questions on the environment. What he didn't consider was that the three main parties agree on just about everything - so why would this subject be any different?
Secondly, the absolute confidence the parties have, starting with the Tories being foolish and working up to the Lib Dems being completely off the planet, is absolutely breathtaking when compared to what an industry leading professional magazine says on the subject. None of the politicians can offer the slightest scrap of evidence to justify their claims or to underpin their plans for "low carbon" energy. The reason they don't have to is that they all spout the same drivel. There is no opposition, no debate and yet they still try to out-green each other with rhetoric and presentation. What utter nonsense and how typical of this election campaign.
It doesn't stop there however. An article in Engineering & Technology magazine (another professional publication, this time from the Institution of Engineering and Technology) titled "Climate change scepticism spreads in EU" goes on to explain how Germany in particular is starting to cast doubts on the climate change theories.
Der Spiegel is quoted as being "Germany's most respected news magazine" and has apparently run "a long article attacking leading climatologists and some of climate science itself". The IET article goes on to say that "the respected German Leibniz Association has become the first major scientific body in the world to call for IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri's resignation, and Germany's science minister has called in the country's IPCC reviewers for consultations".
Let's be clear about this - hearing the SEE and the Germany government starting to ask real questions about climate change is of profound importance. For this to happen at a time when the last hope for rational government in Britain (the Conservative Party) crank up the green agenda and make wild statements of policy on the environment and energy is not just ironic, it is verging on a national disgrace.
We have no major credible party that even acknowledges the gaps and inconsitencies in the science. We have no major credible party that questions the methods of the IPCC or that has an open mind on what may be happening and why.
We have lost all hope of having any debate on a great many subjects, but the failure to have a debate on "climate change" is probably the second most serious of the lot. The first, of course, is our continued membership of the EU.
Progressive values
So, Mr. Cameron, just exactly what "progressive values" are you talking about? How can you dare to lead a party called "Conservative" when you are directly appealing to liberals?
The problem, really, is summed up rather well by Peter Hitchens in his Mail On Sunday column this week. So I won't bother repeating it. I have other things to discuss tonight.
The problem, really, is summed up rather well by Peter Hitchens in his Mail On Sunday column this week. So I won't bother repeating it. I have other things to discuss tonight.
Friday, 16 April 2010
Not for the first time, Cameron falls apart in a debate
Does anyone remember the Tory leadership debate on QT between Cameron and Davis? Does anyone remember which David wiped the floor with the other David?
Yes, that's right. Put on the spot, Cameron is useless. In last night's debate on ITV he was unable to provide facts or data, unable to answer points made by the other two with any conviction. He even repeated one of his rehearsed lines at one point.
In many ways the first debate is the most telling. Between now and the next debate on Sky, Cameron's well-financed party machine will provide him with plenty of ammunition with which to shoot Mr Clegg. And, let's be honest, there's plenty of it.
Still, I have to concede defeat to a great professional commentator and leave the last word on this to Simon Heffer. I literally could not have put it half as well myself so I won't even try.
Yes, that's right. Put on the spot, Cameron is useless. In last night's debate on ITV he was unable to provide facts or data, unable to answer points made by the other two with any conviction. He even repeated one of his rehearsed lines at one point.
In many ways the first debate is the most telling. Between now and the next debate on Sky, Cameron's well-financed party machine will provide him with plenty of ammunition with which to shoot Mr Clegg. And, let's be honest, there's plenty of it.
Still, I have to concede defeat to a great professional commentator and leave the last word on this to Simon Heffer. I literally could not have put it half as well myself so I won't even try.
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
Big Society
I don't know what irritated me more about the Tories' manifesto, the concept of "big society" or the reaction to it from various members of the public and commentators.
"Big society" as far as I can tell means government devolving responsibility for sorting problems to the people suffering from the problems. In other words, your kids' school is crap, it's your responsibility to build a new one. After all, David, with rights come responsibilities, don't they?
Some of the thinking behind it is admirable, and the idea that we should be looking to contribute something to some aspect of society is certainly one that has been lacking since Thatcherism turned us into a nation of selfish individuals. However, it is this key point that the Tories fail to grasp.
The irony is overwhelming. It was this party who, more than any other, promoted the values of individual materialism, unregulated capitalism and the removal of support for marriage and stable family units. Now the nation of selfish toads they have created are expected to start contributing to something that they cannot understand.
There are a number of reasons why we won't do what Cameron suggests.
Firstly, we work long hours and women don't stay at home to bring up the children. So, weekends are now the only time the family have any chance to be together, and this results in the parents engaging in two days of indulgence to make up for the 5 week days of neglect. This neglect-guilt-indulgence-self satisfication cycle repeats on a weekly basis for most "middle class" families.
Secondly, we have a culture of single people living alone (I'm one). Whereas I find the time to take on volunatary activities at weekends, most single 30-somethings are out pretending they are still 19, drinking like fish and painting the town red every Friday and Saturday night.
Thirdly, we enjoy a considerable affluence and have little concept of the value of money in many cases. There is no end of ways to waste one's money, whether it be cinema tickets, alcohol, cheap restuarants, petrol or diesel used to fuel unnecessary trips, or anything else that we use to escape from reality at weekends.
Finally, the Tories are right in one very important regard. We are a broken society and there is a culture of indifference towards one's neighbours.
The rest of the Tories' manifesto, as far as I can tell at first glance, is a lot of meaningless waffle. Turn to page 90 for a pointless photograph of German eco-town Freiburg, followed on page 91 by a page of drivel about fighting climate change. I'll remember that, Dave, next time I'm digging my car out from 6 inches of snow for 3 weeks at a time.
When talking about mending our broken society there is not a single mention of doing the only thing that has ever worked in human history which is coming down like a ton of bricks on anyone breaking the law. Do it, and the streets will become safer. Do it not, and the country will sink ever deeper into the cesspit of lawlessness and disrespect that has become commonplace in my 30-odd years on the planet.
I have never felt so depressed on the run-up to an election.
"Big society" as far as I can tell means government devolving responsibility for sorting problems to the people suffering from the problems. In other words, your kids' school is crap, it's your responsibility to build a new one. After all, David, with rights come responsibilities, don't they?
Some of the thinking behind it is admirable, and the idea that we should be looking to contribute something to some aspect of society is certainly one that has been lacking since Thatcherism turned us into a nation of selfish individuals. However, it is this key point that the Tories fail to grasp.
The irony is overwhelming. It was this party who, more than any other, promoted the values of individual materialism, unregulated capitalism and the removal of support for marriage and stable family units. Now the nation of selfish toads they have created are expected to start contributing to something that they cannot understand.
There are a number of reasons why we won't do what Cameron suggests.
Firstly, we work long hours and women don't stay at home to bring up the children. So, weekends are now the only time the family have any chance to be together, and this results in the parents engaging in two days of indulgence to make up for the 5 week days of neglect. This neglect-guilt-indulgence-self satisfication cycle repeats on a weekly basis for most "middle class" families.
Secondly, we have a culture of single people living alone (I'm one). Whereas I find the time to take on volunatary activities at weekends, most single 30-somethings are out pretending they are still 19, drinking like fish and painting the town red every Friday and Saturday night.
Thirdly, we enjoy a considerable affluence and have little concept of the value of money in many cases. There is no end of ways to waste one's money, whether it be cinema tickets, alcohol, cheap restuarants, petrol or diesel used to fuel unnecessary trips, or anything else that we use to escape from reality at weekends.
Finally, the Tories are right in one very important regard. We are a broken society and there is a culture of indifference towards one's neighbours.
The rest of the Tories' manifesto, as far as I can tell at first glance, is a lot of meaningless waffle. Turn to page 90 for a pointless photograph of German eco-town Freiburg, followed on page 91 by a page of drivel about fighting climate change. I'll remember that, Dave, next time I'm digging my car out from 6 inches of snow for 3 weeks at a time.
When talking about mending our broken society there is not a single mention of doing the only thing that has ever worked in human history which is coming down like a ton of bricks on anyone breaking the law. Do it, and the streets will become safer. Do it not, and the country will sink ever deeper into the cesspit of lawlessness and disrespect that has become commonplace in my 30-odd years on the planet.
I have never felt so depressed on the run-up to an election.
Friday, 9 April 2010
Stealth taxes from Blue Labour
It now seems the Tories are nothing more than Blue Labour after the news that they are refusing to rule out putting tolls on Britain's motorway network.
Left of centre political parties like the Tories love this kind of tax for many reasons.
Firstly, it is a stealth tax, and therefore does not require a chancellor to stand up on budget day and declare it openly, as he would for a rise in income tax, national insurance or VAT. It can be sneaked in, step by step, until it becomes part of life without anyone noticing.
Secondly, it is a tax on the freedom of movement and an opportunity to monitor innocent people.
Thirdly, it subscribes to the global warming agenda and is fully "on message" that the government is "doing something about climate change". For this reason it is also heresy to argue against such a tax and those brave enough to do so can be mocked and derided as "climate change deniers" without any need for an intellectual argument.
Fourthly, it is the sort of tax that the rich can ignore as irrelevant and from which the poor will suffer the most, especially in this case those unfortunate enough to have geographically distant family members.
Another reason not to vote for the Useless Tories in the next election. Sorry to Peter Hitchens for stealing his catchphrase.
Left of centre political parties like the Tories love this kind of tax for many reasons.
Firstly, it is a stealth tax, and therefore does not require a chancellor to stand up on budget day and declare it openly, as he would for a rise in income tax, national insurance or VAT. It can be sneaked in, step by step, until it becomes part of life without anyone noticing.
Secondly, it is a tax on the freedom of movement and an opportunity to monitor innocent people.
Thirdly, it subscribes to the global warming agenda and is fully "on message" that the government is "doing something about climate change". For this reason it is also heresy to argue against such a tax and those brave enough to do so can be mocked and derided as "climate change deniers" without any need for an intellectual argument.
Fourthly, it is the sort of tax that the rich can ignore as irrelevant and from which the poor will suffer the most, especially in this case those unfortunate enough to have geographically distant family members.
Another reason not to vote for the Useless Tories in the next election. Sorry to Peter Hitchens for stealing his catchphrase.
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
Vote Alligator
It's election time again, so here's the Alligator Party manifesto
Economy
Stinging cuts in public spending, aimed deliberately at reducing the size of the public sector for the long term, in recognition that 13 years of Labour spending dressed up as "investment" has delivered extremely poor value for money.
Highest priority will be the abolition of overpaid quangos, hospital managers, anything to do with climate change or racial equality, etc. To support these ends, a public consulation website to be set up where taxpayers can report on waste in any level and in any department of the public sector. Ministers would be obliged to review the best suggestions on a monthly basis.
Taxation would be limited on jobs and earnings for low to middle earners, the 50% top rate of tax would stay and national insurance would be frozen. Each budget would bring a progressive reduction in stealth taxes that hammer ordinary working people, especially those masquerading as "green" taxes.
Crime and punishment
An end to "early release" in all but a few cases, on severe compassionate grounds or following an appeal for mercy by the victim.
Reintroduce capital punishment for pre-meditated murder, murder of a Police officer, murder of anyone under the age of 16, conspiracy to murder, or murder during the course of commiting any other crime.
Life in prison to mean life for lesser crimes of murder, child rape, serial adult rape, armed robbery, etc.
Generally a significant increase in prison sentences but more importantly, the reversal of several decades of liberalism within the prison system.
Prisoners would have no access to the internet nor would they have televisions in their cells. Certain items would be classified as "serious contraband", including illegal drugs and mobile phones. Posession of such items would be rewarded with lengthy periods of solitary confinement, escalating with frequency and severity of the offence. Any prisoner found to be coordinating criminal activities on the outside would be relocated to a new extreme security prison and would have their sentence doubled. Posession of "minor contraband" such as moonshine, inappropriate reading material, etc, would receive corporal punishment or removal of some priveleges.
Prison officers would very quickly regain the respect, tinged with a touch of fear, of the prisoners.
Anyone arrested for a criminal or driving offence would be subjected to a mandatory drug test. Failure of the test would be an offence in its own right and would be kept on record for 10 years. However any such person who was later charged and convicted of a crime would be tested again and then placed into medically supervised detention until all traces of illegal substances had disappeared from their system. No methodone or other substitutes would be permitted (inside or outside of prison, for that matter).
Coroporal punishment, i.e. the birch, will be reintroduced for petty theft, shoplifting, criminal damage, littering and public order offences. It is time to stamp out this kind of behaviour with punishments that are short, severe and very public.
Community punishments to be made the norm for crimes that are currently regarded as "anti-social behaviour" such as making excessive noise at night, intimidating members of the public, etc.
There will also be a shift from "human rights" to a more traditional concept of "individual liberty". Liberty is something that one surrenders when one, for example, breaks into another person's house. But liberty is something that the state cannot take away. We need to reconnect with the English concept of common law, that only one's fellow commoners can take away one's liberty through a trial by jury. Ultimately, any ban or restriction imposed by a government is worthless if a jury refuses to convict. This is how common law works.
For child criminals, the situation is more sensitive. The age of criminal responsibility is less important than the principle that when a child is below that age, the parents or legal guardians take the criminal responsibility instead. This would be the basis for a debate on the subject.
Finally, political correctness would be utterly abolished and the police would be restored to their traditional, correct role as citizens in uniform who exist to uphold the law. Corruption and blatant racialism would be stamped out but the ordinary bobby on the beat would not have his hands tied with liberal nonsense.
Education
Education is the final pillar of the Alligator manifesto. The Alligator believes, as a survivor of 200,000 years of evolution, in survival of the fittest and in pushing the best children to achieve the best they possibly can.
Streaming and selection are important in education to ensure each child is stretched and challenged. Grammar schools remain the most obvious way to ensure this happens in a manner that does not discriminate on the grounds of parental wealth or postcode lotteries. Grammar schools would therefore be reintroduced and the sector would be grown. Each school, where possible, would have a catchment area covering a range of social backgrounds to ensure the pupils see from an early age that social background and academic ability need not be linked.
For those not clever enough to get into grammar school, the comprehensive education system would be thoroughly shaken up. A-levels would still be offered, of course, as the standards have now slipped so far that an alternative qualification would need to be developed for grammar schools. Moving from comprehensive school to a reasonable university would remain a common occurance, but overall the university sector would be scaled back so that around 25% of school leavers would go to university.
Modern joke universities would be turned back into respectable colleges of higher education, teaching the more vocational HNC and HND qualifications that are so badly needed to address a growing lack of native British tradesmen and skilled workers.
Finally, what of the lowest groups? First of all the idea of one group being the "lowest" would not enter into it. Each individual has talents and abilities that must be explored. Music, the arts, skills, vocational subjects and sports should be offered to those not able to compete in traditional subjects. This would be a total reversal of the current situation where clever pupils are encouraged to take easy, vocationl, joke subjects like drama and media studies, instead of difficult, traditional, useful subjects like maths, English, sciences and languages.
Labour's policy of social engineering would be utterly demolished and a traditional, challenging system of education tailored to each pupil's ability would take its place. Everyone has something unique to contribute to the country and the education system must be flexible and not treat everyone the same.
Europe
Leave the EU. Full stop.
More policies will be added soon.
Economy
Stinging cuts in public spending, aimed deliberately at reducing the size of the public sector for the long term, in recognition that 13 years of Labour spending dressed up as "investment" has delivered extremely poor value for money.
Highest priority will be the abolition of overpaid quangos, hospital managers, anything to do with climate change or racial equality, etc. To support these ends, a public consulation website to be set up where taxpayers can report on waste in any level and in any department of the public sector. Ministers would be obliged to review the best suggestions on a monthly basis.
Taxation would be limited on jobs and earnings for low to middle earners, the 50% top rate of tax would stay and national insurance would be frozen. Each budget would bring a progressive reduction in stealth taxes that hammer ordinary working people, especially those masquerading as "green" taxes.
Crime and punishment
An end to "early release" in all but a few cases, on severe compassionate grounds or following an appeal for mercy by the victim.
Reintroduce capital punishment for pre-meditated murder, murder of a Police officer, murder of anyone under the age of 16, conspiracy to murder, or murder during the course of commiting any other crime.
Life in prison to mean life for lesser crimes of murder, child rape, serial adult rape, armed robbery, etc.
Generally a significant increase in prison sentences but more importantly, the reversal of several decades of liberalism within the prison system.
Prisoners would have no access to the internet nor would they have televisions in their cells. Certain items would be classified as "serious contraband", including illegal drugs and mobile phones. Posession of such items would be rewarded with lengthy periods of solitary confinement, escalating with frequency and severity of the offence. Any prisoner found to be coordinating criminal activities on the outside would be relocated to a new extreme security prison and would have their sentence doubled. Posession of "minor contraband" such as moonshine, inappropriate reading material, etc, would receive corporal punishment or removal of some priveleges.
Prison officers would very quickly regain the respect, tinged with a touch of fear, of the prisoners.
Anyone arrested for a criminal or driving offence would be subjected to a mandatory drug test. Failure of the test would be an offence in its own right and would be kept on record for 10 years. However any such person who was later charged and convicted of a crime would be tested again and then placed into medically supervised detention until all traces of illegal substances had disappeared from their system. No methodone or other substitutes would be permitted (inside or outside of prison, for that matter).
Coroporal punishment, i.e. the birch, will be reintroduced for petty theft, shoplifting, criminal damage, littering and public order offences. It is time to stamp out this kind of behaviour with punishments that are short, severe and very public.
Community punishments to be made the norm for crimes that are currently regarded as "anti-social behaviour" such as making excessive noise at night, intimidating members of the public, etc.
There will also be a shift from "human rights" to a more traditional concept of "individual liberty". Liberty is something that one surrenders when one, for example, breaks into another person's house. But liberty is something that the state cannot take away. We need to reconnect with the English concept of common law, that only one's fellow commoners can take away one's liberty through a trial by jury. Ultimately, any ban or restriction imposed by a government is worthless if a jury refuses to convict. This is how common law works.
For child criminals, the situation is more sensitive. The age of criminal responsibility is less important than the principle that when a child is below that age, the parents or legal guardians take the criminal responsibility instead. This would be the basis for a debate on the subject.
Finally, political correctness would be utterly abolished and the police would be restored to their traditional, correct role as citizens in uniform who exist to uphold the law. Corruption and blatant racialism would be stamped out but the ordinary bobby on the beat would not have his hands tied with liberal nonsense.
Education
Education is the final pillar of the Alligator manifesto. The Alligator believes, as a survivor of 200,000 years of evolution, in survival of the fittest and in pushing the best children to achieve the best they possibly can.
Streaming and selection are important in education to ensure each child is stretched and challenged. Grammar schools remain the most obvious way to ensure this happens in a manner that does not discriminate on the grounds of parental wealth or postcode lotteries. Grammar schools would therefore be reintroduced and the sector would be grown. Each school, where possible, would have a catchment area covering a range of social backgrounds to ensure the pupils see from an early age that social background and academic ability need not be linked.
For those not clever enough to get into grammar school, the comprehensive education system would be thoroughly shaken up. A-levels would still be offered, of course, as the standards have now slipped so far that an alternative qualification would need to be developed for grammar schools. Moving from comprehensive school to a reasonable university would remain a common occurance, but overall the university sector would be scaled back so that around 25% of school leavers would go to university.
Modern joke universities would be turned back into respectable colleges of higher education, teaching the more vocational HNC and HND qualifications that are so badly needed to address a growing lack of native British tradesmen and skilled workers.
Finally, what of the lowest groups? First of all the idea of one group being the "lowest" would not enter into it. Each individual has talents and abilities that must be explored. Music, the arts, skills, vocational subjects and sports should be offered to those not able to compete in traditional subjects. This would be a total reversal of the current situation where clever pupils are encouraged to take easy, vocationl, joke subjects like drama and media studies, instead of difficult, traditional, useful subjects like maths, English, sciences and languages.
Labour's policy of social engineering would be utterly demolished and a traditional, challenging system of education tailored to each pupil's ability would take its place. Everyone has something unique to contribute to the country and the education system must be flexible and not treat everyone the same.
Europe
Leave the EU. Full stop.
More policies will be added soon.
State sponsored drug addiction
This one takes the biscuit. Prisoners who have kicked their habit are being "retoxified" with methodone just before release, so that when they inevitably return to a life of heroin abuse they run a lower risk of overdosing. Absolutely ridiculous for two reasons.
Firstly, what reward is this giving and what message is it sending to prisoners who might actually be thinking about changing their ways? Any prisoner who kicks heroin addiction deserves a pat on the back and every opportunity to build a new life. We need to send a very loud and clear message, if you take the first step we will help you take the next step, and the one after that, and so on. All we ask is that you keep taking steps in the right direction. However, this gives entirely the opposite message. This says, you're a lost cause, you have no willpower, you have no character, grit or determination and we think you are worthless.
Secondly, having kicked a drug habit usually at great expense to the taxpayer, any prisoner who volunatarily returns to drugs on his release deserves no sympathy at all. He has been given a chance at a proper life again and must be expected to take advantage of this undeserved second chance.
It is not happening routinely, but has already happened 460 times where prison doctors are "concerned" that the prisoner will return to a life of drug addiction on release. Tough. If they take an overdose and snuff it the day they are released, it's one less parasite to suck the lifeblood out of its neigbourhood, one less self-inflicted A&E victim, one less repeat offender to worry about.
Why are such resources thrown at protecting the rights and the drug abusing criminal lifestyles of these people?
The Alligator's election manifesto starts shortly.
Firstly, what reward is this giving and what message is it sending to prisoners who might actually be thinking about changing their ways? Any prisoner who kicks heroin addiction deserves a pat on the back and every opportunity to build a new life. We need to send a very loud and clear message, if you take the first step we will help you take the next step, and the one after that, and so on. All we ask is that you keep taking steps in the right direction. However, this gives entirely the opposite message. This says, you're a lost cause, you have no willpower, you have no character, grit or determination and we think you are worthless.
Secondly, having kicked a drug habit usually at great expense to the taxpayer, any prisoner who volunatarily returns to drugs on his release deserves no sympathy at all. He has been given a chance at a proper life again and must be expected to take advantage of this undeserved second chance.
It is not happening routinely, but has already happened 460 times where prison doctors are "concerned" that the prisoner will return to a life of drug addiction on release. Tough. If they take an overdose and snuff it the day they are released, it's one less parasite to suck the lifeblood out of its neigbourhood, one less self-inflicted A&E victim, one less repeat offender to worry about.
Why are such resources thrown at protecting the rights and the drug abusing criminal lifestyles of these people?
The Alligator's election manifesto starts shortly.
Friday, 19 March 2010
Feral children
Dr David Starkey is one of those old school conservatives that I love listening to most of the time, but could occasionally quite happily strangle. Anyone watching QT last night would have heard him make the fatal mistake that so many conservatives make, and that is underestimating how soft and easily offended the nation has become, and how ready and willing the lefties are to pounce on the wrong word or phrase as evidence of "nasty tories".
It is for that reason that Starkey, Hitchens, Forsyth et al do occasionally make me cringe. There is an argument to be won and the liberal, left, authoritarian, politically correct opposition must be denied the right to claim "offence" at our conservative, libertarian, traditional, rational arguments.
The expression Starkey used was "feral children", claiming 25% of children were effectively uncivilised. The leftie in question was Green MEP Caroline Lucas. She immediately condemned Starkey's use of the phrase "feral, wild children" as "offensive". Time, methinks, to grab a dictionary and get to the bottom of this.
feral (adj) 1 (of an animal or plant) wild, especially having been domesticated. 2. fierce
wild (adj) ... 2. (of people) not civilised ...
offence (n) ... a feeling of hurt or annoyance
So, whilst it may be true that Starkey's comments cause a feeling of hurt or annoyance amongst lefties like Ms Lucas, what has this got to do with whether or not our children are uncivilised or fierce? The argument was a legitimate one, but like so many conservative v liberal arguments, the use of the term "offensive" was used to undermine the argument without offering any rational opposition.
Of course, the problem of wild, feral children is caused by the lack of stable family upbringing and by the shift in behaviour and attitude of the nation's adults. It is the second of these points that I wish to elaborate on.
I recently tooted my horn at a shower of kids who were strolling across a busy main road, carrying on without the slightest bit of concern at the battle charge of cars and vans that was bearing down on them. In fact, walking in front of moving cars seems to have become commonplace amongst all age groups, but it was what happened next that sums up the problem. My horn was greeted not with embarrassment or apology, but with middle finger gestures and screamed swear words. Had I got out of the car to confront them I may not be sitting here typing this.
This is the problem. Children and teenagers in this country run riot. I look on a friend's son's facebook page - I am not his "friend" and have no intention of changing this situation - so what I see is publicly available. His photograph, visible to the world including potential employers, university admissions officers, etc, is him giving a gleeful two fingered gesture. His personal profile is full of swear words and stinks to high heaven of indifference and irresponsibility. And I would have described him as one of the more responsible youngsters that I know, taking his sport seriously and behaving respectfully towards adults and getting their respect in return. The most worrying thing of all is that his mother is also on facebook and must be able to see all this.
So, here we have a responsible young man who I would not expect to get into trouble, whose mother obviously thinks it's OK to swear and make obscene gestures to the entire world on the internet. I swear, of course, as anyone who reads this blog will have worked out by now, but I tend to use it when I am, for want of a better word, properly pissed off about something.
The point I am making is that it is quite easy to believe that 25% of the country's children and adolescents are barely civilised. If this young man's facebook page represents an average teenager from a respectable family, then what are the bottom quartile of teenagers really like?
But no, let's not face up to the harsh reality of the situation. Let's cocoon ourselves in left, pseudo-liberal, tree-hugging ideological nonsense, let's condemn the conservatives as being nasty and offensive so we don't have to find a rational counter-argument.
Leftist politics have always been about emotion over reason. Tax the rich, go on strike for better pay, run a budget deficit in the good times because you think there is no more boom and bust, sell the gold reserves so you can employ a few more civil servants, commission energy white papers that talk more about climate change than they do about avoiding Britain's lights going out... it just goes on and on and on.
Labour is in the last few weeks of its rotten 13 years in power and yet in spite of the collapse of our economy, the impending power crisis, the stealth taxing of the middle classes, the destruction of the family, the irrepressible spread of political correctness and the abolition of individual liberty, their support appears to be recovering and we have the real possibility of a hung parliament with Brown still in place in No.10.
Still, could be worse, we could have Cameron instead and then find out just how soaking wet, pro-European, anti-family and utterly Blairite the Conservative party has become.
It is for that reason that Starkey, Hitchens, Forsyth et al do occasionally make me cringe. There is an argument to be won and the liberal, left, authoritarian, politically correct opposition must be denied the right to claim "offence" at our conservative, libertarian, traditional, rational arguments.
The expression Starkey used was "feral children", claiming 25% of children were effectively uncivilised. The leftie in question was Green MEP Caroline Lucas. She immediately condemned Starkey's use of the phrase "feral, wild children" as "offensive". Time, methinks, to grab a dictionary and get to the bottom of this.
feral (adj) 1 (of an animal or plant) wild, especially having been domesticated. 2. fierce
wild (adj) ... 2. (of people) not civilised ...
offence (n) ... a feeling of hurt or annoyance
So, whilst it may be true that Starkey's comments cause a feeling of hurt or annoyance amongst lefties like Ms Lucas, what has this got to do with whether or not our children are uncivilised or fierce? The argument was a legitimate one, but like so many conservative v liberal arguments, the use of the term "offensive" was used to undermine the argument without offering any rational opposition.
Of course, the problem of wild, feral children is caused by the lack of stable family upbringing and by the shift in behaviour and attitude of the nation's adults. It is the second of these points that I wish to elaborate on.
I recently tooted my horn at a shower of kids who were strolling across a busy main road, carrying on without the slightest bit of concern at the battle charge of cars and vans that was bearing down on them. In fact, walking in front of moving cars seems to have become commonplace amongst all age groups, but it was what happened next that sums up the problem. My horn was greeted not with embarrassment or apology, but with middle finger gestures and screamed swear words. Had I got out of the car to confront them I may not be sitting here typing this.
This is the problem. Children and teenagers in this country run riot. I look on a friend's son's facebook page - I am not his "friend" and have no intention of changing this situation - so what I see is publicly available. His photograph, visible to the world including potential employers, university admissions officers, etc, is him giving a gleeful two fingered gesture. His personal profile is full of swear words and stinks to high heaven of indifference and irresponsibility. And I would have described him as one of the more responsible youngsters that I know, taking his sport seriously and behaving respectfully towards adults and getting their respect in return. The most worrying thing of all is that his mother is also on facebook and must be able to see all this.
So, here we have a responsible young man who I would not expect to get into trouble, whose mother obviously thinks it's OK to swear and make obscene gestures to the entire world on the internet. I swear, of course, as anyone who reads this blog will have worked out by now, but I tend to use it when I am, for want of a better word, properly pissed off about something.
The point I am making is that it is quite easy to believe that 25% of the country's children and adolescents are barely civilised. If this young man's facebook page represents an average teenager from a respectable family, then what are the bottom quartile of teenagers really like?
But no, let's not face up to the harsh reality of the situation. Let's cocoon ourselves in left, pseudo-liberal, tree-hugging ideological nonsense, let's condemn the conservatives as being nasty and offensive so we don't have to find a rational counter-argument.
Leftist politics have always been about emotion over reason. Tax the rich, go on strike for better pay, run a budget deficit in the good times because you think there is no more boom and bust, sell the gold reserves so you can employ a few more civil servants, commission energy white papers that talk more about climate change than they do about avoiding Britain's lights going out... it just goes on and on and on.
Labour is in the last few weeks of its rotten 13 years in power and yet in spite of the collapse of our economy, the impending power crisis, the stealth taxing of the middle classes, the destruction of the family, the irrepressible spread of political correctness and the abolition of individual liberty, their support appears to be recovering and we have the real possibility of a hung parliament with Brown still in place in No.10.
Still, could be worse, we could have Cameron instead and then find out just how soaking wet, pro-European, anti-family and utterly Blairite the Conservative party has become.
Tuesday, 23 February 2010
Three shades of grey as always
Disappointing but not surprising to read that the Tories are planning to carry on the complete capitulation to the European project. What's more intriguing however is the implication by the Lib Dem Euro leader Fiona Hall that this is somehow a smokescreen for a Tory government in waiting who are actually anti-European.
Does anyone seriously not realise that the only disagreement between the Tories and the other two parties is merely the speed at which the European superstate will be created? Ms. Hall's statement is typical of how utterly meaningless our politics have become. All three parties are utterly committed to Europe. The Tories have a public image problem, namely that they cannot keep their rank and file happy without having to resort to stealth tactics and doublespeak on Europe. But don't ever doubt their commitment to European integration.
Does anyone seriously not realise that the only disagreement between the Tories and the other two parties is merely the speed at which the European superstate will be created? Ms. Hall's statement is typical of how utterly meaningless our politics have become. All three parties are utterly committed to Europe. The Tories have a public image problem, namely that they cannot keep their rank and file happy without having to resort to stealth tactics and doublespeak on Europe. But don't ever doubt their commitment to European integration.
Friday, 12 February 2010
Another example of why you can't defend yourself or your property
The Telegraph is reporting a story today about a man who stabbed his daughter's junkie boyfriend after the said boyfriend attacked him with an axe. The crown had appealed that his original two year suspended sentence was too lenient and demanded he go to prison. Thankfully the court of appeal had some sense and threw the appeal out, reducing the man's sentence to one year.
What they should have done is give him a medal for facing up to an axe-wielding drug addict in spite of the trouble it might have caused between him and his innocent daughter.
It just keeps happening, again and again. The man's crime was one of "taking the law into his own hands", a crime against the state for which there is little mercy. The axe wielding junkie was not charged with anything.
Disgraceful, disgusting, shocking. And typical of a country in the grip of an authoritatian government.
What they should have done is give him a medal for facing up to an axe-wielding drug addict in spite of the trouble it might have caused between him and his innocent daughter.
It just keeps happening, again and again. The man's crime was one of "taking the law into his own hands", a crime against the state for which there is little mercy. The axe wielding junkie was not charged with anything.
Disgraceful, disgusting, shocking. And typical of a country in the grip of an authoritatian government.
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
Ali Dizaei - one down, but how many more to go?
The problem with a hydra is that cutting off one head results in two growing back. It takes more than one victory for decency to kill off the political correctness that has turned the police into a weapon of the state.
Dizaei has been found guilty of perverting the course of justice. Had he been a white DI in the Sweeney some time in the late seventies, caught trying to stitch up someone from the south London underworld, there would have been little political importance. One bent cop gets caught with his pants down, goes to jail, who cares. Only in this case the ramifications are severe and extremely worrying.
Firstly, the culture of discrimination that the liberal left have promoted was always going to end this way. I say again, the tories are no different to the other two parties. They have only one prominent non-white senior party member, Baroness Warsi, as their shadow minister for political correctness. She's not the only unelected senior politician - His Majesty the Glorious Lord Mandelson and Lord Adonis hold positions of considerable power in the government. However, her appearance in the shadow cabinet (which she "attends" with 5 others who are not official members) is deeply worrying.
There are 193 elected Conservative MPs. Is there not one of them who could do the community cohesion job? Why must it go to an unelected person, and is it just coincidence that unelected person just happens to be the only senior Tory from an ethnic minority background.
Sorry but the tories are about as opposed to political correctness as Simon Cowell is to the destruction of popular music.
There is a common theme developing here. Meritocracy is one of those cliche words that I hate, but what it means is that the best should succeed for the benefit of the country as a whole. Senior police officers should be in their positions because they are the best people for those particular jobs. How such a corrupt individual can get to such a position of power is explained only by the sinister power of political correctness.
Political correctness destroys ambition by rewarding circumstances. Exponents of political correctness see this as a way of protecting the oppressed minorities. However this is a grotesque insult to those who have risen above their victim status to make a real impact in their field. Within the private sector, this is commonplace. Multinational corporations do not give a damn about anyone's race or religion. Or, for that matter, their sex, but we'll save that argument for another day. They simply get the best person for the job, because there are no room for passengers in the average boardroom.
Take a look at professional sports. Aside from some brainless abuse from spectators and opposition players, how much of a role does "racism" really play in professional football? How much of a role does political correctness play? They are both irrelevant.
A club manager wants the best players to put out on the field. It's too competitive a business to allow racial discrimination (positive or negative) to cloud a manager's judgement. What is the result? A true meritocracy, with race and religion no obstacle to reaching the top. Of course, clubs often try to keep a national theme to their team, but again this has solid practical reasons. There needs to be a link between the fans, the club and the players and nationalism is often an important part of this. The club has to mean something to its supporters. Success is not always possible, so a sense of togetherness and common purpose has to go in its place, most of the time, for most clubs.
Only in the public sector does political correctness play a significant role in recruitment and promotion. This needs to stop throughout the public sector but most of all in our police force.
A British police officer should be a British police officer. One uniform for male officers, another for female officers. One body representing the rank and file. Promotion on merit. An assumption that an officer's actions are in good faith until proven otherwise, and an end to unsubstantiated accusations of "racism" being given anything beyond a tut and and shake of the head from the desk sergeant. Take this trump card away from the criminal underclass and it weakens their ability to evade the law.
For fuck sake, when a senior police officer can make a career out of manipulating political correctness, doesn't this tell the liberal elite something? Is it not completely, blindingly obvious? The police have been shown to be both vulnerable to political correctness, and rotten with it their core.
Police exist to uphold the law. They do not exist to conduct social engineering, they do not exist to satisfy political aims, they do not exist to protect the state.
This is the most damning and worrying event to affect the British police in my lifetime, but the many heads of the PC hydra have eaten into all aspects of British life and culture.
Political correctness and over 30 years of liberalism have turned this country into a cesspit of anti-social behaviour, crime, teenage pregnancy, drug abuse, depression, alcoholism, welfare dependency, irresponsibility, newspeak and corrupt politics.
I could go on and on and on, but the message is clear. Ali Dizaei is a product of the liberal ruling elite's policies over the last 30 or so years. It has to stop. The tories won't do it, so who will?
Depressing, isn't it?
Dizaei has been found guilty of perverting the course of justice. Had he been a white DI in the Sweeney some time in the late seventies, caught trying to stitch up someone from the south London underworld, there would have been little political importance. One bent cop gets caught with his pants down, goes to jail, who cares. Only in this case the ramifications are severe and extremely worrying.
Firstly, the culture of discrimination that the liberal left have promoted was always going to end this way. I say again, the tories are no different to the other two parties. They have only one prominent non-white senior party member, Baroness Warsi, as their shadow minister for political correctness. She's not the only unelected senior politician - His Majesty the Glorious Lord Mandelson and Lord Adonis hold positions of considerable power in the government. However, her appearance in the shadow cabinet (which she "attends" with 5 others who are not official members) is deeply worrying.
There are 193 elected Conservative MPs. Is there not one of them who could do the community cohesion job? Why must it go to an unelected person, and is it just coincidence that unelected person just happens to be the only senior Tory from an ethnic minority background.
Sorry but the tories are about as opposed to political correctness as Simon Cowell is to the destruction of popular music.
There is a common theme developing here. Meritocracy is one of those cliche words that I hate, but what it means is that the best should succeed for the benefit of the country as a whole. Senior police officers should be in their positions because they are the best people for those particular jobs. How such a corrupt individual can get to such a position of power is explained only by the sinister power of political correctness.
Political correctness destroys ambition by rewarding circumstances. Exponents of political correctness see this as a way of protecting the oppressed minorities. However this is a grotesque insult to those who have risen above their victim status to make a real impact in their field. Within the private sector, this is commonplace. Multinational corporations do not give a damn about anyone's race or religion. Or, for that matter, their sex, but we'll save that argument for another day. They simply get the best person for the job, because there are no room for passengers in the average boardroom.
Take a look at professional sports. Aside from some brainless abuse from spectators and opposition players, how much of a role does "racism" really play in professional football? How much of a role does political correctness play? They are both irrelevant.
A club manager wants the best players to put out on the field. It's too competitive a business to allow racial discrimination (positive or negative) to cloud a manager's judgement. What is the result? A true meritocracy, with race and religion no obstacle to reaching the top. Of course, clubs often try to keep a national theme to their team, but again this has solid practical reasons. There needs to be a link between the fans, the club and the players and nationalism is often an important part of this. The club has to mean something to its supporters. Success is not always possible, so a sense of togetherness and common purpose has to go in its place, most of the time, for most clubs.
Only in the public sector does political correctness play a significant role in recruitment and promotion. This needs to stop throughout the public sector but most of all in our police force.
A British police officer should be a British police officer. One uniform for male officers, another for female officers. One body representing the rank and file. Promotion on merit. An assumption that an officer's actions are in good faith until proven otherwise, and an end to unsubstantiated accusations of "racism" being given anything beyond a tut and and shake of the head from the desk sergeant. Take this trump card away from the criminal underclass and it weakens their ability to evade the law.
For fuck sake, when a senior police officer can make a career out of manipulating political correctness, doesn't this tell the liberal elite something? Is it not completely, blindingly obvious? The police have been shown to be both vulnerable to political correctness, and rotten with it their core.
Police exist to uphold the law. They do not exist to conduct social engineering, they do not exist to satisfy political aims, they do not exist to protect the state.
This is the most damning and worrying event to affect the British police in my lifetime, but the many heads of the PC hydra have eaten into all aspects of British life and culture.
Political correctness and over 30 years of liberalism have turned this country into a cesspit of anti-social behaviour, crime, teenage pregnancy, drug abuse, depression, alcoholism, welfare dependency, irresponsibility, newspeak and corrupt politics.
I could go on and on and on, but the message is clear. Ali Dizaei is a product of the liberal ruling elite's policies over the last 30 or so years. It has to stop. The tories won't do it, so who will?
Depressing, isn't it?
More on PR and the EU
There is something else that bothers me about PR, besides the weak government it promotes. It's the way it actually works against democracy that I think is the bigger concern.
Coalitions, and the political manoevering that is required to form them, is the real problem with PR. However, it is a possibility that we now face under first past the post, should (as is now looking increasingly likely) we end up with a hung parliament.
Imagine there are is an election under PR. Alpha party lands 48% of the vote. Bravo gets 26%, Charlie gets 23% and Delta gets 3%. Echo, Foxtrot, Golf and Hotel are nonsense parties who don't get 1% of the vote between them.
Alpha has no overall majority, but as the first party they are invited to form either a majority coalition or to rule as a minority (both solutions have happened in Edinburgh already). Their policies and fundamental beliefs are the polar opposite of Bravo, so there's no way they are sharing with them (comments about Stormont are beyond the scope of this debate). They are traditionally quite different from Charlie, but as they are now competing for the centre ground, Charlie isn't so awful. Delta, on the other hand, are a tiny minority party from one part of the country, with little interest in the affairs of the nation as a whole.
If Alhpa forms a coalition with Charlie, they will be forced to give up key executive positions - deputy prime minister, maybe education, maybe justice, maybe culture, etc. This means Charlie, elected by 23% of the population, wields enormous authority in government
Alpha has another choice - a coalition with Delta. Alpha can write off the small, local issues that Delta care about, and have a convenient puppet on a string to vote through anything they like. Bravo and Charlie, with only 49% of the vote between them, can't get anything stopped because Delta have a puppet secretary of state who likes his chauffeur driven Jag too much.
Which of these two scenarios did the population vote for? The answer is, neither. In the first example, 77% of people voted against Charlie, yet they will fill one quarter to one third of key cabinet posts. In the second example, Alpha rules with virtually unopposed authority, on a mandate from less than half the population. The people who voted Delta didn't want Alpha to run things, they wanted Delta to cast their measly few votes independently on a whole range of subjects. But now Delta is in a position of power, and as we all know, power corrupts. And for Alpha, absolute power corrupts absolutely. We have exactly the same situation as first past the post but under the false pretences of coooperation and proportional representation.
Currently in Scotland, the leading party (SNP) works without a majority and without any coalition, seeking to gain support from anyone else in the parliament to get their ideas through. However they chose this path for political and practical reasons. The other parties opposed their referendum on independence, so they scored a political point by refusing to invite any of them into a coalition. However, on the key matter of independence, they will never get their referendum unless they secure 50% of the vote. Or, possibly, unless the Lib Dems decide it suits their objective of dissolving Britain into the EU.
The truth is that governments wield enormous power, and the one thing that politicians crave is this power. Those that seek to gain it should not be allowed to determine who may form part of the executive following an inconclusive election result. Almost all PR results are inconclusive, in fact PR is designed to produce inconclusive results for precisely this reason. It allows the ruling elite to treat elections as a mere rearrangement of who sits where around the table of power. No party can ever be thrown out completely, the only two factors they need to balance are the number of seats they have and how low they are willing to stoop in order to gain some influence in goverment.
As voters we must know what we are voting for. Coalitions are fine as long as they appear on the ballot paper as a single choice. Retrospectively creating coalitions seems to be the way that PR parliaments tend to work. Sometimes it is multiple large groupings, as in the Strasbourg talking shop, sometimes just a single coalition to form a majority as in Scotland under the Lab-Lib coalition. The more self-righteous and pompous the parliament, the bigger the gravy train, the less actual influence the voting chamber has to actually do anything. There is a reason for this, money corrupts just as much as power. MEPs are happy to take their collossal salaries and absurd expenses in lieu of actually having any power.
In the EU, rather than the executive being made up of representatives from the leading coalition, it is instead selected by itself. The real power lies with the commission, where European laws are thought up by the euro-politburo, free from democratic accountability. And of course, being free from any accountability, they have carte blanche to pursue their evil goal of a sovereign state called Europe.
Supported by nest-feathering career politicians in all 3 main British parties, there is little opposition to this relentless advance of Europe. The only thing the European supreme leaders fear is the minority in the Conservative Party who are already rich enough or are still principled enough not to care about the European gravy train. Sitting quietly, their sole chance of regaining power is if and when Cameron fails to return a majority in this year's general election.
The EU can give the Nick Griffins and Nigel Farages (and I'm not suggesting they should ever be mentioned in the same breath on any other political topic) a few minutes of air time in their pointless parliament. They are not the problem. The problem is the fact there is still the possibility of a real conservative party getting into Westminster with a large majority and a clear election pledge to withdraw from the EU before it becomes too late.
Do you think it's going to happen at this election? No, neither do I. But we can always dream, and then go and spoil our ballot papers in protest.
Coalitions, and the political manoevering that is required to form them, is the real problem with PR. However, it is a possibility that we now face under first past the post, should (as is now looking increasingly likely) we end up with a hung parliament.
Imagine there are is an election under PR. Alpha party lands 48% of the vote. Bravo gets 26%, Charlie gets 23% and Delta gets 3%. Echo, Foxtrot, Golf and Hotel are nonsense parties who don't get 1% of the vote between them.
Alpha has no overall majority, but as the first party they are invited to form either a majority coalition or to rule as a minority (both solutions have happened in Edinburgh already). Their policies and fundamental beliefs are the polar opposite of Bravo, so there's no way they are sharing with them (comments about Stormont are beyond the scope of this debate). They are traditionally quite different from Charlie, but as they are now competing for the centre ground, Charlie isn't so awful. Delta, on the other hand, are a tiny minority party from one part of the country, with little interest in the affairs of the nation as a whole.
If Alhpa forms a coalition with Charlie, they will be forced to give up key executive positions - deputy prime minister, maybe education, maybe justice, maybe culture, etc. This means Charlie, elected by 23% of the population, wields enormous authority in government
Alpha has another choice - a coalition with Delta. Alpha can write off the small, local issues that Delta care about, and have a convenient puppet on a string to vote through anything they like. Bravo and Charlie, with only 49% of the vote between them, can't get anything stopped because Delta have a puppet secretary of state who likes his chauffeur driven Jag too much.
Which of these two scenarios did the population vote for? The answer is, neither. In the first example, 77% of people voted against Charlie, yet they will fill one quarter to one third of key cabinet posts. In the second example, Alpha rules with virtually unopposed authority, on a mandate from less than half the population. The people who voted Delta didn't want Alpha to run things, they wanted Delta to cast their measly few votes independently on a whole range of subjects. But now Delta is in a position of power, and as we all know, power corrupts. And for Alpha, absolute power corrupts absolutely. We have exactly the same situation as first past the post but under the false pretences of coooperation and proportional representation.
Currently in Scotland, the leading party (SNP) works without a majority and without any coalition, seeking to gain support from anyone else in the parliament to get their ideas through. However they chose this path for political and practical reasons. The other parties opposed their referendum on independence, so they scored a political point by refusing to invite any of them into a coalition. However, on the key matter of independence, they will never get their referendum unless they secure 50% of the vote. Or, possibly, unless the Lib Dems decide it suits their objective of dissolving Britain into the EU.
The truth is that governments wield enormous power, and the one thing that politicians crave is this power. Those that seek to gain it should not be allowed to determine who may form part of the executive following an inconclusive election result. Almost all PR results are inconclusive, in fact PR is designed to produce inconclusive results for precisely this reason. It allows the ruling elite to treat elections as a mere rearrangement of who sits where around the table of power. No party can ever be thrown out completely, the only two factors they need to balance are the number of seats they have and how low they are willing to stoop in order to gain some influence in goverment.
As voters we must know what we are voting for. Coalitions are fine as long as they appear on the ballot paper as a single choice. Retrospectively creating coalitions seems to be the way that PR parliaments tend to work. Sometimes it is multiple large groupings, as in the Strasbourg talking shop, sometimes just a single coalition to form a majority as in Scotland under the Lab-Lib coalition. The more self-righteous and pompous the parliament, the bigger the gravy train, the less actual influence the voting chamber has to actually do anything. There is a reason for this, money corrupts just as much as power. MEPs are happy to take their collossal salaries and absurd expenses in lieu of actually having any power.
In the EU, rather than the executive being made up of representatives from the leading coalition, it is instead selected by itself. The real power lies with the commission, where European laws are thought up by the euro-politburo, free from democratic accountability. And of course, being free from any accountability, they have carte blanche to pursue their evil goal of a sovereign state called Europe.
Supported by nest-feathering career politicians in all 3 main British parties, there is little opposition to this relentless advance of Europe. The only thing the European supreme leaders fear is the minority in the Conservative Party who are already rich enough or are still principled enough not to care about the European gravy train. Sitting quietly, their sole chance of regaining power is if and when Cameron fails to return a majority in this year's general election.
The EU can give the Nick Griffins and Nigel Farages (and I'm not suggesting they should ever be mentioned in the same breath on any other political topic) a few minutes of air time in their pointless parliament. They are not the problem. The problem is the fact there is still the possibility of a real conservative party getting into Westminster with a large majority and a clear election pledge to withdraw from the EU before it becomes too late.
Do you think it's going to happen at this election? No, neither do I. But we can always dream, and then go and spoil our ballot papers in protest.
Thursday, 4 February 2010
The cops are scared to go out alone...
I'm tired so I'll leave the first and last word on this to Janet Daley from the Telegraph. Oh all right, not quite the last word. I don't think her comparison with New York is apt, because American cops have guns. However the thought that the Police are scared to walk the streets alone at night should tell you everything you need to know about what's wrong with law and order in this country.
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
A step in the wrong direction
Well, yesterday it was proudly announced that the government want to introduce an "alternative vote" system instead of first past the post. What this means is that when voting we will be asked to rank the candidates in order of preference. What's not clear is what the minimum and maximum number of candidates would be (is it top 3, or is one forced to rank all candidates in order, or what?).
What's equally not clear is what effect this will have on counting the votes. At the moment, papers are simply sorted into bundles, counted, and a result declared. What's the plan for counting the various choices, and ensuring no double counting or other silly mistakes?
Let's imagine for a second it's an election in Wales with 6 candidates
Tory
Labour
Lib Dem
Plaid Cymru
Green
Monster Raving Loony
Let n be the number of candidates, and x be the number of possible ways to order those candidates.
As any GCSE maths pupil ought to be able to tell you (but probably can't), the equation is as follows: -
x = n!
For the uneducated, the mathematical operator '!' means "factorial", which means the product of all the positive integers less than or equal to n.
Thus, for our 6 candidates, we have 6! = 720 possible permutations.
So, do the people in the vote counting teams make 720 little piles of votes? Or what? Increase to 8 candidates, perfectly possible if the BNP and other fringe parties put up candidates hoping to cash in on the unprecedented unpopularity of the main parties, and what happens? You have over 40,000 potential little piles of paper. That's more choices than there are voters turning up in many constituencies.
And presumably one is not forced to vote for all 6 candidates...
Anyway the point is, you can't sort votes in this way. Not without lots and lots of mistakes.
So, what do they do instead? Scan the voting papers into a machine, which counts the votes? Presumably there will be rows and columns, like on a National Bampottery form, which can be read easily by a machine. Suddenly you need to audit the computer systems that process and count the votes.
Or, do they get the vote counters to punch the numbers into a computer? Or do they set up a touchscreen voting system instead? In which case, and this brings me to my point (you didn't think I was writing this post for the purpose of giving a crap maths lesson, did you?). Will the touchscreen allow a "spoil your paper" option? At the moment, we have the right, though few of us exercise it, to spoil our paper and register dissatisfaction with the choice on offer. All too often, spoilt papers are reported as an irrelevance, as if it's just people either too thick to put a cross in a box or idiots who think it's funny to write sweary words on their ballot paper.
Power 2010 is a rather ambitious web site that offers a number of petitions for various things, ranging from the sublime ("Strengthen select committees") to the downright stupid. The current leader is "Introduce a proportional voting system" - the fact there is a leaderboard at all suggests to me this is a thinly veiled politcal manoevre to get PR put on the political agenda.
I hate PR for many reasons, most of which have been debated publicly. However one ugly face of this particular hydra is the effect it would have on undermining Britain's independence from Europe (what little of it the Tories and NuLabour haven't wilfully given away already). In such a parliament, as in Scotland under Labour, the Lib Dems would hold the casting vote on just about everything. The Lib Dems are the most pro-European of all three of our main parties, so even the minor obstacles that a Tory government might try to put in Europe's way will be blown away by the Lib-Lab majority opposition. It is a horror story that will neuter what's left of British democracy and leave the dissolution of our sovereignty and absorption into the United States of Europe as the only viable option.
However, there is one "Power 2010" campaign that I would encourage everyone to go and vote for - to introduce "none of the above" on ballot papers.
This would be a step in the right direction. Allowing people to express their total disapproval of what the political ruling class are offering would be a wonderful contribution to our democracy. It would demonstrate just how many potential votes are out there if only someone would have the boldness to break away from the lib-lab-con mainstream. That is precisely why it will never happen. Turkeys do not vote for Christmas and the political ruling elite do not want you to vote against the whole concept of their existance.
Get over to power 2010, register your vote, and bump that stupid, ridiculous PR proposal out of top spot before someone takes it seriously and turns Westminster into another powerless regional assembly like Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast or Brussels.
Oh, and Peter Hitchens's blog is worth reading today.
What's equally not clear is what effect this will have on counting the votes. At the moment, papers are simply sorted into bundles, counted, and a result declared. What's the plan for counting the various choices, and ensuring no double counting or other silly mistakes?
Let's imagine for a second it's an election in Wales with 6 candidates
Tory
Labour
Lib Dem
Plaid Cymru
Green
Monster Raving Loony
Let n be the number of candidates, and x be the number of possible ways to order those candidates.
As any GCSE maths pupil ought to be able to tell you (but probably can't), the equation is as follows: -
x = n!
For the uneducated, the mathematical operator '!' means "factorial", which means the product of all the positive integers less than or equal to n.
Thus, for our 6 candidates, we have 6! = 720 possible permutations.
So, do the people in the vote counting teams make 720 little piles of votes? Or what? Increase to 8 candidates, perfectly possible if the BNP and other fringe parties put up candidates hoping to cash in on the unprecedented unpopularity of the main parties, and what happens? You have over 40,000 potential little piles of paper. That's more choices than there are voters turning up in many constituencies.
And presumably one is not forced to vote for all 6 candidates...
Anyway the point is, you can't sort votes in this way. Not without lots and lots of mistakes.
So, what do they do instead? Scan the voting papers into a machine, which counts the votes? Presumably there will be rows and columns, like on a National Bampottery form, which can be read easily by a machine. Suddenly you need to audit the computer systems that process and count the votes.
Or, do they get the vote counters to punch the numbers into a computer? Or do they set up a touchscreen voting system instead? In which case, and this brings me to my point (you didn't think I was writing this post for the purpose of giving a crap maths lesson, did you?). Will the touchscreen allow a "spoil your paper" option? At the moment, we have the right, though few of us exercise it, to spoil our paper and register dissatisfaction with the choice on offer. All too often, spoilt papers are reported as an irrelevance, as if it's just people either too thick to put a cross in a box or idiots who think it's funny to write sweary words on their ballot paper.
Power 2010 is a rather ambitious web site that offers a number of petitions for various things, ranging from the sublime ("Strengthen select committees") to the downright stupid. The current leader is "Introduce a proportional voting system" - the fact there is a leaderboard at all suggests to me this is a thinly veiled politcal manoevre to get PR put on the political agenda.
I hate PR for many reasons, most of which have been debated publicly. However one ugly face of this particular hydra is the effect it would have on undermining Britain's independence from Europe (what little of it the Tories and NuLabour haven't wilfully given away already). In such a parliament, as in Scotland under Labour, the Lib Dems would hold the casting vote on just about everything. The Lib Dems are the most pro-European of all three of our main parties, so even the minor obstacles that a Tory government might try to put in Europe's way will be blown away by the Lib-Lab majority opposition. It is a horror story that will neuter what's left of British democracy and leave the dissolution of our sovereignty and absorption into the United States of Europe as the only viable option.
However, there is one "Power 2010" campaign that I would encourage everyone to go and vote for - to introduce "none of the above" on ballot papers.
This would be a step in the right direction. Allowing people to express their total disapproval of what the political ruling class are offering would be a wonderful contribution to our democracy. It would demonstrate just how many potential votes are out there if only someone would have the boldness to break away from the lib-lab-con mainstream. That is precisely why it will never happen. Turkeys do not vote for Christmas and the political ruling elite do not want you to vote against the whole concept of their existance.
Get over to power 2010, register your vote, and bump that stupid, ridiculous PR proposal out of top spot before someone takes it seriously and turns Westminster into another powerless regional assembly like Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast or Brussels.
Oh, and Peter Hitchens's blog is worth reading today.
Monday, 11 January 2010
The three R's
So, now the latest piece Brown-Ballsism is the proposal to give low income families free laptops and free broadband internet instead of hiring a few more teachers and buying a few more textbooks. All this when the country is on its knees, financially bleeding to death. When will we be rid of this rotten administration?
The Tories are not much better however. Favouring more than 50% of school leavers going to university is utter stupidity - we already send too many to university and many degrees are already worthless. I would expect a conservative government to reintroduce grammar schools and dispense with all of the progressive nonsense that has let down two whole generations of children. I will be glad to see the back of Labour but I fear Cameron-Goveist education policy will be little more than a mild levelling off of the never ending slide to the left in education.
Finally, there is scathing criticism in today's Telegraph for the stance that the new Brown-Ballsup team have taken towards faith schools. For a prime minister who is famously the son of a minister, this is actually not so difficult to understand. Presbyterian faith schools are, as far as I'm aware, non-existant in the UK. In Scotland you either go to the local Catholic school or you go to a non-denominational school (which in my day had loose links to the local Church of Scotland, usually going no further than the local reverend popping by to do the Christmas service). In England it is different, with CoE and Catholic schools now being complemented by those from other faiths.
What is the point of a faith school that cannot discriminate in terms of which religion its pupils belong to? What is the point of a faith school in which pupils can opt out of religious services? Is Brown trying to destroy something he loathes by the back door or is he too stupid to see the inevitable effect of his political correctness? I would actually have some respect for the man if he would stand up and say that taxpayers' money should not be used to indoctrinate children with religious teachings. At least then we could have a debate about it. But debate is what Brown fears. As chancellor he was the master of the stealth tax and this is another example of trying to achieve his rotten, left wing agenda without anyone noticing.
The most worrying thing is, Cameron's Tories haven't noticed how far to the left they have followed New Labour.
The Tories are not much better however. Favouring more than 50% of school leavers going to university is utter stupidity - we already send too many to university and many degrees are already worthless. I would expect a conservative government to reintroduce grammar schools and dispense with all of the progressive nonsense that has let down two whole generations of children. I will be glad to see the back of Labour but I fear Cameron-Goveist education policy will be little more than a mild levelling off of the never ending slide to the left in education.
Finally, there is scathing criticism in today's Telegraph for the stance that the new Brown-Ballsup team have taken towards faith schools. For a prime minister who is famously the son of a minister, this is actually not so difficult to understand. Presbyterian faith schools are, as far as I'm aware, non-existant in the UK. In Scotland you either go to the local Catholic school or you go to a non-denominational school (which in my day had loose links to the local Church of Scotland, usually going no further than the local reverend popping by to do the Christmas service). In England it is different, with CoE and Catholic schools now being complemented by those from other faiths.
What is the point of a faith school that cannot discriminate in terms of which religion its pupils belong to? What is the point of a faith school in which pupils can opt out of religious services? Is Brown trying to destroy something he loathes by the back door or is he too stupid to see the inevitable effect of his political correctness? I would actually have some respect for the man if he would stand up and say that taxpayers' money should not be used to indoctrinate children with religious teachings. At least then we could have a debate about it. But debate is what Brown fears. As chancellor he was the master of the stealth tax and this is another example of trying to achieve his rotten, left wing agenda without anyone noticing.
The most worrying thing is, Cameron's Tories haven't noticed how far to the left they have followed New Labour.
Last minute cramming
Finally I have broken through the ice to write another blog entry.
This morning there was an A-levelstudent pupil on the BBC News breakfast programme, being interviewed about the fairness or otherwise of a proposal to delay the January exams. The concensus from the interview, and generally in the press and media, seemed to be that postponing the exams would be unfair because the pupils would need to learn everything again later as well as the next modules. This, in one delicious moment, summed up everything that is wrong with the progressive education policies under successive governments.
How can it be good to encourage last minute cramming and short term retention of learning? When I was at school (an ordinary Scottish state school) our teachers hit the message home that we shouldn't be cramming for exams. We should study constantly throughout the year, building our knowledge as we go, and then all we need to do is revise for the exams.
Our January exams, "prelims" as they were (and may still be) known, were not end-of-module exams. Their results were not factored into the final grade, as the media are implying happens in A-level January exams. The final exam was all that mattered, and it covered everything from the course. Prelim results were evidence when appeals were required, and they provided a "dry run" of the exam (minus the portion of the syllabus not yet covered). There was no major pressure on prelims, because even the most almighty "off day" would not be factored into one's final grade.
Good university examinations take no prisoners. Cramming a few months' worth of knowledge then forgetting it in a beer-fuelled haze immediately after the exam was not an option (although the beer-fuelled haze was almost obligatory...)
Dumb and dumber - in terms of dumbing down - is what our education system seems to have become. I cannot speak for Scotland's education system any more; having swum south many moons ago and not being a particularly avid reader of Scottish news and current affairs I no longer know whether it is as good as it was when I was a pupil.
And that's another thing, who decided that plooky 15 year olds are "students"? We were "pupils", like it or lump it, until we reached further or higher education. Then we earned the right to become "students" and indulge in the debauchery that goes with it. Maybe the A-level celebratory night out for 17 year olds all over England means the word "student" is more apt these days...
This morning there was an A-level
How can it be good to encourage last minute cramming and short term retention of learning? When I was at school (an ordinary Scottish state school) our teachers hit the message home that we shouldn't be cramming for exams. We should study constantly throughout the year, building our knowledge as we go, and then all we need to do is revise for the exams.
Our January exams, "prelims" as they were (and may still be) known, were not end-of-module exams. Their results were not factored into the final grade, as the media are implying happens in A-level January exams. The final exam was all that mattered, and it covered everything from the course. Prelim results were evidence when appeals were required, and they provided a "dry run" of the exam (minus the portion of the syllabus not yet covered). There was no major pressure on prelims, because even the most almighty "off day" would not be factored into one's final grade.
Good university examinations take no prisoners. Cramming a few months' worth of knowledge then forgetting it in a beer-fuelled haze immediately after the exam was not an option (although the beer-fuelled haze was almost obligatory...)
Dumb and dumber - in terms of dumbing down - is what our education system seems to have become. I cannot speak for Scotland's education system any more; having swum south many moons ago and not being a particularly avid reader of Scottish news and current affairs I no longer know whether it is as good as it was when I was a pupil.
And that's another thing, who decided that plooky 15 year olds are "students"? We were "pupils", like it or lump it, until we reached further or higher education. Then we earned the right to become "students" and indulge in the debauchery that goes with it. Maybe the A-level celebratory night out for 17 year olds all over England means the word "student" is more apt these days...
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
Be afraid, be very afraid
There are moves afoot in the corrupt corridors of power to potentially turn every word that we speak into a crime, for which we will be guilty until proven innocent. Read all about it here.
Without wanting to turn this weblog into a party political broadcast for UKIP, there seems to be no greater threat facing the UK than our continued involvement in the authoritarian, politically correct, undemocratic institution that is the European Union. Whilst those in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and to a lesser extent Wales, are busy bickering over the scraps of authority left for them by Brussels, they are failing to appreciate the looming destruction of the United Kingdom, Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and of the dismantling of hundreds of years of British liberty.
Labour are of course complicit in this cause, as they despise freedom of speech, justice, dissent against the state and traditional liberal or conservative values.
The real problem however is the tory party's continued, unwavering support for this rotten institution. This country needs to get out, now, before the destruction of British values goes from a crisis to a disaster.
I'm an alligator, get me out of here...
Without wanting to turn this weblog into a party political broadcast for UKIP, there seems to be no greater threat facing the UK than our continued involvement in the authoritarian, politically correct, undemocratic institution that is the European Union. Whilst those in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and to a lesser extent Wales, are busy bickering over the scraps of authority left for them by Brussels, they are failing to appreciate the looming destruction of the United Kingdom, Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and of the dismantling of hundreds of years of British liberty.
Labour are of course complicit in this cause, as they despise freedom of speech, justice, dissent against the state and traditional liberal or conservative values.
The real problem however is the tory party's continued, unwavering support for this rotten institution. This country needs to get out, now, before the destruction of British values goes from a crisis to a disaster.
I'm an alligator, get me out of here...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
