Thursday, 27 May 2010

Could we Really Survive Outside the Space Capsule?

It's funny the sort of questions people ask. Instead of asking, "Should we really stay inside a system that is collapsing on all sides like a house on fire?" they quite often ask, "Could we survive outside the EU?"
Survive outside? Why should there be a problem with surviving outside? What do you think is outside there? Are we in a space capsule plummeting through the icy, dark vacuum of hyper-space? Well, no, not when I last looked!
Take a look at history. History - you know, all that stuff about the remote past, before mobile phones, i-pads and laptops. I can vividly remember a time when an i-pad was something you kept in a first-aid box and only got out in emergencies. Which shows I'm, like, really old.
History shows us that when this funny-shaped little island was part of the Roman Empire, it was poor, enslaved and downtrodden. It used a single currency, yes, and that single currency was used to buy and sell British children in the markets of Rome. The serfs of this empire could be strung up without appeal or much in the way of defence. Another imperial power that once governed Britain in a rather different but still effective manner was the Roman Catholic church, whose Popes thought their authority was above that of kings. They took huge amounts of money from the devout believers, in the form of tithes and payments for blessings and indulgences. A lot of it went to the Vatican which grew into an amazingly lavish and wealthy capital, where an elite class displayed their splendour and luxury. Sounds familiar?
Naughty people like Chaucer and the Lollards used to whisper that there was corruption, too, in the ranks of the elite. Sounds familiar?
Now look what happened when Britain threw off those foreign rulers and decided to be independent. From Tudor times to the Second World War we kept foreign powers from meddling in our country. Result: we were freer, richer, more powerful and more dynamic than at any other time. We weren't isolated, and we weren't insular.
We were just free.
If that's petty nationalism, it looks pretty good to me.

Wednesday, 26 May 2010

New government attacks immigrants

You all heard the Queen's speech. It's official. The two-headed Cleggerons have announced a new policy of capping (jargon for restricting) immigration from all countries outside the EU. They want to convince the public that they are taking action about something which 55% of us regard as a "problem".
Is immigration a problem? It's not a problem if we take people we want, people who may have skills or abilities and who are willing to fit in with the way of life in this country. Sometimes we need them. Sometimes they pay a lot of money for our services.
The important thing is for us to be able to choose who is coming here. It's a problem if we let in people without skills, people who may be claimants or health-tourists and people who like putting bombs on tube trains. If we made our own laws, all these problems could be easily solved.
But unfortunately despite the paraphenalia of the Queen's speech ( and how hot she looked in all that fur in this heat-wave) we no longer make our own laws. Since the major blunder of accepting EU rule, we now have little or no control over who comes here. So the Cleggerons are resorting to a feeble and absurd ploy of picking on the non-EU immigrants - who are a small minority - and arbitrarily restricting the number of visas that will be issued to them. Wait a minute - their policy ignores such issues as competence and need!
This means that when we want to recruit a doctor or nurse we HAVE to take them from the EU, even if others from the Commonwealth, or the Philippines, are far more competent and speak better English.
If we want to recruit a professor from the USA or Russia, we will be told we have to give priority to a less qualified Latvian.
Genuine students from America, Russia or China who pay a lot of money to study here will be kept out. So our struggling economy will lose foreign exchange. Meanwhile, EU students will be able to pour in here and take £4000 from the taxpayer each year they study at a British university.
Barmy?
Well, yes.
Counter-productive?
Certainly.
A pathetic gesture to manipulate statistics?
You could call it that.
But the Cleggerons have got a fundamental handicap: they are incapable of understanding that it is EU membership that is tying our hands behind our backs and preventing us from addressing the REAL problems.

Thursday, 13 May 2010

Dr Who and The Cleggerons Part 2

The story so far.
Dr Who has landed on Earth just in time to confront the first wave of the Cleggerons, the scary three-legged aliens who are taking over and seeking to supercede the human race.
Betrayed by his careless, naive companion and captured by a Cleggeron ambush-squad, he is taken to their HQ where he overhears the latest of their dastardly plans.
The Cleggerons have decided to weaken any opposition in the House of Conmens by using a simple trick. They will change the rules so that instead of needing 50% to win a vote of No Confidence, the opposition will need 55% in future. If there is still any danger of the Cleggeron regime being voted out, they can always raise the bar to 60% or 75%. "Fiendish," murmurs the Doctor.
Meanwhile the Stock Market goes up markedly in response to the prospect of stable, firm and strong government. Dr. Who scans the Financial Times and makes a few quick investments on his mobile phone, before diving into a nearby recycling bin full of forged postal votes and concealing himself before the Cleggeron guards can find him. What has happened to his naive companion? What are they going to do with her?
[To be continued.]

Wednesday, 12 May 2010

Dr Who and the Cleggerons

Coming soon...Dr Who and the Cleggerons.

In the next series of Dr Who, the doctor (played by David Threlfall we sincerely hope) faces his most scary and horrifying enemy of all time - the ghastly Cleggerons. These three-legged, two-headed quasi-humanoids from the planet Compromise, a planet which never goes all the way round in its orbit, but stops when half-way there and turns back in the other direction, are now poised to take over the Earth. Their plans include cutting public services in order to bail out Greece, and, most terrible of all, a Graduate Tax.
The doctor, who graduated from Cambridge University in 1385 and did his Ph.D. at Imperial College, London in 1901, realizes at once that the Earth is in deadly danger. The Graduate Tax is the best and fastest way of driving out all the graduates from planet Earth to seek employment in other solar systems. Luckily for him, the Tardis is registered for tax purposes in a far-off galaxy, on a tiny mountainous planet which remains stubbornly independent. But this will not deter him from fighting to the death for his principles!

I Told You So - Clegg's the Dregs

It's just as I predicted in my last blog.
The Libdems have sold out every principle they've got (admittedly not many) for a few places in the cabinet. What would you expect from a party funded by tax-exiles, arms dealers and serial fraudsters?
They are not going to introduce proportional representation, merely have a referendum on AV which is rubbish and only benefits the larger and more central parties. The people who voted for them in the belief that they were committed to constitutional reform should now be very diasappointed and disillusioned.
Some people are saying that we should have two referenda - the first to ask whether the public wants any change in the voting system, then the second giving a choice of various alternative systems.
That would be too expensive, and too complicated for many voters to uderstand. Better to give two straightforward choices -
i) no change,
ii) real proportional representation for all parties with even 1% of the vote. When you think about it, 31,000 Labour or Conservative votes gain one MP. So why should 310,000 votes - which is 1% of the poll - result in no representation? Are we talking about a fairer system or merely an adjustment in favour of the Libdems, which is what AV amounts to?
What is the betting that the Cleggeron government will blame Labour and each other for the massive cuts they are now going to be forced to make in order to go on funding our extortionate contributions to the EU budget and Greek bail-out?
Clegg, Cameron and Huhne are all millionaires so they don't care whether the state pension is adequate or whether our elderly people get care in their declining years.

Saturday, 8 May 2010

Electoral Reform? Don't bank on it.

Before the election, Nick Clegg was a nonentity. Then the media made a celeb out of him, and got all feverish in expectation that his TV appearances would boost the Libdem vote beyond any previous election results.
Did it happen?
No way.
Despite all his abundant TV time and the £3.5 million in illegal donations to his party, the Libdem vote remained very little changed. It is fair to say that if he had not had those grossly unfair advantages, the Libdem vote would have declined.
Here in Oxford East we were so swamped with Libdem leaflets we could hardly push our way out of the front door. They still didn't win.
Now the leader who has lost five seats for his party is being regarded as having the right to choose our next prime minister. What is fair or legal about that?
The Libdems have wavered and dithered about every policy for the past twenty years, remaining steadfast only in their blind allegiance to the EU and in the matter of electoral reform. The two propositions are, of course, contradictory. Why does it matter who sits in our Westminster parliament, if the Libdems are quite happy to give away all the powers of that parliament to Brussels? Why campaign to reform a puppet parliament?
But mere considerations of sense and logic will not deter the Libdems. They have long said they are in favour of electoral reform.
Will they use this opportunity to get it? To force it through at long last? I wouldn't bet on it. This afternoon there was a demonstration in London for proportional representation. Clegg responded with a woolly speech talking about "change" but committing himself to nothing. Typical.
To a Libdem, PR stands for Public Relations more often than Proportional Representation.
I would not be in the least surprised to see Nick and Dave get into bed with eachother. They are basically very similar, and could work together far more cosily than either of them would with Gordon Brown.

Party Seats Gain Loss Net Votes % +/-%

Conservative 305 100 3 +97 10,681,417 36.1 +3.8
Labour 258 3 94 -91 8,601,441 29.1 -6.2
Liberal Dem 57 8 13 -5 6,805,665 23.0 +1.0
UK IP 0 0 0 0 914,811 3.1 +0.9
Green 1 1 0 +1 284,566 1.0 -0.1


The Conservatives got 10 million votes and 300 seats. Labour got 8 million votes and 258 seats. UKIP got nearly a million votes and no seats. With proportional representation UKIP would now have about thirty MPs. What's the betting that the corrupt old parties will gang up together to prevent that from happening?

33,000 Conservative or Labour votes = 1 seat.
280,000 Green votes = 1 seat.
915,000 UKIP votes = no seats

Wednesday, 5 May 2010

Listen to the younger generation

I sent this message to a young woman student at university:-

One major reason to vote UKIP at this election is to save university education in this country. We are the education party. UKIP is the only party pledged to abolishing tuition fees immediately and wholly (not bit by bit in the dim and distant future and funding it through a graduate tax like the Libdems.) We are also pledged to restoring the student grant. Not a loan. A grant. We oppose the graduate tax which is about to be introduced by Labour, Libdem or Conservative. We also oppose the Bologna Process, which the UK government has foolishly signed, extending all degree courses to five years merely for the sake of uniformity across Europe. UKIP says to hell with that! A five-year unfunded degree course would be available only to the rich. Loans and graduate taxes put off poorer students and women. To save university education in this country, WAKE UP Britain and vote UKIP.
EU membership costs us at least £50 billion per year in direct and indirect costs.

She sent me this reply:-

Our national debt is somewhere around the £850 billion mark though.

£850 billion. It's nearly 60% of our GDP.

Even if you discount the "investment" the government made in the banks, which I do hope can eventually be recouped, it's still well over £700 billion and more than 50% of our GDP.

And, this figure does not even include the particularly crippling PFI "investments" that the government has made, spending hundreds of billions more building hospitals which will soon cease to exist! If you think it's a waste of money paying to support the Greek economy, or paying to build bridges in Eastern Europe, or just paying to physically move pointless documents between Brussels and Strasbourg, think about the complete disaster of spending more money than you usually would on a hospital, and ending up with no hospital at all. It's madness, and it has to stop.

The current situation is totally unsustainable, even though it apparently hasn't actually crippled us yet. Even assuming that leaving the EU would leave us in a stronger position financially, even when the economy gets back on its feet, we absolutely do need spending cuts. I think we need to tone down the government spending culture generally, because there's an attitude that problems are solved by throwing money at them and there's a culture that we can just continuously spend money which we do not have currently. We cannot go on like this indefinitely. We simply can't afford to.

Tuesday, 4 May 2010

Excuse me, did you say anti-sleaze?

We all need a good laugh from time to time.
John Stevens is running for election as an anti-sleaze candidate for the parliamentary seat of Buckingham, and he is careful not to tell the voters that while he was an MEP he helped himself to £210,000 of superfluous expenses.
It is being reported on very reliable evidence that "Mr Stevens had an office in Sunninghill in the former Thames Valley Euro constituency when he was first elected in 1989, and maintained it until February 1991. After that, his addresses, as listed in the official directory of MEPs, were given as a residential address on Smith Square, Westminster, and the offices of his employers, Rothschild Asset Management, on St James's Place, SW1.
During this period, office expenses allowances were £2,100 per month, meaning that in the 8 ½ odd years Mr Stevens apparently failed to maintain a constituency office, he benefitted from £210,000 of taxpayers money meant to pay for one."
What does Mr Stevens mean, then, by anti-sleaze?
Whatever is he doing, posing as holier-than-thou?
Why does he call himself a Conservative when is not a genuine candidate of that party and he has previously belonged to the Libdems or made up his own label of pro-Euro Conservative (which means a little barmier than most other Conservatives) ?

It's true there are many other guilty politicians. Julie McBride has not been goaled - why? Elliot Morley has not been goaled - though at least he is on trial. Nick Clegg has not been goaled or even charged for accepting £3.5 million in illegal donations to his party from non-taxpayers and criminals.
But none of them are standing on a platform of Clean up Politics.
Stevens is just gambling on nobody in Buckingham or Aylesbury calling his bluff in time before the polling day.
You would be a fool to vote for him and Martin Bell is a nitwit to endorse him.

Monday, 3 May 2010

Read Marta's Newsletter

Marta Andreassen is a UKIP MEP who used to be the chief accountant in charge of the entire EU budget.
She was sacked for refusing to conceal fraud and corruption.
She joined UKIP and was elected to the European parliament in 2009.
They were fuming of course! The EU commission thought they could just silence her.
Now she campaigns against our EU membership, and she knows what she is talking about. If she says that 30% of the EU budget is embezzled, she is certainly the expert.
Read Marta's newsletter full of inside information into the EU kleptocracy and its goings-on. Ask her to put you on her mailing-list.
marta.andreasen-office@europarl.europa.eu

Sunday, 2 May 2010

How far can you drive a chicken?

When you ask people why they joined UKIP they tell you some funny stories. One person told me that he has always kept chickens. (His Dad used to keep them during the war and his family never stopped.) A little while ago his chickens were all devoured by a fox, probably thanks to the fox-hunting ban.
He happened to be down near Tewkesbury that weekend visiting a friend and went to a market, where they were selling poultry. He saw a breed of hen he likes. But there was an official there who told him he had to fill in a form with his name and address, and then he couldn't buy the chickens as the distance was too great to drive them from the market. Who says? The EU says of course. Who else issues us with thousands of new, petty regulations every year?
Of course what he did (after swearing a bit) was to get his friend to buy the birds, and put down his address. Then he took them home from his friend's house to Oxford.
What exactly did this officialdom achieve? A few more bureaucrats kept in a job? A few more tons of paper used in forms and instructions? Will chickens soon need passports and ID cards? The EU has suggested that all livestock should be individually identified. No kidding.
The result of this little fracas was that it made him join UKIP. Maybe you can only drive a chicken so far, but you can only drive a British citizen so far as well!
.
.
.
.
.