Monday, 10 May 2010

Party politics at its most sordid...

That is the quote from Lord Heseltine after the astonishing revelation about the duplicitous behaviour of Nick Clegg in trying to back both horses at once. If this latest scheme comes about, the country will have yet another unelected Prime Minister foisted on it. Clegg, who claimed to have been the 'only candidate offering real change', will have proved himself to be merely a patsy for the Liebour Party to remain in power.

A rainbow coalition would be outrageously unfair to English voters, who voted overwhelmingly for a Conservative Government. Dependent on regional parties, it would mean harsh budgetary cuts for public services in England whilst Scotland, Wales and/or Northern Ireland escaped. No wonder Alex Salmond is rubbing his hands in glee. No one who seriously wants the United Kingdom to survive can support this.

There is no way that there is a majority in this Parliament in favour of PR, including Alternative Vote. FPTP is the least bad system we have; it is the clear preference of virtually all Tory MPs as well as a fair proportion of Labour MPS. If Brown puts forward a Queen's Speech, Tory MPs have to be united in their votes against it and take every opportunity to highlight the utter immorality of this stitch-up of power. We need to force an early General Election, on the current boundaries and without AV, in which Liebour and the Fib Dems would be decimated. After that, a majority Tory Government could introduce equal-sized constituencies at its leisure.

The utter dishonesty of Clegg and his party has to be made crystal-clear to voters. Any attempt at a deal with them by the Conservatives has to be called off - now, and made clear that it will not be on the table next time either. The Fib Dems have shown that they could never make PR work. PR would lead inevitably to coalition and, for PR to be effective, the smaller parties have to be mature and willing to negotiate with whoever the majority party is. The Fib Dems have shown themselves conclusively to be a collection of beardy-weirdies who actually have no interest in gaining power. They get off on being in permanent opposition; moaning about how life is unfair, whilst really being quite relieved not to have the responsibility of making the real-life decisions of which they are incapable. The Orange Bookers should join the Tory Party; left-wingers who are serious politicians should join the Labout Party, and leave the rest exposed as the rump of weirdos and losers that they are.

Saturday, 8 May 2010

So this is how Zimbabweans feel

Doesn't it feel like living in a banana republic? A Prime Minister who was never elected in the first place has now lost an election and... he's still bloody there!

The LibDems hoped to take an historic stride towards PR - well, I think they have royally f*cked up. This, friends is what you would have after every election. A squatter, unelected, in Number 10 while the great and good meet behind closed doors to concoct a compromise deal that no one actually voted for. And, natch, the Lib Dems appointing the new PM.

Well, it sucks. FPTP generally provides a decisive result. The candidate who tops the poll in each seat may not have 50% of the vote, but they are closer to being the popular choice than anyone else. Therefore, why should the candidates who come second and third have any chance of depriving them? Extrapolate that to the national level. I can see the Tories don't have an overall majority, but we are the closest party to it. Where PR breaks down, in my opinion, is that it potentially gives the party which comes third or even fourth more power than the one which comes first, if a coalition chooses to shut out the most popular party. If that's democracy, I'm a banana. Which, appropriately enough, fits the thesis I began with.

Thursday, 6 May 2010


So, General Election day is here and I intend to be at the polling station shortly after 7am to be one of the first people to cast a vote.

For the first time in my life, I have some insight into what it must be like to live in a banana republic. How many fake postal votes have ZanuLabour engineered? There have got to be major reforms after this Election. Postal votes have got to be restricted to those who genuinely need them; they should only be available to people whose names appear on the published electoral register (mine doesn't) and they should only be available to people whose names have been on the published register for at least one year. Additionally, there must be prosecutions for any and all breaches of electoral law.

Why vote Conservative? We need a return to honesty. It is time for change. Thatcher and Blair both showed that no leader should go on for more than two terms. Major and Brown both showed that, when a long-serving leader departs, it is not a good idea to have a replacement who is chosen only by the governing party. There is nothing party political in this: the comparison between a successful leader being succeeded by a disastrous one is eerily similar in both cases. However, a tired government cannot enact the changes we need.

The country needs to cut its addiction to taxing and borrowing and spending. Social security beneftis should be sufficient fot those who need them and not handed out to people who don't. I would like to see an axe being taken to family tax credits and child benefit. Why have an army of civil servants taking taxes from people and another army handing back money to people who don't need it? Leaving the money in people's pockets to begin with would cost the government nothing and would save millions in administration. Let the civil servants find jobs where they can actually be productive.

It's time to support families. That means supporting marriage. A real family includes a married couple, with or without children. That is why we need a substantial married couple's tax allowance. We also need to end the iniquity of people on benefits being better off if they separate than if they live together. Single parenthood cheats children. Children of married couples tend to be healthier; better behaved; higher achieving; more likely to find jobs when they leave school; more likely to go into higher education and less likely to be involved in crime. All of the above saves the country money in the health service; legal system; social workers etc etc. When the people take up jobs, they pay more tax. It is a win-win situation. I despise left-wing politicians like Gordon Brown; Harriet Harman; Nick Clegg etc etc who are married; ie they see the benefits of marriage for their own families; yet refuse to lift a finger to promote the benefits to poor people.

Reform of the electoral system has to include equal-sized constituencies. End Labour's rotten burghs (Scottish spelling, for my English readers) where two men, a dog, 2000 names harvested from the local cemetery and several thousand fictitious people would elect a monkey in a red rosette. Atheist Nick Clegg says that he wants to end 'safe seats'. Fine. Let's merge Orkney & Shetland with Caithness & Sutherland: two constituencies which elected Liberal MPs even when they only had half a dozen voters across the UK. Let's put the Western Isles into Charlie Kennedy's consituency. Let's get rid of some of the sparsely populated Highland and Borders constituencies which would elect a monkey in a yellow rosette while we are about it.

We need to redefine our relationship with Europe. If only Dave had stuck to his "cast-iron guarantee" to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty: he might have found Angela Merkel more sympathetic than he could have possibly imagined. What a vote-winner this golden opportunity could have been in the final week of the campaign.

However, to quote Shagger Bill himself, "It's the economy, stupid." Labour has once again (as in 1979) left the country broke. Like every Labour government in history, unemployment is higher than when they took office. The next government needs to get Britain working, saving and investing. We need low taxes; incentives for entrepreneurs and an end to political correctness. If you want ethnic minorities to vote for you, show that you are serious about family values; if you want gay people to vote for you, show that you are serious about low taxation. These will be better vote-winners, and better for the economy, than a million policies based around PC nonsense.

Anyway, the polling starts in a few minutes. I'm off to vote Tory.

Sunday, 2 May 2010

Direct Party and Representative Voting

No, I hadn't heard of this until today either.

I think the system has a certain amount to commend it. Each elector would vote for both a local MP and for a party. Basically, it would keep the MP to constituency link, but introduce proportionality by weighting the voting power in Parliament according to the proportion of votes cast for each party.

The problem I have, is that you would still have the problem of any proportional system, that you would almost always have weak coalition government. It would also be possible for the largest single party to be shut out of power by the parties in second and third places. However, I wonder if this can be solved by altering the weightings?

Let us say that the party which finishes first in the popular vote automatically gets to choose the executive. Each party would have an equal chance to achieve this. In Parliament, the Prime Minister and Cabinet would therefore represent the single most popular party, and they would have a collective 5% of the voting power in Parliament in addition to their individual votes as MPs.. They would therefore be more powerful than individual MPs, but would be nowhere near a majority on their own.

The largest party in the popular vote would have 45% of the voting power in Parliament. This would almost certainly include all of the Executive as individual MPs. Assuming the party and Executive are united, they have 50% of the vote and, with the Speaker's casting vote, they can always get their legislation through Parliament. We have strong government. Any division in the largest party could be punished, though, because a single rebel MP would move them below 50%.

The second largest party would have 30% of the voting power in Parliament, and the third largest party would have 15% of the voting power. Combined, they would have equal power to the largest party minus the executive.

The smallest parties (SNP, Plaid Cymru, DUP etc) would have a combined 5% of the voting power in Parliament.

On any 'free' vote, each MP would have equal voting power.

Thursday, 29 April 2010

As ye sow, so shall ye reap

If anyone had any doubts about whether Gordon Brown is a lying, manipulative, nasty piece of work, surely even they will have had their eyes opened by yesterday's events.

If the truth be told, it is not just Brown. ALL of the political elite believe that ordinary, working class people are racist, homophobic, xenophobic and bigoted. They have no interest in what we actually think about anything. However, Brown takes it to a new level. The bitterness with which he spoke about his encounter with Gillian Duffy, describing it as a disaster, probably tells us even more than the insults he used. It revealed that his only concern was about whether the media would 'use the pictures': within seconds of complimenting Mrs Duffy, he had completely forgotten her concerns and his only interest was in the effect it would have on his campaign. All he wants is to cling to the office to which he was never elected until the last possible moment.

It is ironic that lefties accuse David Cameron of believing, because of his background, that he has an entitlement to govern. Only one politician in the last century has bullied his way into office, without any election save the voters of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, in a way that would have shamed a banana republic. Zimbabwe and Iran have had elections for their leaders: corrupt and flawed, maybe, but more claim to legitimacy than Brown's premiership.

Good riddance, Gordon.

Monday, 5 April 2010

Gays under your roof

As the General Election draws nearer, the Marxist filth get more and more desperate. The vile Daily Mirror, for example, attacks the Tories on the Chris Grayling story.

Now, I am no fan of Chris Grayling. However, he seems to be a decent enough guy and does not deserve the sort of attack which is being made on him. Additionally, the Conservative Party should beware. There will be millions of people up and down the country (I suspect a majority) who believe that what Grayling said represents a sensible compromise. I am one of them.

Of course, people should not be discriminated against in larger establishments. However, if I am letting out a room or two in my home, I should have the right to state whom to admit. Lots of establishments advertise themselves as 'gay-friendly' and I don't propose banning them. Nor should a B&B be vilified if they prefer not to have gays sharing a room. Or indeed any unmarried couple.

To compare this to discrimination on race is disingenuous. If the gay men had booked single rooms at the B&B, they would not have been turned away. Someone with a prejudice against black people would have turned away any black person. It's not the same thing. Discrimination against gays by denying them a double room is merely discriminating against certain behaviour. Again, the issue is not whether you approve or not of such behaviour. The issue is whether a homeowner has the right to demand certain standards of anyone during the time they are under his or her roof. The answer has to be 'yes'.

Sunday, 7 March 2010

The Nasty Party - which is it?

The question was raised on the TES message board, to which I penned the following reply:

I would propose that the 'nasty party' is the one which has betrayed this country by taking us into a war on the basis of lies; murdered a government scientist who dared to tell the truth; betrayed British soldiers by denying them proper equipment for aforesaid war; increased the gap between rich and poor, despite their avowed intention to reduce poverty; wrecked the one world-class industry that we had left (banking & financial services); borrowed more money in just two financial years than every government combined between 1691 and 1997; introduced 'privacy' and 'human rights' legislation which allows the rich and powerful to gain injunctions at the drop of a credit card to prevent the media reporting true stories about them; released Jon Venables whilst keeping Tony Martin a political prisoner; appointed a psychotic bully to the post of Prime Minister without an election, despite a promise by the previous incumbent to serve a full term; gave away the rebate from the EU which Margaret Thatcher won for us and which will cost us billions as a result; gave away the last remnants of British sovereignty via the Lisbon Treaty, despite the pre-election promise to give us a referendum. Shall I go on...?
As long as New Labour is consigned to the dustbin of history, I'll be happy. Bring on the election!

As I said - he should have been euthanised

Now we know, and it is particularly sickening, considering what he was originally convicted of, that the piece of sewage formerly known as Jon Venables was sent back to prison because of child pornography.

Venables is clearly evil. He will never change. At 27, he is no longer a child, nor even a young adult. Why should the legal system protect his identity? Vigilantes only exist where the politicians, police and legal system have failed to do their jobs. Venables deserves no protection.

Phwoar! Look at that for a poll!

After a few weeks of quite worrying opinion polls, the latest ICM poll in the News of the World shows a healthy Tory lead of nine points. Whatever the Tories' faults, this country desperately needs a change of Government, so this is very good news. Because of the effects of Irish MPs rarely voting (and Sinn Fein never attending); Welsh and Scottish nationalists and 60 or so (hopefully fewer after the GE) Liberals, on most issues there is never a united opposition to the Government, so even a minority administration would not be anything to fear. Hopefully, though, we will have a sufficient Tory majority.

Saturday, 6 March 2010

Capital punishment for Jon Venables? Definitely!

So, the piece of sewage formerly known as Jon Venables is back in prison and at risk from other prisoners. A violent criminal and drug user, even discounting his role in one of the most vile crimes ever committed in this country, why should another £250,000 of taxpayers' money be spent on creating a new identity for him? Why should he protected, rather than the people with the misfortune to come into contact with him?

We know that a Labour government will never care about the victims of crime. That is why Tony Martin was held in prison for years as a political prisoner for daring to euthanise a burglar. There was a time when I was opposed to capital punishment. However, I have come round to supporting it. When children like Venables and Robert Thomson commit acts of evil, of course there is usually more than one sad story behind it. However, realistically, Venables could never seriously have been expected ever to live a normal life afterwards. I think it is only common sense to recognise that, for whatever reason, the life of someone like that is pointless. Nothing is done for the victims, whilst criminals are indulged at huge cost to the taxpayer. For a vile and unprovoked act of sheer evil, as theirs was, surely the only sane thing that can happen is to euthanise them. It is not even capital punishment: morally, it is no different to poisoning diseased rats or shooting rabid dogs.

If Venables had been euthanised, he would not have been free to attack anyone else and Jamie Bulger's mother would be able to sleep more easily. Justice would have been served.

Friday, 5 March 2010

Should marriage be recognised in the tax system? YES YES YES!

Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Harriet Harman, Alistair Darling, David Miliband - they are all married. They sneer at attempts to 'promote' marriage, yet recognise the benefits of it for their own families.

Why has marriage become 'middle class'? Well, for people on low incomes, there is often a significant financial benefit through the tax and welfare system for people to remain unmarried, especially if they have children. The 'few pounds a week' that the lefties like to sneer at, can be quite important for people in that situation.

I am a teacher and I can speak from first hand, and second and third hand, experience. The better behaved, more contented, successful and healthy children tend to come from parents who are married. The children with ADHD and other behavioural issues; who are poor attenders or who have learning or emotional problems, tend to come from unmarried, usually single, parents. Yes, there are exceptions. However, that is no reason to ignore the overwhelming evidence that marriage tends to be good for the children of the marriage.

Children from broken homes often get far more taxpayers' money spent on them: special needs teachers and auxiliaries; social workers etc etc. It is time that we targeted a tax break that will disproportionately benefit people on modest incomes who struggle against the odds to raise their children decently. Support for marriage is one of the key reasons that I shall vote Conservative, and I am deeply uncomfortable about any attempt to water down the party's commitment to it.

Children from married families tend to cost less in terms of welfare etc than those from broken homes. They are often healthier, and use the NHS less. They get into crime more rarely, therefore saving money in the criminal justice and social work systems. They are more likely to get jobs and contribute to society when they grow up. As a Conservative, I believe there is a clear financial benefit to the country, which ought to be recognised in the form of a significant tax break

Thursday, 4 March 2010

EIS having a march round Glasgow on Saturday

I'm not a member of EIS and I can think of better ways of spending my Saturday.
Having looked at their web page:

- I agree about the incompetence of government being responsible for the cuts in education. I agree about the obscene amounts of money used to bail out bankers, rather than allowing market forces to have their way.
- I disagree about 'teacher shortages' - we all know that there is a huge surplus of teachers which will exist until the universities stop training too many people.
- I think protesting about cuts is futile. The country is bankrupt thanks to the actions of this Government. Cuts will happen in the next few years no matter who is elected. The only alternative to saying this, is to tell lies or to stick your head in the sand.
- The only meaningful protest is one aimed at the removal of this Government and replacing it with a Conservative administration, which is the only alternative at the General Election. Yes, I know that education is a devolved matter, and the SNP administration at Holyrood is almost as useless as its Labour predecessors, but the budgetary constraints are caused, and imposed, by Labour at Westminster. The rottenest of rotten burghs, Glasgow City Council, is still under single-party control and in Scotland's largest local authority there should therefore be no one else to blame if Labour chooses to reduce the education budget.
- So, what is the political focus of the protest? Is it anti-Labour and pro-Conservative? From the Marxist loonies who run the EIS, that is distinctly unlikely. Much more likely that it is aimed at putting pressure on the SNP with the (in my view, bizarre) aim of shoring up the Labour vote.

Michael Foot

Has died at the age of 96. I can't help wondering if a Labour activist somewhere makes sure he still casts a postal vote in the GE. No doubt they justify it in terms of tackling necrophobia on behalf of the deceased community.

Wednesday, 3 March 2010

Loony students

I am currently doing a postgraduate course, and I was intrigued to pick up the leaflet of candidates for the student union elections.

Two have included almost identical statements, which I suspect have been fed to them by the Marxist trade union supporting them. Among the gems are:

- Lobby government to 'bring back grants' and 'cut their own salaries before cutting our courses and staff'. Er, yes. And on Planet Earth people may think it rather more productive to...

- NO TO WAR; NO TO BNP. Er, yes. The BNP is probably the only political party to have been unanimously opposed to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The BNP argues that we should only ever go to war to directly protect British interests. However, let's try another policy...

- '...campaign alongside LGBT and Muslim community' - unless the institution in question is a hotbed of apostasy, I think it is just a tad unlikely that those particular groups would consider that they jointly form a distinct community. In those Islamic countries where homosexuals fear being executed, I suspect that members of the LGBT community would chuckle at the suggestion. Or maybe not. However, let's try...

- 'ensure... remains a Nazi-free zone with tolerance and diversity at its heart.' Absolutely! We need some Lebensraum to celebrate all this tolerance and diversity in. There is no room for, er, anyone who disagrees with us.

Anyhoo, many thanks to the Union of the University of Strathclyde. There are some excellent candidates - Charandeep Singh as VP for Equality & Diversity has some fine ideas and I think he has set his sights too low in running for that post. The others, hopefully, will grow up and vote Tory like the rest of us. Although if they continue to live in the West of Scotland, there is a possibility that they will do neither; the left-wing indoctrination running too deeply.

Sunday, 28 February 2010

God save this country!

According to the Sunday Times today, Liebour look as though they will win the next General Election. I have posted the following on Conservative Home, with one or two tweaks:

I am utterly depressed at the prospect of this vile and corrupt Government remaining in power. I shall vote Conservative but, frankly, with little conviction.

Cameron - lacks principle, as shown by reneging on his promise of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty; by voting in favour of keeping Section 28, then apologising for the fact it was introduced; by disagreeing with the increase in the top rate of Income Tax, yet insisting that a Conservative government would keep it; by trying to water down and weasel out of the commitment to the Married Couple's tax allowance.

Cameron - has packed his shadow cabinet with effete ex-public schoolboys.

While Labour was ruining the economy, we needed a hard man like Hague to go for the jugular as Shadow Chancellor.
While Labour was allowing the country to be over-run by uncontrolled immigration, we needed a man of principle like Davis as Shadow Home Secretary to argue our case.
While Labour was betraying centuries of British history by signing the treacherous Lisbon Treaty, we needed a man of intellect and gravitas like Rifkind as Shadow Foreign Secretary.
While Labour was adding scores of billions to the national debt by pouring money into the black hole that is the NHS, we needed a man who knows and understands the problems of the NHS like Fox as Shadow Health Secretary to explain how we would make it more efficient. Instead, we had Dave promising to commit even more billions.

Cameron - by picking the right team, by standing by his principles, and by standing clearly by them, could have won this Election and begun to heal our broken society. Instead, he has failed.

Conservative voters are not interested in how many Tory MPs are gay, bisexual, women, Muslim or from ethnic minorities. We care that they believe in law and order; a strong economy and protecting British sovereignty. Yet Dave has fallen into the trap of trying to appease every minority who would never have voted Tory in a million years, while kicking traditional Tories in the teeth. He has taken his eye off the ball and has focused on minutiae.

It isn't too late. We can still win the next election, by hammering the message of PRINCIPLE.

1. As a PRINCIPLE, no one in the country should pay more than half their income in direct taxes.

2. As a PRINCIPLE, dangerous criminals should be kept off the streets, and no Conservative Home Secretary will ever be over-ruled by a foreign court other than on a law directly relevant to free trade.

3. As a PRINCIPLE, no able-bodied person should be allowed to spend half their adult life on benefits.

4. As a PRINCIPLE, we shall immediately repeal the Human Rights Act and put in its place a Bill of Rights, beginning with the phrase "We, the people..." which shall be adopted after a Referendum. The Bill of Rights will reject any and every area of law in which the UK is subservient to the EU, or would be in the future, save where these relate strictly to the promotion of free trade (which is all we have ever had the chance to vote on) or have been adopted by a British government as the result of a referendum or at least a manifesto commitment in a General Election.

5. As a PRINCIPLE, by the end of five years, the national debt will have been reduced and British people will be contributing a lower share of their earnings in direct taxation.

6. As a PRINCIPLE, a Conservative government will justify taxation not in terms of how tax cuts are funded, but in justifying why tax has to be taken from the taxpayer in the first place.

7. As a PRINCIPLE, the rights of the victims of crime will take precedence over the rights of criminals in every case.

8. As a PRINCIPLE, the balance between birth, death, immigration and emigration rates shall not be permitted to lead to an increase in the UK population beyond 0.1% per year.

Believe me, I still want Cameron to win, but he has to EARN it and FAST.