Wednesday, 30 November 2011

How Can We Defend the Middle Ground?

The middle ground of politics and social behaviour is under attack from both sides.
On one side there are the reactionary islamic fundamentalists who would like to ban alcohol and make adultery, along with homosexuality, a capital crime. If they got into government you could say goodbye to free contraception and abortion - they would probably outlaw both altogether. And on the other side there are the anything-goes, negative-ethics kind of people who not only want to legalize the marriage of homosexuals but are determined to force their ideas and attitudes on 100% of the population. Gay extremists are just as intolerant and opposed to democratic freedom as any mad mullah.
Not long ago, pressure-groups were at work trying to stop Facebook and Twitter from permitting pages used by people who want to defend traditional marriage. The gay extremists think they have got a right to impose censorship and strangle everybody into agreeing with them.
I have just come across a piece of news about a Canadian TV sports commentator called Damian Goddard. Hearing that someone had started a discussion on Twitter about marriage and had put the view that it ought to remain what it has always been, i.e. a union between one man and one woman, Damian commented that he fully agreed. He also believes that in a marriage there must be a husband and a wife. Two left feet don't make a pair! The outcome of this was pretty shocking. A couple of days later, his bosses called him into the office, asked him if he's written the comments, and then told him he was sacked.*
That's right, an employee of a major TV company was told that his contract was torn up merely because he had, when not working, expressed the view that he didn't regard same-gender unions as marriage.
>>> This is like something out of the McCarthyite era.
People are being bullied and intimidated by organized intolerance, working behind the scenes to take reprisals and aiming at complete control of the media.
How many more people are being bullied by gay extremists? Will any court have the guts to defend Damian Goddard's rights?
It seems that most of our career politicians are so busy seeking the approval of extremists on both sides that few if any of them have got time to defend the middle ground. Yet that is just what we should be doing. We should be defending our values and our way of life from erosion. If we don't, the mess is going to be a serious one.

* Information from Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance: Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance: Damian Goddard

Tuesday, 29 November 2011

The Party's Over

The number of people in the UK who actually belong to any political party or pay a subscription is dwindling all the time. So what are the hard-up so-called "main parties" doing? They are putting their heads together and demanding state funding. That is outrageous, Why should we be compelled to fund and perpetuate political parties if we don't want to?
Of course such an approach gives the old parties a huge advantage over any possible competitors. It means that the old-established party machines can cling onto power even if people are disenchanted with them.
In my view, political parties should not be funded by the state. State funding is just a way of embalming dead political parties after their useful life is over.
The self-serving career politicians of the Conmen party (blue) the Layabout party (red) and the Glibdummies (orange) are already raking in obscene amounts of money for doing nothing except betray this country. If the public will not fund them - well, thank God for that!

The latest proposals for the funding of political parties, which will see the taxpayer foot a £23 miliion annual bill, have been condemned by UKIP.

Sunday, 27 November 2011

Black Mark for Clegg

It seems that the heart of our deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, has been bleeding for black people recently. He has gone to Brixton, in darkest South London, and made a speech deploring the way that ethnic minorities are still, according to him, downtrodden and hard done by. Why is it, he asked, that young black men are more likely to go to prison than to go to university?
Has it occurred to Nick Smegg that the reason for this may be that prison is less expensive?
Prison doesn’t cost £9,000 per year in fees, and another £6,000 in maintenance bills. Prison, Mr Clegg, is free. Even the working class or the benefit classes can afford prison. University is expensive, and curiously enough, within hours of being elected, Mr Smegg went back on the pledge to freeze university fees which was the main pledge in his election manifesto. He toured this country in April 2010 addressing thousands of students and school-leavers promising that he would oppose any rise in their fees. Once in power he tore his manifesto up and threw it in their faces.
Yes, Mr Smegg, prison is affordable. Prisoners don’t have to pay rent, or mortgage. They have no council tax and no fuel bills to pay. They are not responsible for buying or cooking their own food. They get free medical treatment, free dental treatment and free use of a gym, and very soon they will get votes and benefit payments while they are in there too, thanks to your own beloved EU.
University is now exorbitantly expensive. After a three-year course, a graduate leaves with debts between £30,000 and £50,000. And things are set to get worse. The government has signed up to a plan originating with the Council of Europe to extend all degree courses in Britain to five years. Yes, you didn’t mention that in your triumphalist speeches to all those student unions, did you? At the end of a five-year degree course, how much money will a student owe - £60,000? Or nearer £75,000 if they have gone to a good university. It is a financial millstone that many people would be terrified to tie around their necks. Maybe the young black men who are so reluctant to go to university are smarter than the Deputy Prime Minister (whom Brussels would so dearly love to put at the helm of this country).
I wonder how many people in Brixton will be taken in by Smegg’s latest vote-catching ploy. He is playing the race card, vicariously, whinging that black people find it harder to get bank loans and that there are no black managers of Premier League football clubs. After he made the speech, Channel 4 news did a foray into Brixton to ask black and Asian people there if they thought this was true. Most of those they asked disagreed with Mr Clegg! They were not aware of any bias or injustice in those respects, nor were they keen to adopt an underdog mentality, and their votes are not going to be so easily bought with a few egalitarian statistics and clich├ęs.
It must be that Clegg’s team told him to make this speech as a calculated attempt to rally support after recent opinion polls show that the Coalition’s popularity is drooping. (It can only be explained by supposing that there are some people who don’t like being unemployed, losing their homes, struggling against rampant inflation and tax rises or being left to rot in geriatric care homes staffed by bullies and psychopaths.) If the students are not going to vote for him next time round, Smegg wants the ethnic vote, and he probably also wants the women’s vote and the handicapped vote….Watch out for more bleeding heart speeches making a grab in those directions too!

Monday, 21 November 2011

Foreign Aid - Can We Afford It?

David Cameron has timed his decision very badly. To give an extra £819 million in foreign aid when cutting basic services in this country is irresponsible.
We have recently given billions to a succession of EU bail-outs. Meanwhile we are denying care to old people here in the UK and our pensions are some of the lowest in Europe. Cameron is scrapping the disability living allowance, leaving disabled people and their families in the lurch. There are homeless people in this country and some cannot afford to heat their homes as energy prices zoom upwards. Cameron has cut £100 from winter fuel payments to the elderly.
Let us be honest - the true purpose of foreign aid is not one of compassion. It is really a way of buying friends. It is supposed to encourage trade and ensure we have strategic allies.
But in many cases this policy is not working.
Why are we subsidizing Pakistan, which sheltered Osama Bin Laden? We give India £295 million [] yet they can afford a space programme and aircraft carriers from Russia. Believe it or not, Britain gave £420,000 to Afghanistan to build a theme park complete with ferris wheel:-

Picture here

And this is at a time when we’re selling off our Harrier jump jets to America for peanuts and cannot afford to defend ourselves.
While I am not against giving any foreign aid we must get our priorities right and there must be a quid pro quo. The priorities for aid should be victims of recent wars or natural disasters. We should be very careful not to pour money into the pockets of dictators or prop up regimes that violate human rights.
(Julia Gasper Oxford Mail April 2011).

I wrote that three months ago. Since then, the Indian government has made a large purchase of armaments from France, and when reproached by David Cameron for not buying them from England after all the aid we gave them, the Indian PM retorted that they don't need the measly little £280 million that we give each year.
Well, what did I tell you....?