Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Vote For Carswell

H/T to Voice Of The Resistance

The Spectator are running their annual Parliamentarian of the Year award, and asking for readers' nominations for this year's winner.

I propose we all vote en masse for Douglas Carswell, the MP for Harwich and Clacton, and co-author of The Plan. This is the man who managed to oust Speaker Martin, and has consistently pushed for a more Libertarian agenda within his own Conservative party.

I can think of no worthier winner amongst today's Parliamentarians, and a win for Carswell will send out a strong, clear message not just to the Conservative party that they must continue to take a more Libertarian approach to their policies if we are to really clean up Britain, it will also make sure the Left know the game is finally up.

We need men of good principle to be taking the lead in the fight against the powers of darkness in this country, and Douglas Carswell is one such man.

Vote for Carswell here - and please post this on your own blogs. Let's send that message!
I don't think that much of politicians in general, but Carswell is as close to a Libertarian as the Tory party has, so definitely worth a vote.

(Incidentally last year I voted for Frank Field)

Well there's a surprise

Pretty much as predicted "Call me Dave" is hinting that he wont hold a referendum if all 27 EU countries have ratified the Lisbon Treaty.

The Tory leader’s signal could antagonise eurosceptic Tories who want a popular vote on the document whether or not it has taken legal force.

Mr Cameron spoke as Irish voters prepare for their referendum on the Treaty on Friday, with polls pointing to a Yes.

Mr Cameron is in a political quandary over his pledge to hold a British vote on the treaty.

It has now been ratified by 23 of the 27 EU states, including the UK.

Ireland, Poland, Germany and the Czech Republic have not endorsed it yet, but are likely to do so before the British general election next year.

In that case, a new Tory government would have to decide whether to hold a British referendum on a ratified treaty, something that other EU leaders say would effectively be an in-or-out choice on Britain’s entire EU membership.

Mr Cameron has repeatedly refused to say what he will do if he comes to power with the treaty ratified, saying only that he will “not let matters rest.”

In an LBC radio interview, the Tory leader said that if the treaty is ratified, “new circumstances” will apply, suggesting a new Tory policy will be needed.

"If this treaty is still alive, if it is still being discussed and debated anywhere in Europe, then we will give you that referendum, we will name the date during the election campaign, we'll hold that referendum straight away and I will lead the campaign for a No," he said.

"Now, if those circumstances change, if the Germans ratify, if the Poles ratify, if the Czechs ratify, if the Irish vote Yes to the treaty, then a new set of circumstances [apply], and I will address those at the time."

He went on to signal that he would not consider a move that could lead to Britain leaving the EU.

He said: "I want us to be in the European Union. We are a trading nation, we should be co-operating with our allies and friends in Europe over things like the environment and crime, of course we should."

Talk about out of step with the population, Yes the UK is a trading nation, but no we don't need to be in the EU to trade. The EU trades far more with us than we do with them, they need to sell us their goods, not vice versa. Nor do we need a tighter political union in which to trade, in fact outside of the EU we'd be able to buy cheaper without the unnecessary restrictions and trade barriers that the EU puts in our path. CAP springs to mind here. All we have to do is state we'll trade with anyone, anywhere, anytime and I doubt anyone will notice the difference, other than the burden of taxation would go down along with prices.

Just another reason not to vote Tory.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

More hot air

Well according to Gordon Brown.....

Gordon Brown has committed Labour to holding a referendum on voting reform should it win the next election.

In his conference speech, Mr Brown said Labour would hold a referendum "early" in the next Parliament on proposals for an alternative vote system.

Under this, voters rank candidates in order with the bottom candidate's second preferences transferred in each round until someone gets 50% of votes.

Reform campaigners said the public should decide which options to vote on.

They have also queried the timing of a referendum, pointing out that Labour never followed through on a commitment to a referendum on electoral reform in its 1997 manifesto.

Several senior ministers, including Home Secretary Alan Johnson, have backed a referendum in recent months to restore faith in politics after the Westminster expenses scandal.

Considering Labours track record on referendum promises, why on earth does Gordon Brown think anyone will believe him?

In other highlights.

There was something about markets needing morals, as opposed to politicians? People in glass houses etc. springs to mind over that one.
Free personal care for the elderly? Free for whom, someone's going to have to pay for it.
He claims the government will be on the people's side, this must be why they interfere in people's lives so much.
He indicated he will raise tax and National insurance knowing the NI raise will screw everyone.

The most grating part though was at the beginning where his Mrs did the introduction god did that set alarm bells ringing.
I know he loves his country and I know he will always, always put you first
Brown signed the Scottish claim of right.
We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount.
So we know which country Mrs Brown is talking about and it isn't England.

Mr Brown announced a string of new policies, including:

  • Ten hours of free childcare a week for 250,000 two-year-olds from families "on modest or middle incomes" - paid for by scrapping tax relief for better-off families
  • A plan to house 16 and 17-year-old single parents in state-run shared houses rather than council flats
  • A £1bn "innovation fund" to boost industry
  • A new National Care Service to "provide security for pensioners for generations to come"
  • A commitment, enshrined in law, to allocate 0.7% of GDP to international aid

The PM also announced that minimum wage, child tax credits and child benefit would continue to go up every year.

Who's going to pay for this? Where's the money going to come from? Why international aid? Do we really want to be subsidising countries like India who have their own space programs?

Do these people on the left live in the same world as the rest of us?

The great debate

So, our glorious leader has bitten the bullet and intends to have a public debate with "Call me Dave" and possibly the Lib Dem bloke who's name always escapes the public's attention.

Oh, hang on a minute, he wants lots of debates, not just about the election but about everything!!!!!


Gordon Brown is ready to debate with David Cameron on TV not just during the general election campaign but before it, the BBC understands.

He is thought to believe debates will highlight the choices facing voters.

But the BBC's Ben Wright said he understood a TV debate will not feature in Mr Brown's keynote speech to the Labour conference on Tuesday.

The prime minister is expected to announce in his speech a new crackdown on anti-social behaviour.

Ok, so why now? I mean back on the 3rd he said:

"We're not talking about an election at the moment, we're talking about how we deal with the policy issues. I've always been prepared to debate people... always prepared to join in a debate. I've given more statements to the House of Commons than any Prime Minister I think in the time I've been there, about the public issues of the day. Well, we'll deal with election issues when we come to discussing elections; but for the moment the most important thing is we have a public debate about the big issues."
I think we can hazard a guess though, running scared is the one that springs to mind with me. The polls have not been kind over the last year or so and Gordon really need to make an impact on Cameron in the public's view. Yet this is a massive gamble, he's not known for his nimble mind, his ability to think and talk off the cuff. he's also opened himself up to being called a liar outside the Parliamentary rules.

His only advantage as far as I can see is "Call me Dave's" total inability to score an open goal when faced with Gordon in the past.

Hell of a risk though.

Monday, September 28, 2009

Says it all really.

Peter Mandelson quoted from his speech at the Labour Party Conference.

Lord Mandelson attempted to breathe life into a subdued Labour conference today by insisting that the party could, like him, return from apparent oblivion and triumph again.

The business secretary, in his first speech since his surprise return to government last year, admitted his own trepidation at being invited back into government as he set out his vision for a fourth term.

"Electorally, we are in the fight for our lives," he told Labour activists. "But if I can come back, we can come back."

"I came into politics to help remake the Labour party as a party of government. My relationship with Gordon was formed when people said we'd never form a government again.

This is the man who in 1998 had to resign for corruption.
This is the man who in 2001 had to resign for corruption!
This is the man responsible for two decisions whilst an EU Commisioner to cut aluminium tariffs that had benefited Oleg Deripaska's United Company after a holiday in August 2008 on Deripaska's yacht at Taverna Agni.
Who billed the taxpayer for almost £3,000 of work on his constituency home in Hartlepool less than a week after announcing his decision to stand down as an MP.
Who despite a previous disinterest in Digital Britain was persuaded of the need to try to reduce illegal file-sharing after an intensive lobbying campaign from influential foreign people in the entertainment and banking industries including a junket arranged by DreamWorks co-founder David Geffen at the Rothschild family villa on the Greek island of Corfu.
He's an unelected Lord and not even accountable to the electorate.

And they gave him a standing ovation?

They must think we're idiots if they think a Labour government will ever get back into power in the next generation or two.

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Education, Edukashun, learnin stuff

Ye Gods where to start.

History textbook tells pupils USA first landed on moon in 1979

An official history textbook used by thousands of GCSE pupils contains embarrassing errors, including the assertion that the United States won the race to the moon in 1979.

The new book, written by examiners, also tells pupils that John F Kennedy was president of America in 1960.

Entitled History: The Making of the Modern World, the textbook for a new Edexcel GCSE history exam, the inaccuracies have been slammed by historians and teachers.

"You have got to get these things right," said Sean Lang, a senior lecturer at Anglia Ruskin University, in Cambridgeshire, and honorary secretary of the Historical Association. "The whole issue of exam boards putting out official exam text books that students then buy is highly suspect as it is, but if they are going to do it, you expect it to be right.

"Children take what they see in print as gospel. These books have enormous authority and the facts have to be right."

Nick Gibb, the shadow children's minister, said: "The decline and fall of history continues under Labour. Fewer than one in three children now takes the subject at GCSE and it's little wonder when even the syllabus contains basic historical errors."

The history of the modern world exam will be taken for the first time by pupils next June. Many schools will use the text book in class and pupils can buy it from bookshops.

It states on page 96 that "The 1960 Paris Conference, between Khrushchev and new President John F. Kennedy, was a disaster". However, Dwight D. Eisenhower was still president in 1960 and JFK was not inaugurated until January 1961.

On page 125 it says that the US "won the race to the moon in 1979". The Apollo 11 moon landing was actually in July 1969.

The book also says that during the cold war the hot line between the US president and Soviet premier was a "telegraph" system rather than a teleprinter.

A spokesman for the Edexcel exam board said: "All our books are thoroughly checked during the development process but unfortunately occasional mistakes happen. We would like to take this opportunity to apologise to teachers and pupils for the errors. We take errors such as these very seriously and we will correct them at the earliest opportunity."

Occasional mistake? Big glaring errors is more like it!

Our education system has been messed around too much by liberal leftism without handicapping the kids further with wrong facts, I mean these are major errors, how many minor ones might have slipped through in past publications? How many teachers would actually know? It's not like they teach history properly anyway, they've turned one of the most interesting subjects into one of the most boring by concentrating on social history rather than events. Don't believe me? Then try and get hold of a book called "A Social History of Britain" It's the one used by most schools in the 1970's. Try and find a mention of the Napoleonic wars, you know the one that lasted for 25 years, laid waste vast territories with terrible suffering inflicted on the civilian populations of the time. with proportionately more people dying than in the First or Second world wars and lasting 4 times longer than either? I can assure you it's there, wedged in as an adjunct to the corn laws, just in passing, completely misses Pitt, Wellington or even Napoleon Bonaparte.

The teachers have brought up a generation to be disinterested in history as boring. Most kids get their history from films, thinking that Braveheart is real, or that the Americans captured an enigma machine first in U571. Hell for all I know they may even believe that the Lord of the Rings trilogy is ancient history. (Yes I know I'm generalising and not all kids are like this)

But I really do despair at times for the future of England's kids, they're being allowed to run feral, taught to ignore the past and falling into a social democratic nightmare with an unelected elite to control them.

Not living in the real world.

This is something I've long suspected from my (admittedly few) dealings with government departments. It's the idea amongst the people that work there all the way up to the top of not knowing the cost of anything. Whether it's the MOD overspend on military equipment that they could buy cheaper off the shelf (including kit items that the troops immediately discard and buy better stuff for themselves), to the Home Office spending £1000 each on a single chair to avoid back strain for everyone who works there.

Seems every department is in on it.

Millions of pounds of taxpayers' money is being wasted in the Department for Children, Schools and Families, an internal government report suggests.

The report, by former WH Smith chief executive Richard Handover, has been seen by BBC One's Politics Show.

It claims civil servants and head teachers appear to have no idea what value for money means, and calls for 40,000 teaching assistant jobs to go.

Schools Secretary Ed Balls has said £2bn could be cut from his department.

However, last week, he appeared to rule out the sort of job losses proposed by Mr Handover.

In his frank report, Mr Handover states: "Financial efficiency... is not seen as a core responsibility of management at any level."

He described how £50,000 was spent installing three toilets at a primary school - 10 times the required sum, while another spent £35,000 on a £1,000 photocopier.

This is what happens when the people involved are disconnected from reality, because it's not coming from their own pockets they don't see it as real. It's why government I.T. contracts always fail or cost a lot more than the original contract because the people who authorise the expenditure ask the wrong questions or simply do not realise that they'll get exactly what they ask for which isn't necessarily something that will do the job that they want.

In private industry you'll often find that if you need something the first thing your boss will ask is "how much" second will often contain the term "can we get it cheaper" the third often enough is "can we manage without it." It's why companies employ accountants and auditors to keep the costs down and find areas that can be improved. A good company will have this ethos running through all departments and at all levels. This just does not seem to happen in the public sector and it's something that really needs to change. Value for money needs to become a watchword in these hard times, it has in the private sector.

But it's pretty plain to all that the Public sector has a lot to learn and needs to be trimmed back pretty hard to provide value. They really need to go back to basics and realise who provides the money and that the taxpayer too expects value, not excuses.

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Labour must expose the Tories? Expose what?

Labour must expose the Tories says Welsh Secretary Peter Hain.

Labour must expose the Tories, Welsh Secretary Peter Hain said on the eve of the party's last conference before the general election.

The Tories had been "given an easy ride by everybody," he said.

Mr Hain said: "We need to get off the back foot, we've been there for too long, and get on the front foot and start putting our policies forward and also start exposing the Tories.

"They've had such an easy ride from everybody, yet their policies would wreck the recovery that is now in sight because they would mount massive, swingeing, savage - in their words - public spending cuts."

These cuts would be the 10% as opposed to the 9.3% cuts then?

Bearing in mind that our glorious leader (caution sarcasm alert) could not even bring himself to say the word cuts until finally forced* too at the TUC conference and was banging on about Tory cuts as opposed to Labour investment......bit like no more boom and bust really.
Labours real problem of course is the credibility gap, no-one believes them, not even their own supporters. They've consistently lied and tried to spin things to their own advantage, they've been at the forefront of corruption, even inviting back into government the likes of Mandelson a byword for corruption if ever there was one. They've robbed us of centuries worth of freedom, enacted over 3000 laws to do it too. Virtually bankrupted the country left every taxpayer with a debt that will take decades to pay off, possibly generations. They promised in their manifesto a referendum of Lisbon and then turned round and said manifesto promises are not subject to legitimate expectations. They've even managed to lose their support in their heartlands, something as a person from the Northeast I'd never expected to live to see.

So, Labour can try and expose the Tories, but as the Tories have played their major cards close to their chest there's precious little to expose. Whereas everyone now can see Labours colours tied to their mast, incompetent and corrupt being amongst the kindest of epithets to be laid at their door.

So no matter what Labour do in the next few months, it wont be enough, it's reached the stage now where the Tories will win the next election by simply not being Labour, yet I suspect it will simply be business as usual. Hopefully though in the elections after that though some of the minority parties will grow to challenge the main contenders and then perhaps the people of England will get a government that will finally do them proud.

*Brown has trouble with the word England too, as many bloggers have noticed.

A growing industry, but not one we should be proud of?

Apparently the England (specifically Kent) is valued by certain people in the EU (and not just by Eastern Europeans looking for a job) It's not just our world class libel laws either which attract them, no, the biggest growing attraction to many EU citizens are our bankruptcy laws.

Yes, according to Sky News.....

"Bankruptcy tourism" is becoming so popular that a company is now helping insolvent Europeans to travel and live temporarily in the UK.

Lenient laws mean that foreigners can live in Britain, file for bankruptcy and leave with the slate wiped clean after just 18 months.

Laws in other European countries make it tougher to lose bankruptcy status.

In Germany you remain bankrupt for anything between 7 and 9 years, in Ireland you can remain "undischarged" for at least 12 years.

In other words people are coming here to go bust and walk off back home with a clean slate. Mind you, apparently it might be a good thing as they also come to work whilst the procedure is going on so contribute to the economy.

I'm really struggling to get my head round this, I want England to be a world beater in so many fields, it just never occurred to me that it might be this one.
Don't get me wrong, I know these are hard times and that people can and will struggle to meet bills and pay off debts, particularly if they end up being made redundant. But becoming a tourist attraction for foreigners?

Yeesh! You just know the country is in a bad way when people actually come here to go bust because our laws are lax enough to let them get away without the inconvenience/stigma of remaining a known bad risk.

Don't get Cross

I ran across this last weekend and it has been niggling away at my subconscious since then, normally I avoid health and safety gone mad issues (it's for the good of my health) but this crossed my path and I wondered if this was a deliberate attempt to alienate the population of England or merely another case of officious bureaucracy having a go at a weak seeming target (Christians)

A Christian nurse said she was being threatened with disciplinary action after she refused to take off a necklace bearing a cross.

Shirley Chaplin said she believed The Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital was trying to prevent her from expressing religious beliefs although she had been told health and safety concerns were behind the order.

Mrs Chaplin, 54, from Exeter, said: "For about 30 years I have worked in the NHS and nursed patients day and night and on no occasion has my cross caused me or anyone else any injury - and to my knowledge, no patient has ever complained about me wearing it."

"The Trust even refused to test the 'breaking strain' on the necklace."

Mrs Chaplin, who is due to retire in eight months, added: "Everyone I have ever worked with has clearly known I am a Christian: it is what motivates me to care for others."

She asked if the cross could be pinned to her lapel but said the trust would only accept it pinned inside her pocket.

Mrs Chaplin claimed other members of staff have been allowed to wear necklaces.

"This smacks of double standards and appears to discriminate against Christians.

"This blatant piece of political correctness amounts to the marginalising of employees' personal human rights, a blanket 'secularising and neutralising' of the NHS intended to stop Christians from expressing their faith in the public services of the NHS."

Mrs Chaplin is being supported by her minister, the Rev John Eustice, of Christ Church, Exeter, and has sought advice from the Christian Legal Centre (CLC) which has instructed human rights barrister Paul Diamond, who advised Caroline Petrie, the nurse who was suspended for offering to pray for a patient but later reinstated.
Now leaving aside the fact that if this was against any of the " favoured of the state" there would be blue murder being screamed from the rooftops by the Righteous this does strike me as a little bit odd. Not that I don't put it past the Righteous to have a go at mainstream values at any given moment, but because in a lot of cases you can sort of see the point (a twisted, weasily ordained, soul sucking, life tarnishing point, but still a point) even if it's as ridiculous as a "For the cheeldren" type of point.

This is what I find suspicious. Granted 90% of these Political Correctness Gone Mad stories usually have a sensible (for a given value of sensible) explanation, but this coupled with the claim that they didn't crack down on other staff wearing necklaces makes me think that this was a deliberate attempt to persecute Christianity (or at least bring about a climate where they can persecute Christianity by established practice)
Now many think Christians are an easy target relying on the Gentle Jesus meek and mild image that many Christians themselves adhere too. Whilst completely forgetting that Jesus was a guy who took a whip into a holy place and beat seven kinds of shit out of some corrupt moneychangers. This is something I suspect our corrupt leaders don't know or prefer to forget. So sooner or later attempts to back Christianity into a corner will backfire spectacularly. You can see the beginnings of this in the number of court cases coming up where the Righteous have found that Christians can get very litigious and angry when faced with attempts to interfere with their beliefs.

Now the paranoid side of me wonders just where all this is going, is it just that they can't help themselves (probably) or is there a method to the madness (Common Purpose)

My paranoia is growing.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Lifes little ironies

With thanks to Prats in Power for the original image here.

There's also an attempt to get a petition to ban the brownshirt UAF sponsored by the Bedfordshire Beacon in Downing street, but I wouldn't hold your breath they suit Labours purpose just fine.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

The BBC should recruit more Tories? I don't think so!

The shadow culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, said today that the BBC should recruit more Tories to its news division in order to counter an "innate liberal bias".

Hunt, speaking at a Broadcasting Press Guild lunch today, said the BBC had acknowledged that those who wanted to work there had centre-left views and quoted its former political editor, Andrew Marr, who in 2007 described the corporation as having an "innate liberal bias".

Now I do think that the BBC has a liberal left bias and I do think that this bias is totally wrong and slants the way that the news is presented, often by what is not reported rather than by what is.
However this should not be countered by recruiting more Tories but rather by removing the leftist bias and moving to a more neutral position. The last thing the BBC needs is more politicisation when all it needs is balance.
Part of the problem the BBC has of course is that it sees itself as "balanced" that the liberal left vision is the middle ground, when any experience in the real world and the people of the UK outside Westminster village would tell them that it's anything but. This is one of the reasons why independent bloggers often have a go at the bias because more often than not they do have real world lives and I suspect they have just as much suspicion of a Tory slanted view as they do of the current Labour slanted vision the BBC presents.

Now if we are to keep the BBC (and long term political policy appears to favour this state of affairs) then what is needed is the complete removal of all politicisation of the Corporation and an established political neutrality set up whereby just the facts are established, rather than the current wishy washy red tinted liberal view.
A return to honesty within the BBC when depicting the differences between England and Britain with regard to government policy would be most welcome too.

But, the very last thing the BBC needs are more political Quislings trying to tell the UK public what to believe! Lets just get rid of the ones in place without going down the path of balancing them out.

On the other hand we could just scrap the BBC.........................

English Heroes #2

An occasional series recording English men and women who achieved great things for themselves and reflected well on the country of their birth.

Source the BBC, who again fall into the trap of calling an Englishwoman British.

The only woman in the French Foreign Legion

An English tennis-playing socialite became the only woman in the French Foreign Legion, leading a daring, wartime, desert escape. She would have been 100 this week and her story remains inspirational, writes biographer and friend Wendy Holden.

When I first met Susan Travers in a Paris nursing home in 1999, she was a papery-skinned 90-year-old who spoke with a cut-glass English accent. Unable to walk, she insisted that before we began I wheel her to a local restaurant for lunch.

There can have been few in the suburban restaurant who gave this frail old lady a second glance as she ate her omelette and drank a glass of champagne. Unless, that is, they noticed the small coloured ribbons pinned to the lapel of her tweed suit.

One defined her as a recipient of the Legion d'Honneur, a French military honour established by Napoleon, others were for the Medaille Militaire and the Croix de Guerre. But the last red and blue ribbon was unique - it identified Travers as the only woman in the French Foreign Legion.

Born in southern England as the daughter of a Royal Navy admiral, but raised as a young tennis-playing socialite in the south of France, Travers was among thousands of women who joined the French Red Cross at the outbreak of the Second World War.

Trained as a nurse, she spurned that as being "far too messy" for the more exciting role of ambulance driver, joining the French expeditionary force to Finland to help in the Winter War against the Russians.

An incredible story of an incredible woman. Read the full story and see that courage cannot be boxed into gender or nationality. Susan Travers, your country salutes you.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Quo Vadis England?

In a few months time, assuming that nothing upsets the natural progression of these things (and there are some bloggers out there who have their suspicions of foul play) the UK will have a new government and a new Prime Minister, probably David Cameron.

Now "Call me Dave" is going to have his work cut out sorting out the mess that Labour have left as part of their scorched earth spite campaign. Whether he has the steel to do this, I don't know, I have my doubts as so far all I see is another Blair, a man groomed to be votable and precious little else, just another soundbite politician. Still sooner or later some sort of progress will be made, whether it's done by Cameron or A. N. Other. But this will be simple compared to the other problems lurking on the horizon.

What Cameron is going to have problems with is the herd of elephants in the room, of which English nationalism is only but one. The main one is the EU, if Lisbon is not ratified we'll have a referendum, it will be rejected by the people of the UK, the EU know this which is why they're desperately trying to get Ireland to say yes, though I suspect Ireland will be easy compared to getting the Czech president Vaclav Klaus to ratify it particularly as certain EUphiles have gone out of their way to insult the man.

Daniel Cohn-Bendit, chairman of Green Group, brought a European flag and presented it to Klaus Cohn-Bendit also said that he did not care about Klaus' opinions on the Treaty of Lisbon, that Klaus would simply have to sign it (although, under Czech law, the President is not obliged to follow the resolution of Parliament). Further, Brian Crowley told Klaus that the Irish wanted ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon and were insulted by Klaus' association with Declan Ganley and the lobby group Libertas. Klaus responded that "the biggest insult to the Irish people is not to accept the result of the referendum". replied, "You will not tell me what the Irish think. As an Irishman, I know it best." This visit was criticized by some in the media: "This bizarre confrontation...confirms the inability of the Euro-elite to accept that anyone holds different views from their own.

So, Ireland is not the end of the story, there is also a German court judicial review too and the conditions they are putting on the German government for signing the Lisbon Treaty mean that Germany would have sovereignty kept in certain areas which negates the treaty and wont be allowed by the EU.

I suspect we'll have our referendum whether the EU likes it or not.

Another elephant will be devolution and the proposed Scottish independence referendum, Cameron is determined to be PM over the UK, I think he'll manage it, but he might be the last. Scotland and the SNP will make hay over an English clique ruling over Scotland, pretty much the reverse of what's been happening in England over the Labour McMafia, save that the SNP are a fully fledged political party determined to put Scottish interests first and are a lot better at getting their own way than the vague English movement (so far).

Other problems Cameron will have are Quango's stuffed with Labour supporters and politically correct multiculty fanatics, but a few bills outlawing the worst of the excesses will soon resolve that problem.

Cameron will also be hoping for a honeymoon period and he might get one from the MSM, but if he thinks that the right wing part of blogosphere which was virulently opposed to Labour and their disastrous policies will lie down and play nice he's got another thing coming. To many of us the Tories are simply Blu Labour and we doubt things are going to change much under Dave. He might get a bit of breathing space with a grand repeal bill removing all the civil liberty abuses that Labour have put into law over the last 12 years, but any euphoria over that will be short lived. The UK populace no longer respect politicians in a way that would have been inconceivable 12 years ago at the fall of the Major government and we didn't much like them then!

There are a good few Tory supporting blogs out there of course, but many are of the Libertarian wing of the Conservatives and Cameron is on record as being no Libertarian, He explicitly rejected libertarianism saying the Tories were not just ideologically concerned with freedom. Well most Right wing Libertarian bloggers are and they're very good at getting their views across and attacking whoever's in power, Labour or Conservative. So I can't see an easy ride for Cameron in the blogosphere.

The final elephant I will allude to is English nationalism. Now certain Tories believe that they are the natural party of the English and whilst Englishness was subsumed by Britishness this may have been the case, but no more. Labours asymmetric devolution has popped the genie of English nationalism from the bottle and I don't think it's going back in there, certainly not for sops such as English votes for English Laws (evoel) or a reduction of Scottish MP's in Westminster. Not even if he scraps the Barnett Formula and resolves the West Lothian question. No, English nationalists want their own parliament and this is anathema to unionists and politicians in Westminster too as an English parliament would be very, very powerful and would soon reduce Westminster to impotence in the same way that Scottish MP's are a waste of space in Scotland as all power resides in Holyrood. So Cameron will be under a lot of pressure to reduce the democratic deficit the English face and I think this might be the straw that breaks the camels back, because Cameron can afford to offend the EU, can afford to lose Scotland, but he cannot afford to alienate the English, at least not for too long.

Now as for Labour, well they're looking at at least a generation in the political wilderness, few will forgive them for the utter mess they've made in the economy, their profligacy with taxpayers money nor the Quango empire building in direct opposition to the normal checks and balances of a democratic system. Their loading of politically correct placemen in these Quango's will also give the Tories quite a battle until as is the nature of things they are turfed out root and branch. Nor will their natural allies in the Unions be much of a help, the general public will have little sympathy for strikes over pay or jobs, particularly as the private sector has been hit so hard by the recession whilst the public sector has been cosseted by Labour keeping jobs and pensions intact.

Some have suggested that Labour might find a way back if they drape themselves with the Cross of St George as they have the the Saltire in Scotland, but even then few will trust them, their political record on so many things being abysmal. Certainly those of us who count ourselves as Libertarians as well as English nationalists have long memories of the reduction of civil liberties and the labelling of racist of any who loved England more than socialism by the footsoldiers of the left.

So, in conclusion I believe that the move towards an English Parliament is almost inevitable under the next government, we may not get one, but the pressure will not go away nor will it fade into the background. The genies out of the bottle and I don't think any of the mainstream big 3 parties have the skill to get it back. Sooner or later one of them will embrace the political will to give the English equality within the system and we'll have our parliament. Whether this will be under a federal system or an independent England, I don't care, to me the Union has seen its day, what we need to be doing is planning Englands future for the English, and not within the UK as it is now.

Update: Resistance is Useless has just blogged that indeed the Czechs are to delay the ratification of the Lisbon treaty until after the UK general election.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

English heroes

Taken from the Sky News web page though they fall into the usual trap of calling him a Brit. This will be an occasional series recording English men and women who are achieving great things for themselves and reflecting well on the country of their birth.

I'm not going for the famous or well known, just people who are worth a mention for achieving amazing things and who rarely if ever get a mention in the papers.

English explorer David Hempleman-Adams is attempting to break the world record for endurance in a hot air balloon today.

David Hempleman-Adams

Hempleman-Adams' records include staging the highest formal dinner party

Hempleman-Adams, who has 44 world aviation records, will use a tiny gas balloon with a capsule the size of a laundry basket as he flies over the maize fields of Kansas in the US.

The current record, held by American Coy Foster, stands at eight hours and 12 minutes and was set when he flew over Texas in May 1983.

Hempleman-Adams said: "This is the tiniest balloon basket I've ever flown in.

"I'm petrified of landing in water which can be one of the most dangerous manoeuvres in ballooning, so I thought flying over maize fields would be a better option.

"However, given that Kansas is the third highest wind-powered state in the entire US, I will be very much on the lookout for some of the thousands of wind turbines that populate the area.

Hope he breaks the record, he has a damned good track record so far.

Update, He did it!

What we stand to lose

The state doesn't give us any rights; we give the state some powers. The rights we enjoy are not political ones given to us by some gracious authority; they are ones we owe to each other as human beings. Each right has its corresponding duty. One person's right to life corresponds to the obligation upon others not to take that life. One's right to property translates into another's duty not to steal.

We choose governments for our convenience, although some less fortunate people have them imposed by violence. They derive from our rights rather than constituting the source of them. In a free society, for our convenience we might choose to delegate our right to justice to an impartial authority of our peers. We might choose to band together for our joint defence against hostile intrusion. This is how the powers which government wields come about.

We owe responsibilities to each other. Most importantly we owe to others the obligation to respect their rights. But we do not owe responsibilities to the state; it owes to us the responsibility to carry our fairly and properly the tasks we have assigned to it. Government is not our master, to keep us in line and occasionally give us some rights for ourselves. It is our servant, employed by us to perform as instructed.

The English common law tradition recognizes that people can do whatever the law does not specifically forbid, but in the continental Napoleonic Code tradition, people can only do what the law specifically allows. This leads people falsely to suppose that the state is giving them these rights, when it would be more accurate to say that the state is recognizing those rights. Our responsibility to behave fairly and decently is something we owe to other people, not to government.

If Lisbon goes through this we will have lost, no longer English freedom, but Code Napoleon, rights will be granted us (remember if it can be granted it can be taken away) by the state, they will no longer be our rights and the state will no longer be our servant, but our master. This has been going on now too long, the state has become too powerful and need to be dismantled to where the people need no longer fear our political masters.

It cannot happen too soon now.

H/T Adam

Friday, September 18, 2009

Oh yeah, that's racism.........................not!

The socialists are getting desperate again with their attacks on Dan Hannan. The Mirror leads the way and it's pathetic.

"Barack Obama has an exotic background, and it would be odd if some people weren’t unsettled by it. During the campaign, he made a virtue of his unusual upbringing. He was at once from the middle of the country (Kansas) and from its remotest edge (Hawaii). He was both black and white. He was a Protestant brought up among Muslims. He seemed to have family on every continent. Like St Paul, he made a virtue of being all things to all men. On one level, the strategy worked brilliantly. But it could hardly fail to leave a chunk of people feeling that Obama wasn’t exactly a regular guy."

Now to an ordinary guy this looks (and is) entirely innocuous, for one thing it's quite true about President Obama's background and yes compared to the average Joe it is a bit exotic, after all neither of my parents had even been abroad when I was born. But to imply racism? You have to wonder just what it is that Sunny Hundal, the Alex Smith and Tom Watson are smoking/injecting. I mean a lot of people admire and respect Hannan, but he's not in line to be the Tory leader yet (2 years time who knows)

It's become the favoured technique of the benighted Labour party.

If you cannot win an argument against someone, shout "racist" at them. Just more labelling that doesn't work anymore.

Panic amongst the favoured

A chill must have settled across the bones of those who suckle from the governments largesse with taxpayers money over the last few days. The C word was at last used by the Prime Minister and those that have become used to an unending stream of funding are now looking over into the abyss

First off was the Public service unions doing what they do best, threatening not to work if their jobs aren't protected.

Gordon Brown was threatened yesterday with strikes and stoppages, as union action caused rubbish to pile up on the streets of Leeds and a postal strike crippled deliveries across the UK.

Speaking at the start of the four-day TUC conference in Liverpool, union leaders, who collectively provide 70 per cent of Labour’s funding, warned the Prime Minister that he must protect jobs and help the lowest-paid, or face further industrial action.

You have to wonder if they know that there's a recession going on...............oh hang on a minute, these are not private sector workers after all, so they probably don't. Should come as a very rude surprise for some of them then when the inevitable squeeze hits.

Next you have the watermelons greenies.

Green groups have urged Britain's political parties to match their spin with substance by including firm pledges on the environment in their election manifestos.

Although the parties have maintained their commitment to green issues despite the recession, campaigners fear that the huge deficit in the public finances may force cuts in spending on tackling climate change and improving the natural environment.

Again another group who really need to wake up and smell the coffee (freetrade naturally) This recession is going to hit public finances like no other in living memory, the government have been overspending and building up massive amounts of debt and these people still want there economically non-viable windfarms built just so we can freeze to death in a few winters time when the power stations close and the wind doesn't blow. Another rude surprise heading that way I'm sure.

Charities too are starting to stir over the dwindling pot of goodies.

As part of a global climate change deal to be agreed in Copenhagen in December, the rich world is being asked to come up with billions of pounds to help developing countries cope with global warming. The money would be spent on helping poor countries adapt to increased risk of flooding and droughts.

Next week world leaders will meet at a UN Summit in New York to discuss where the money will come from and how much should be put aside. However aid agencies are becoming increasingly concerned that the money will be diverted from existing funds to help countries deal with poverty, child malnutrition, Aids and other issues.

First off, sorry but unless this charity work is being done in the UK then I'm not interested at all, they can go to hell in a handcart. Next, get out your tins and collect, stop taking my tax money to pay for your projects, you didn't ask me and neither did the government. If I want to give that's my choice, not some faceless bureaucrat or deluded ministers.

The next government? Well someone's going to have to grow a pair to deal with all this, I wonder if "Call me Dave" will still be PM in 2 years time (assuming the Tories win), or whether the velvet glove will have been replaced with an iron fist.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

It isn't right.

I'm getting a little tired of the MSM regarding anyone who objects to mass immigration/ Islamic extremism as right wing or even fascist or racist. The Telegraph falls into this trap as indeed do the BBC and other media outlets.

Council appeals to Alan Johnson to ban right-wing protest

Manchester City Council has called on the Home Secretary to ban a right-wing protest planned for next month.

Faith groups and traders have joined councillors to make the request after a similar rally in Birmingham erupted in violence.

Ninety people were arrested as anti-fascist campaigners clashed with supporters of the English Defence League (EDL) on September 5.

Gangs of men and youths hurled bottles at each other and pelted riot police with bricks as frightened shoppers looked on.

Manchester City Council says it has never had cause to stop a planned protest before and wants advice from Alan Johnson.

Now leaving aside the fact that it wasn't the EDL who caused the trouble, the fact is that the EDL are not a right wing organisation, they are a single issue protest group and probably come from Labour voting demographics. Right wing and Left are economic terms denoting state control of the economy, the more left you are the more total the control. By using something called the political compass though you add a new axis adding libertarian and authoritarian values.

This chart always makes uncomfortable reading for socialists particularly the position of the BNP but you can see the position I'm trying to allude too. What the MSM fail to tell us are that right wing groups (as they call them) actually tend to actually be statist economically and are therefore left wing in outlook and are not right wing at all. Indeed the councils attempts to ban freedom of assembly by the EDL is very much part of the authoritarian/fascist handbook so beloved of socialists worldwide when they see their little worldview challenged.

However as for the EDL, well they don't really fit well into the standard labelling that the media and their political masters like. They certainly have no economic position, though no doubt they have authoritarian tendencies (banning etc) but this doesn't make them right wing any more than the BNP are economically right wing. Nor do they seem to be as authoritarian as the real troublemakers in this whole mix seem to be. Radical Islamics and the UAF are the real cause of the trouble, though as they are the darlings of the establishment you wont see calls for them to be banned for counter-demonstrating.

Indeed over the last few years the trend to label anyone has shown signs of fraying at the seams. Worried about immigration? Racist screams the establishment! (Except people now think "Well I'm still worried, ok I'm a racist then, so what) Don't think local councils should be funding Gay Pride parades? Homophobe screams the establishment! (Except people think "Well it's still my money being used" ok so I'm a homophobe, but not the only one either) Think Islamic extremists are a worry? Islamophobe screams the establishment! (Except people look at what the EDL are doing and think..........................) The labels don't work anymore, people are sick and tired of the state telling them what they worry about is wrong without addressing the issues. This is why the state now wants to ban the EDL and why the EDL (also the BNP) will keep on growing and nothing the state or its brownshirts can do will be able to stop it until the issues are resolved.

Update, Wonko points out that the guy asking for the ban, Councillor Jim Battle of Manchester City Council is actually a UAF organiser, so it turns out the guy is a supporter of the people who actually caused the mayhem on Englands streets.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Pot, Kettle.......Black?

The Archbishop of Canterbury was in the news today, apparently he's very unhappy about bankers feeling no repentance for their excesses.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has told the BBC he fears financiers feel no "repentance" for the excesses which led to the economic collapse.

Dr Rowan Williams said the government should have acted to cap bonuses.

He also warned that the gap between rich and poor would lead to an increasingly "dysfunctional" society.

Now, he's perfectly entitled to say that, however I'm also entitled to point out this. (Dated 2006 so still relevant despite the recession)

Just how much land is owned by the Church of England?

The Church Commissioners' 56-page report on the financial state of the Church of England released yesterday, made for, well, not particularly interesting reading really.

It's the sort of thing journalists read, digest and regurgitate in highly condensed form so the rest of the population can learn the main points and get on with watching The Apprentice. One of the more fascinating parts of the report, however, concerned the Anglican church's property portfolio, which comprises 120,000 acres in rural areas alone.

The church owns large tracts of land in cathedral cities such as Canterbury, Ely, Peterborough and York and in towns such as Huntingdon and Kelmscott. More recently, it has invested in industrial estates in Swindon and Waltham Cross and shopping areas including the Cribbs Causeway Centre in Bristol. Its interests also spread to European property, with a stake in ING Property Fund Central Europe.

What is more, the Commissioners have just gained planning permission for part of the Ashford Great Park estate, where the deputy prime minister is hoping to take time out from working on his dance moves to build some of his much-vaunted affordable housing.

The church's land ownership even extends to property in London's West End - 15% of its commercial portfolio, in fact, mainly within a shared interest in the Pollen estate. It has also begun to capitalise on the need for parking space in the capital, netting £19m last year from selling 99-year leases on garage spaces.

The CofE isn't neglecting property up north either. It holds a 10% interest and associated land in the MetroCentre in Gateshead, the largest shopping and leisure centre in Europe. The centre provides "shoppertainment" including an indoor theme park, an 11-screen cinema and a bewildering array of shops open seven days a week from 10am to 9pm (or 5pm on Sundays - glad to see they're showing a bit of respect). It's reassuring that the Commissioners are looking after the church's estimated £4.3bn well, returning 19.1% on their investments last year. Now all they have to do is get some of the thousands of Sunday shoppers at Gateshead into church.

Date: Friday 28th April, 2006

In other words the church is not short of a few bob themselves and whilst they are not the massive landowners they were a few years ago they are still doing rather well for themselves. Now for the Archbishop to criticise the leaders of one organisation for not showing repentance for doing their jobs strikes me as a bit hypocritical. Now I'm well aware that as head of the Church of England that he has to deal with a fair bit of admin stuff as well as the pastoral bits and bobs, but it does strike me as a bit odd that a man who lives in a palace and is head of one of the wealthiest most successful business organisations in England should have a go at people doing their jobs and reaping the benefits thereof. Let us not forget that the bankers do not award each other the perks, that's down to the shareholders who get to vote on this and the contracts that were signed. Yes the amounts were large, but that's down to the skills of negotiation, so I do not see the point of the bankers showing repentance, it's not like they broke the law.

Lets also not forget the fact that repentance doesn't just mean saying sorry, nor feeling sorry, it means to turn away from your sin. In other words the Archbishop is suggesting they give the money back. Fair enough, however it wasn't just the bankers was it? This recession might have been caused by toxic debt and bad debt, but it was compounded in Britain by the governments FSA and the lax way they kept track on what was actually going on in the financial markets. So, is the Archbishop suggesting that the government repent? I somehow think not. He seems to be doing the governments bidding in pointing the finger of blame at the financiers, rather than those who allowed the situation to develop in the first place.

I suspect that Dr Rowan Williams is still Labour stooge, probably always will be, he certainly doesn't believe in sticking to a contract (bit like Labour and manifesto promises......referendum anyone?) he thinks the government should be able to step in and cap bonuses in breach of contract. It might make for a nice headline, but it's on decidedly dodgy ground.

Monday, September 14, 2009

A nationalist, though not by accident.

An interesting post over at the CEP blog by Wonko.

He looks at the term nationalist and the bad press the title now has with the BNP and others describing themselves as nationalists too and he concluded that the CEP are nationalists too, within certain limited descriptions, a sort of accidental nationalism.

Now I'm a nationalist too, though I certainly don't consider this to be an accident in any way shape or form. Am I proud to be English? Well yes in the same way that Scots are proud to be Scottish though not in the sense of feeling that England is superior to any other nation. Wonko and others describe this as civic nationalism, which to one extent political parties such as the SNP parade themselves as (despite their lunatic fringe). So my nationalism is inclusive a sort of Anglo Ergo Sum, that is anyone can be English if they accept that they are, this includes any other sub-groups such as Roman Catholics, C of E, or Islamics, it doesn't go by skin colour, religion, political persuasion or any other of the petty differences that some ethnic nationalists choose to make their group exclusive.

This is also why I'm in favour of an English Parliament, in a sense it's about fairness, it's not about the availability of cancer drugs or free prescriptions, how other nations spend their health budget is entirely up to them. It's about when MP's from other nations vote on matters (and get them passed despite a majority of English MP's voting against them) such as University fees, and private finance initiative hospitals that only affect the English that grates.

So yes I'm a nationalist in that I think England should run its own affairs whether alone or as part of a federal UK, I'm not bothered. I don't feel any urge to go out and conquer other nations nor dominate them politically. I'm proud of my country and its past history, yes warts and all, because it's made us what we are, no better or worse than anyone else. Nor do I see any reason whatsoever to apologise for anything done in said past, not for slavery, not for having an empire, nor for bombing Germany during WW2 or anything else the politically correct pressure group loonies want to bring to my attention. Yes we made mistakes in the past, but then again the last guy who never made a mistake got crucified so I see no need to beat myself up on that score.

So, whilst some might see themselves as accidental nationalists, I wont, though the term has been hijacked by racial/ethnic nationalists. My nationalism is a purer form, simply a great love for this wonderful country England and the English. Not the government, not the political parties or their members, not the racists, nor the radical Islamists nor those who hate patriotism, because they don't matter. It's the people who want to be English who matter, who accept tolerance, love their land and who want to preserve all that is good about it who matter.

So I'm no accidental nationalist, just not an ordinary one.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Shifting the blame.

I really didn't want to make this post, others (Letters from a Tory and Leg Iron) have done far more eloquent and incisive contributions to the subject.

However when Labour's John Denham tries to shift the blame from the riots in Harrow from those who caused them onto those who were simply protesting (as is there far, expect changes soon as this government tries to stop any legitimate protest other than from one of their cherished groups)

The riots were caused by Islamic youth, whipped up by the UAF (aka the Union of fascists by several bloggers who've seen these brownshirts in action) and not, despite the idiot Denham's comments by EDL as they had cancelled their march and weren't present. Ironically this was also the excuse dreamed up by the Nazi's to justify their actions after the Reichstag fire. A sort of blame the EDL for being the EDL.

Fortunately (or unfortunately in the Governments case) the pictures and commentary in the MSM do show exactly who the masked rioters were and they obviously weren't the EDL or Stop Islamification of Europe (SIOE) both of whom had planned peaceful demonstrations. They were in fact caused by Islamic youths attacking the police.

Denham and Labour (indeed all lefties) need also to stop bandying such terms as "Fascist", "Racist", "Homophobe" and "Islamophobe" about too, you see they just don't work anymore. The ordinary man in the street looks at what has happened and sees the commentary and thinks well if they're (insert abusive title here) then so am I. Nor will any sort of campaign, during the autumn to address the sense of alienation and disaffection some people are feeling work. People can see what's going on and no amount of government doublespeak will make a bad situation better. Nor will labelling the EDL as right wing work. They clearly aren't right or left but very single issue on the subject of the English being sidelined by successive governments who seem to have taken them for granted.

Blaming the EDL for the riots in Harrow is both misleading and counter-productive. It's not them who are to blame for this situation, nor is it the fault of the Muslims. The fault can be laid entirely to rest at the feet of the government and their failures to control mass immigration as well as to integrate those we took into mainstream society. The mainstream are now waking up and it is about to get ugly and this government is to blame.

Friday, September 11, 2009

When the lights go out.

Seems the Beeb might finally have twigged, even if the guy telling them is an idiot greeny who still has faith in wind turbines. This is despite them not working when needed or necessary (hint the coldest days are usually windless)

The government's new energy adviser says the UK could face blackouts by 2016 because green energy is not coming on stream fast enough.

Ministers have previously denied that the UK is heading for an energy gap.

But David MacKay, who takes up his post at the Department of Energy on 1 October, says that the public keep objecting to energy projects.

This, he says, is creating a huge problem, which could turn out the lights.

Professor MacKay is a researcher at Cambridge University.

His recent book, Sustainable Energy - Without The Hot Air, won applause for its examination of current government plans to keep the lights on whilst also cutting carbon emissions.

It concluded that policy is moving in the right direction, but the sums on energy provision simply do not add up - not enough power capacity is being built.

Speaking unofficially, he told BBC News that this meant that Britain could face blackouts in 2016 - when coal and nuclear stations are phased out.

This is a direct result of Labour policy, their so called green credentials are now shown to be worthless. Wind Power and alternative (carbon friendly) power generation are still a pipe dream. This problem should have been tackled properly back in 2003, instead we got this waste of time and effort and the worst thing is we can't even build the necessary capacity between now and 2016.

People are going to die and die quite horribly because this New Labour government has seriously fucked up our energy future. They'll be out of office soon, but their legacy will live on for some time to come, they've practically bankrupted the country to the state that even if we could build the new power stations in time we couldn't afford too.

For those who fear the worst take a look at this Numberwatch tale, it's quite chilling.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

A good day to be an Englishman #2

England 5-1 Croatia

England players congratulate Wayne Rooney (second left) after his goal in the 5-1 win over Croatia

By Phil McNulty
Chief football writer at Wembley

England secured qualification for next summer's World Cup in South Africa in the most emphatic style as they thrashed Croatia at Wembley.

The goalless stalemate between Belarus and Ukraine left England needing only a draw to confirm their place in South Africa - but they emphasised their progress under coach Fabio Capello with an outstanding display to record an eighth successive win of a flawless qualifying campaign.

Monday, September 7, 2009

This is why an EU promise is not worth the paper it's written on.

EU "breaking promise" to Turkey

How about some 2004 nostalgia?
EU 'breaking promise' to Turkey

The European Union is in danger of breaking its promise that Turkey will eventually be granted membership, an influential group has warned.

The Independent Commission on Turkey accuses some European leaders of trying to derail Turkey's membership bid.

Behind the carefully balanced language of diplomacy is a hard hitting report, a BBC correspondent says.

It points the finger most firmly at France, whose President Nicolas Sarkozy is strongly opposed to Turkish entry.

"France has publicly declared that it will not allow five key areas of the negotiations to go forward, specifically because the current French leadership opposes Turkish accession," the report says.

The Independent Commission on Turkey is made up of senior European politicians and academics, and is led by the former Finnish President and Nobel Laureate Martti Ahtisaari.

Its report says negative statements from some leaders, and efforts to substitute full membership for some other kind of privileged partnership or special relationship, are putting the EU's credibility at stake.

"In 1999... we said that Turkey is a candidate state destined to join the union on the basis of the same criteria as apply to other candidate states. So it's the credibility of the EU [at stake]," Mr Ahtisaari said.

France, Germany and Austria are among the countries that object to Turkey having full membership of the EU, proposing instead a privileged partnership.

The report says a vicious circle has developed.

"Fierce opposition from some European politicians combined with growing public resistance to further EU enlargement in turn has deepened resentment in Turkey and slowed the necessary reforms," the report says.

It acknowledges that some serious obstacles remain to Turkish membership - not least, the impasse over the divided island of Cyprus.

Solving that frozen conflict would boost Turkey's membership bid - but the commission warns that talks are running short of time.
This is exactly why the Irish should be voting no on Lisbon. The guarantees to the treaty that have been generously allowed to the Irish simply can't be guaranteed. Remember, once passed, Lisbon becomes self amending, and you can bet your bottom Euro that the first things to be amended will be anomalies in the treaty granting differing rules to a sovereign nation. So goodbye guarantees on abortion and armed forces for Ireland.

You know, this is so arrogant I really think they just don't care what the public think or want anymore, they're so wrapped up in their own little EUtopia dreams.

Well whilst I doubt any Irish people read this blog (or very many at all) can't say they haven't been warned.

Saturday, September 5, 2009

Have I got news for you.

A marvellous fellow has put up almost all of HIGNFY on Youtube.

Omitted are episodes which the Beeb has released on DVD or tape, but the lion's share of the scores of episodes are up.
It's either marvellous, saving me from boredom, or evil, restraining me from doing anything worthwhile.

See for yourselves, people. If you have not seen it, then you really should, since you can enjoy the sensation of learning things while being amused. For instance, I just watched an episode from the very first series (1990) in which I discovered that Joe Biden stole one of Neil Kinnock's speeches pretty much word for word. I remember watching an episode with Boris in the chair and when Paul got a question right said "Er er well done give the man a coconut or whatever" which of course became all Paul wanted the whole episode, I watched it yesterday. In fact, it's the full extended 50 minute version with even more Boris! Oh, and everyone got a coconut at the end of it.

Well that's my nightshifts sorted for a while, I can have these running and monitor the system at the same time.

Friday, September 4, 2009

Ah, that's better.

Seems that the Irish may just be waking up to what's in store for them should the EU come out on top in the referendum (mark 2)

The Irish government faces a tough battle to get the EU's Lisbon Treaty ratified in a referendum next month, the country's foreign minister says.

Micheal Martin was speaking after a new opinion poll suggested a drop in support for the treaty.

"I was never under any illusion but that it would be difficult to secure this, but I do think we can do it," Mr Martin said on Ireland's RTE radio.

The treaty was rejected in a referendum in the Republic of Ireland last year.

Ireland is the only one of the EU's 27 member states to put the treaty to a referendum. The complex document, drawn up after years of negotiation, is aimed at streamlining EU institutions.

An Irish Times/TNS opinion poll published on Friday showed 46% of respondents would vote Yes - an eight-point fall since the last such poll in May.

Opposition to the treaty stood at 29% - a one-point rise.

The figure for "Don't Knows" was 25% - a seven-point jump. The poll sampled 1,000 voters nationwide earlier this week.

Hopefully the don't knows will err on the side of caution and vote no. But there's no guarantee of this yet, but I'm living in hope.
It wont be the end of things should the Irish vote yes of course, Political betting has a few other scenarios laid out. But it would kill Lisbon dead if the Irish were to vote no.

Thursday, September 3, 2009

Cat amongst the pigeons

Oddly enough for an English Nationalist, I have a great deal of time for UKIP (for a given great deal of time) This is mostly because they are the only unionist party with a coherent devolution policy for the whole of the UK not just the Celtic fringe.

So this piqued my interest.

UKIP leader Nigel Farage is to stand against Commons Speaker John Bercow at the next general election.

Mr Farage told the BBC he was standing because MPs "have broken the trust" of the British people and Mr Bercow "represents the worst" of the Commons.

Convention rules that Speakers stay out of party politics. Labour and the Lib Dems will not stand against Mr Bercow in his Buckingham constituency.

Mr Bercow said he was "more than happy" to be judged on his record as an MP.

He was returned as Conservative MP for Buckingham, which he has represented since 1997, with a majority of 18,000 at the last general election.

Now Speaker Bercow has probably the safest majority in the Commons and under normal circumstances would be quite safe from any UKIP attempt at taking his seat. But (and you just knew there was a "but" coming) Bercow has to an extent alienated himself from the mainstream of the Tory Party and is not seen to "be" a Tory by many in the constituency. His elevation to speaker was opposed by many Tories and was seen to be a deliberate Labour slap in the face to having a neutral speaker after the Speaker Martin shambles by selecting someone they saw as "their" man to the speakership despite him being a Tory. Now as the Conservatives can't/wont put up a candidate, and by tradition neither will the Labour and Lib Dem Parties the way is clear for UKIP to have a go at an unpopular candidate representing themselves as the real Tories.

Conservative Home is oddly ambivalent about Farage standing with many saying that they would indeed support Farage against Bercow.

Definitely one to watch and indeed I do wish Farage and UKIP well with this one as do many Tories as well no doubt seeing as they see Bercow as "Labours Man" rather than their own these days.