An Independent Scotland–An Unexpected Bonus

It has just occurred to me that should the Jocks decide in their referendum that their huff has arrived so they should leave in it, there is an immediate and real saving for the rest of us to be had from day one.

There are 59 Westminster Parliamentary Constituencies in Scotland. A Westminster MP is currently paid a salary of £66,396 English Pounds, so that’s £3,917,364 for all of them I've no idea what that will be in whatever currency they will end up using in Scotland should they secede, but then again neither does Alec Salmond (know what currency they will end up using that is). On top of this the 59 MPs claimed a total of £6,471,994 worth of expenses for 2011 which means the whole sorry lot costs us around £6.5 million per annum. An instant saving when they're no longer qualified to sit in Westminster.

The other good news of course is that the Labour Party would lose its 41 Scottish MPs and the Lib Dems their 6. Mr Miliband minor would find it much harder to get a parliamentary majority without a 40 plus seat head start. It might also do something to make the Lib Dems rue their failure to keep their promise to support boundary changes? It would also mean an instant resolution of The West Lothian Question. (see this article for a catch-up if you need one: http://tinyurl.com/p6ef8sk).

Personally I'm still looking for the answer to my “Mortimer Question” i.e.If every Scot you meet insists on telling you how passionately Scottish they are and how they are deeply wedded to their heritage, homeland and culture, why are they living and working here in the land of the hated Sassenach?

Is Ed Balls (By Both name & nature) Really Pro Profit?

So; Ed Balls (by both name and nature) went to talk to the CBI conference to try and convince them he is pro-profit. Of course he is pro-profit, of course he wants businesses to make profit. "Make loads of money" he says; not so that the businesses can re-invest in growth, dividends and jobs, but so he can grab it all in tax and give it to; benefit scroungers, immigrants, Local Councils; who will spend it on Ethnic Councillors, supporting organisations like “Black Gay Whales Against The Bomb”, and creating “Make Work” jobs for the boys to again stuff the labour ballot box; and, above all, create more Big Government to regulate even more aspects of our lives.

It is a constant source of amazement to me that the current generation cannot understand that the visceral essence of a Labour Government is predicated on their intention to tax and spend. Or, maybe the current generation is waking up to it, hence Labour’s stated policy to reduce the voting age to 16? If you don’t believe that there is a fundamental flaw in the doctrine of squeezing the rich until the pips squeak.Take a look at what’s happening in France.

(Dennis Healey as Labour Shadow Chancellor at the Labour conference on 1 October 1973, he said, "I warn you that there are going to be howls of anguish from those rich enough to pay over 75% on their last slice of earnings". In a speech in Lincoln on 18 February 1974, reported in The Times the following day, Healey went further, promising he would "squeeze property speculators until the pips squeak". He was later widely reported as saying that Labour would "tax the rich until the pips squeak").

There is revolution abroad in the the streets of France again (isn’t there always I hear you cry) about what its Government is doing.

The President François Hollande, a former Socialist party administrator with no experience of government before winning the presidency, has embarked on a policy of tax and spend in an attempt to finance his spending spree on public services and government civil servants. However, Hollande last week had to announce the “suspension” of a pollution tax on lorries that had triggered protests in Brittany. That was not enough to satisfy the rebels, however. A coalition of Breton farmers, lorry drivers, trade unionists and employers has now gone on the warpath against the eco-tax, claiming that Brittany would be penalised under the rules because of its remoteness.

Quimper, a picturesque town in Brittany, is a colourful hub of commerce where butchers and bakers vie for customers with sellers of sausage, cheese and wine. It is also a nucleus of insurrection against the Socialist government in Paris. Geneviève Coadour, the florist, is a figurehead of the so-called red bonnet rebellion. In between attending to customers last Thursday morning, she distributed protest posters and talked strategy with other insurgents. “We’re generally fed up with a government making such bad decisions,” she said, in a reference to Hollande and his governing team. “Unemployment has gone up. Taxes have gone up. We’ve had enough. We want change. “The eco-tax was the last straw”.

Suspension of the so-called eco-tax followed a government announcement last Sunday that it was scrapping plans to increase tax on savings accounts after a public outcry and a poll showing that 72% of the French think they are paying too much tax. In spite of the revolt against his tax and spend methods Hollande has clung to his 75% tax on earnings above €1m a year despite football clubs’ threats of a strike at the end of this month. But a big increase in corporate tax was abandoned after a protest by entrepreneurs. As a result of the high-tax policies thousands of people have been driven to leave France for more gentle fiscal climes overseas. It is now estimated that there are more French millionaires living in London than there are in Paris.

Outside of France there are those in Brussels and in Bonn who believe that M. Hollande’s policies are more of a danger to the Euro than Greece, Spain, or even Italy.

If we want to see these same disastrous polices here in the UK all we have to do is to believe the disingenuous Mr Balls (by both name and nature) and of course Red Ed Milliband Minor. It’s either that or prepare to man the barricades.

 

MPs debate immigration curbs plan

MPs are to debate government plans to toughen up the immigration system by making landlords question tenants about their status and cutting bank account access for those in the UK illegally. Ministers also want to make it easier to deport foreign criminals and cut the number of grounds for appeal.

Home Secretary Theresa May has said the changes will put the system "on the side" of those who abide by the law.

The government's plans, announced earlier this month, include:

• Making temporary residents, such as students, pay towards care provided by the NHS
• Powers to check driving licence applicants' immigration status
• Cutting the number of deportation decisions that can be appealed against from 17 to four
• Clamping down on people who try to gain an immigration advantage by entering into a "sham" marriage or civil partnership
• Requiring banks to check against a database of known immigration offenders before opening bank accounts

But of course Labour has tabled several amendments to the Immigration Bill. Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper will propose several amendments, including:

• Making it illegal for employers deliberately to run shifts only for foreign workers or segregate shifts by nationality
• Banning unsuitable accommodation being used as tied housing to offset the minimum wage
• Making it illegal for recruitment agencies to target and recruit only foreign workers
• Setting a maximum fine of £30,000 for employing illegal immigrants

 

I think that it is worthy of note that it appears to me that all the Coalition’s proposals are aimed at the individual immigrant while all of Labours amendments are aimed at businesses and employers.

Where was Labour’s zeal for this kind of legislation when they were in office? Having finally sensed that the public want a sensible, measured and above all controlled approach to immigration they now find themselves without their massive majority, which enabled them to totally ignore voters and do what they liked and are therefore forced into a position where they have to woo the electorate with proposals that go against the grain and must leave such a nasty taste in their mouths. They seek to mollify their distress by taking up their default position of condemning capitalism and strangling those who generate jobs and wealth. 

I am only worried about their proposals in that, like all Labour promises when they are in opposition; if they get back into government they will disappear like fairy gold, never to be seen again.

In my opinion reforms to the immigration system can't come soon enough. The people of the UK are not racist; the majority of them remain tolerant and welcoming to anyone who wants to come and make a life here, as long as they play by the rules. The problem has been that the previous Labour administrations abandoned any form of immigration policy in favour of an "Open Doors" policy in a blatant attempt to stuff the ballot box. They also sought to replace the tolerance of the British people with their doctrines of Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Human Rights and a pandering to minorities, giving them privileges and rights without any responsibilities.

Let's have a sensible policy that determines who is eligible to come here and gives us the power to monitor and control our boarders.

Alistair Campbell The Archetypal Marxist Bully-Boy

I have just watched the piece on tonight’s Newsnight (01/09/13) with Alistair Campbell, Jon Steafel and Kirsty Wark.

Who appointed Alistair Campbell to be the BBC’s chief interviewer? Mr Campbell accused Paul Dacre of being a bully while haranguing Mr Steafel and subjecting him to third degree tactics that would never stand up under the force of the European Human Rights legislation which he so supported when he was the power behind the New Labour throne of Tony Blair.

Kirsty Wark was totally ineffectual in preventing Campbell from turning the piece into his attempt to brainwash the watching public by repeatedly trying to put his words into Mr Dacre’s mouth. Why is the BBC continuing to give Mr Campbell my, and other licence payer’s, money to continue to use his own bully-boy tactics to suppress other people’s views while railroading his own down other people’s throats? Campbell no longer has any power or influence and for him to continue to be feted by the BBC in this was is for many, many, many of the BBC’s viewers intolerable.

Shame on Kisty Wark for not being able to control Campbell’s boorish and frankly unacceptable behaviour. If we are looking for examples of the worst expressions of the excesses of the unacceptable face of Marxist control and suppression of opposing views we don’t have to go much further than the abominable Alistair Campbell.

If You Think This Government Is Useless Wait Until Nick Clegg Gets His Hands Around The Throat Of The Next One

I have just seen the highlights, if you can call them that, of Nick Clegg’s speech at the Liberal Democrat’s party conference. To say that I am incensed doesn’t even begin to cover it!
The sheer arrogance of the man. He has apparently decided that he is the only person who can dictate government policy and that it is the Lib Dem’s who should be the arbiters of what the next government can or can’t do.

It looks to me as if his only policy is to prevent what he believes to be the excesses of the other two parties. I thought that the whole point of an election campaign was to present polices to the electorate and let them decide whether they were acceptable or not. Nick Clegg’s view seems to be that the electorate can choose whatever party and/or policies they like, he will decide, after the people have spoken if they can have them or not.

The other thing that strikes me about what he said in his speech is that the result of his stance will be a government in stasis and stagnation, a leadership unable to lead, an executive deprived of executive decision making powers. He wants to have a lukewarm, insipid parliament and a cabinet of none of the talents. Just look at what Vince Cable has managed NOT to achieve while he has been in the Department of Industry and look at the damage Chris Hulne did in the Department of Energy. Do we want this replicated after the next general election?

Nick Clegg is a man seemingly incapable of keeping his manifesto promises or even his given word in a coalition deal. I don’t think his own party supporters, or the electorate in general will forgive him for reneging on his promise over tuition fees and his deliberate wrecking tactics in respect of boundary changes is looking increasingly like a cynical ploy to foster another hung parliament; a scenario that benefits nobody but himself and his party.

If you want a country that is going nowhere, if you want a government that can’t govern, if you want to watch our international competitors race past us economically then a coalition is the quickest way I can imagine to bring all that about.

Nick Clegg has already admitted that he’ll sell himself (and I suspect sell himself very cheaply indeed) to anyone who will keep his seat in a cabinet chair and his nose in the trough. A paltry number of seats from a rump of a principal-less party should not be a mandate for them to anchor us in a morass of ineffectual government.

It is my hope that the Conservative Party are given a majority at the next election. However, if we don’t get a majority, but are the largest party I hope that David Cameron will have the steel to tell |Mr Clegg to sling his hook back to the back benches and try and go for as long as he can as a minority government. My prediction is that if that happens it won’t be too long before Mr Clegg departs Westminster for the much more lucrative pastures of Brussels.

It’s The Conference Season; Liberals Beware It Looks Like An Outbreak of Doublethink Fever Has Already Broken Out In The Department Of Energy.

 

Wind farm opponents are living in stone age, Ed Davey claims.
(Headline from today’s Sunday Telegraph (14/09/2013)

 

Opponents of wind farms are living in the “Stone Age”, Ed Davey has said, as he declared war on Tory Cabinet colleagues over turbines.

Mr Davey is the Liberal Democrat Energy Secretary. He is reported in many of the Sunday papers today of attacks on his Conservative Cabinet cousins over what he sees as their recalcitrant attitudes and behaviour in seeking to block his “reforms”. Until now, Davey has kept the bitter behind-the-scenes battles to himself. Now it’s the conference season and it looks like he has decided he needs something to appeal to the bearded, sandal and sock wearing hard core Liberal lefties, He wants voters to know what he is up against and how hard he is having to fight against Tory opposition to his Green measures, such as wind farms, wave power, and covering large parts of southern England with solar panels. These he believes (well today he says he believes) are vital to safeguarding the country’s energy supplies. He calls these measures “Keeping the lights on”, I call it a recipe for brownouts, but we are all entitled to our opinion.

While he is currently making all this Green noise in the newspapers and in Glasgow, no doubt for the furtherance of his all party Liberal image and surrounded by the (ever dwindling) party faithful, it seems he has other ideas outside of the heady atmosphere of the conference hall.

In his day job Mr Davey, is overseeing plans for a new generation of nuclear power stations and he is adamant they are necessary. “I’m prepared to make the case . . . for new nuclear [power stations] because we can’t take low carbon options off the table,” he said He also says; I  have looked at a whole range of issues which people might have thought were difficult for a Liberal Democrat. For example, shale gas. I made the environmental case for [it]. That will be controversial in parts of the environmental movement.

I wrote last week about Labour’s dire case of Doublethink. Methinks this is a condition which could be catching? Is Mr Davey preparing the way to continue his coalition career by cosying up to Ed, Doublethink, Miliband? Now,If only they could get Nick Clegg to hold ONE idea consistently, he clearly failed with tuition fees, maybe they could have a close fit with Miliband Minor and his Newthink party. It would appear however that Cleggy’s chances of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct is somewhat beyond him. Ed Davey for leader you might have thought,but maybe he learnt all he knows about Newthink and Doublethink from master “Yoda” Vince Cable, the Benedict Arnold of the Labour and Liberal left who went over to the dark side aeons ago?

.

The Labour Are Not Guilty Of Hypocrisy–Just Doublethink

In an article in today’s Daily Telegraph (04/09/2013) Graeme Archer points out that despite Ed Miliband campaigning for a NO vote against limited military action against Syria, in concert with the USA and France, now that Parliament have voted against it It turns out that Labour didn't expect the Government to lose. Now they want the chance to vote again.

Ben Bradshaw, MP for Exeter, a former Labour Cabinet minister, suggested [Mr Archer’s emphasis] that ED (the conquering hero who won the NO vote) would now support a second Parliamentary vote being called. Wouldn’t  this motion then have to be substantively identical to the one voted down 96 hours ago? If so you have to wonder if the Labour Party (Mr Miliband aside) wanted the original motion to succeed why didn’t they vote for it in the first place? I believe that this just goes to show that Miliband was not doing what he did for the good of democracy, or the good of the country, but only what he perceived, in the very short term, to be good for him.

Meanwhile Jim Murphy (MP for East Renfrewshire), Labour's defence spokesperson, said that "really significant developments in Syria" would imply that “of course the Prime Minister has the right to bring that back to Parliament." We know that thousands have already been killed in Syria's civil war; perhaps we should as Ed how many more would make it "significant"?

Now, if we were to apply logic to this position; (Okay, I’m aware that logic and the Labour Party are not comfortable bedfellows, but stay with me for a minute) then given the Government's motion you have to ask your self three questions:

1) Do you think Syria is a matter with which Britain should be involved?

2) Do you think Syria is a matter with which Britain should not be involved?

3) Are you not sure?

If your answer to the first question is YES then surely you should have voted FOR Mr Cameron’s motion. If you go with question two then surely you should have voted NO. If you were not sure then shouldn’t you have ABSTAINED? What I am now unclear about is is how you can vote against involvement on a Thursday and then, over the weekend, or maybe even as you were walking through the NO lobby, decide that it's all the Prime Minister's fault that you don't get to vote again next week, because this time you would support him.

Perhaps Ed Miliband is starting to worry that his behaviour last week confirms the negative perception we have of his personality. That he behaved like a total amoral lowlife toward his brother in his naked desire to to sell himself to the unions and become leader, maybe a bigger drag on what the public thinks of him than is generally appreciated by the pseudo-intellectual, metropolitan Neo-Marxists, toadies and “Yes Men” he has surrounded himself with. It looks like they have retreated to the position of: “When the facts change, I change … my opinion, moral stance, political ground, etc., etc. (strike out what does not apply). It may be more accurate to say: "When it looks like I might be on the wrong side of Received Opinion, I'll do whatever it takes to turn that focus group around.

Perhaps however something else going on in the mind of Miliband Minor and the members of the labour Party? Some, far more cynical that I, may think the original stance and this new one show up the blatant hypocrisy of these cheap hucksters who will, like a cheap whore, adopt any position for preferment, or maybe they have taken a leaf out of George Orwell’s 1984 had have adopted Big Brother’s concept of Newthink and Doublethink?

Newthink is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words.Within Newthink is “Doublethink”; this is that the act whereby an individual or a group of people, for example in this case the Labour Party, can simultaneously accept two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct. This is Somewhat related to, but almost the opposite of what we consider to acceptable behaviour in a civilised society i.e cognitive dissonance. This is where contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one's mind. Newthink and Doublethink are notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance — thus the person, or group engaging in them are completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction. The question we must ask is “Do we want people capable of Newthink and Doublethink running the country?”

Ed appears to have lead his party to a place where they now believe that there is nothing that he,or the party could say to us now that we would not believe and even should they all “about face” we would continue to believe them. What that leads to is more of the “Wisdom of Big Brother; ““War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”; “If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.”. I however would prefer to live in in the twenty first century than 1984 and will be voting that way in 2015.