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.