bluesquared

Google gets off with a slap on the wrist

2010-11-20T11:22:00.005Z

After the furore over Google and in particular Google Street View and it's lack of concern for invading individual's privacy and undermining freedom, you would have thought Google was in for some serious punishment. It's not like there wasn't people advocating some very sensible reforms to force Google and other Internet firms to comply with respect for civil liberties. At the Backbench Business Committee Debate on Google and Privacy initiated by Robert Halfon there were some excellent suggestions made.

Once again the Information Commissioner Christopher Graham seems to have ignored the concerns of many people who care for liberty. He seems to have ignored his International counterparts from countries like South Korea, USA and Germany who seem to take Google's lack of concern for individual freedom much more seriously. If his refusal to come down hard on Google in the first place when there abuse of Google Street View was worrying, his next steps have been no less so. Compared to other Information Commissioners across the world our Information Commissioner has been asleep at the wheel. If he was in the private sector rather than in the safe world of a quangocrat I dare say he would have been fired.

Apparently we are all now safe from the prying eyes of Google who have signed a document committing them to better handling of individual's data. Note this document doesn't put any stop to how much Data Google has be and will in the future collect. However Google has signed similar documentations in the past. It is not worth the paper is written on. If we really want to get serious with Google, criminal proceedings need to be looked into.

Apparently the Information Commissioner is going to be taking an audit of all Google's work when it comes to handling. If its anything like the previous investigations by the Information Commissioner into Google, I'm sure they are quaking in their boots.

Apparently Google is in the Information Commissioner’s good books because they graciously deleted the WI-Fi data on individuals that they collected. That it took them so long to delete the data does not seem to perturb him.

If ever there was proof that the surveillance state in both its public and private sector forms in Britain is still very much alive the softly-softly approach to Google is.

The Scale Of The Financial Mess in Context

2010-10-31T14:18:00.009Z

Over the past week, firstly in a meeting of Progressive Conservatives where Jeremy Browne a right wing Liberal Democrat and Foreign Office Minister in the coalition government spoke and later at a Conservative Way Forward (CWF) seminar where the director of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) Mark Littlewood spoke, the sheer scale of the deficit to me was bought home. The deficit is different to the national debt, as the national debt is what is the total amount owed by the government to various sources such as the gilts market, whereas the deficit is the difference between what the government receives and spends during the year. It is important to note this as over the years such paragons of economic wisdom like Gordon Brown confused the two.

It has been calculated that the deficit is at the monumental level of between £150 to 160 Billion. This massive figure can sometimes be hard to comprehend and thus Jeremy Browne and latterly Mark Littlewood puts it in to context. They calculated that if we abolished the entire arm forces, meaning we would have no navy, no air force, no soldiers and no weapons, on top of that abolish every single police force across the country all those who worked for the police and all their operations and additionally abolished every single school across the country including everyone who worked in the state school system, we would still have a modest deficit. That shows the scale of the task facing the coalition government and why the so-called "cuts" being introduced by the coalition government, which only reduce government spending to 2006 levels do not deal fully with the financial mess the UK is in.

Furthermore for those who are interested in history, the scale of the financial mess we are in is of historical precedence. This deficit is far greater than during the recessions of the 80s and early 90s and even higher than when Britain went cap in hand to the IMF in 1976. The deficit is at a level, which has never before been reached in peacetime in the UK. This was a dramatic transformation for the national finances from 1997 when the national economy was in strong shape with both the budget deficit and the national debt being at manageable levels. It shows the economic destruction Labour inflicted on the UK, not withstanding the financial crisis.

The scale of the deficit also shows that those in the media and in the general public who believe we can keep on adding to our deficit our living in a fantasy world.

A Mad Prison Question Shows Up the Government's Mad Prisons Policy

2010-10-29T14:31:00.005+01:00

Bob Russell, the Liberal Democrat MP who is making a name for himself as the socialist conscience of the Liberal Democrats asked an absurd question on the breakdown of a tumble dryer in Chelmsford Prison this Tuesday. Firstly how this question got to be asked in the first place is an absolute joke. Once Bob Rusell tabled the question, it should have been thrown out. Considering that there are not enough prison places and our sentencing is far to lenient, I hardly think a lack of tumble dryers for prisoners who are there for a reason is a worthwhile question.

That the prison's minister Crispin Blunt, yes he of the silly quote of the year when he said that unshaped apples in prisons could start a riot, and thus it was a priority for the couple to have shapely apples for prisons " bothered to answer the question saying that the broken down tumble drying machine would be replaced as soon as possible beggars belief. I'm sure prisoners by the sounds of this will get their tumble dryers fixed quicker than most homeowners.

I thought prison was meant to be a punishment and therefore meant to be uncomfortable. It's not meant to be a hotel, where all prisoners whims are met. The government in the latest prisons reform policy seems to have forgotten this.

Norwich South MP ignores the elephant in the room about pubs

2010-10-14T10:53:00.004+01:00

Simon Wright, the Liberal Democrat MP for Norwich South has recently made a big play on his blog about how he is standing up for the city pubs in his areas and listening to their concerns. http://www.simonwright.org.uk/news/000178/local_mp_is_backing_citys_pubs.html

However he ignored one issue, which has played a massive role in the closing down of pubs and a reduction in pub sale. That being the smoking ban. Pub landlords and customers apparently didn’t raise the issue. However from comments I have heard from pub landowners I personally find this hard to believe. With this in mind, I commented on his article below and have sent an email to him on the matter, which I will wait for a response on. I have copied the letter I wrote into this blog.

Mr Wright a serious issue affecting pubs is the smoking ban in public places. Since this has been in place in the UK, it has had a destructive effect on pub trade and pub numbers. I find it surprising therefore that you did not raise this issue. Considering that 25% of the country smoke, shutting out this percentage of the population from the pub was always going to have an effect on pub trade.

Additionally David Nuttall on Wednesday set up a ten-minute rule bill to amend the smoking ban in public places that would allow separate smoking rooms with air ventilation. By doing this health concerns would be allayed, pub trade would go up and smokers would head back to the pubs. You did not vote on this. Considering this bill was all about saving British pubs, which you are apparently committed to, I find this strange. This is not an isolated incident as you did not sign Brian Binley's EDM that called for a similar amendment to the smoking ban in public places.

If you truly want to stand up for local pubs, will you take this issue up and bring the issue up in parliament in the future?

Yours Sincerely,

Stephen Hoffman

PS: Watch this space for the response.

Vote For Grant Tucker, He's Sound

2010-09-24T10:48:00.005+01:00

I wouldn't normally get involved in Welsh regional politics, especially since I've come from England and haven't felt the need to comment on it before. However it's come to election time in Conservative Future (CF) across the country and there's one race to watch and it's for Welsh Regional Chairman. It is between Zahid Raja and Grant Tucker. It is a case of voting between what is great about the Conservative party and what is wrong about the Conservative party.

It would be an absolute travesty if Zahid Raja won, his comments would make that other great sell out who called himself a Conservative Ted Heath proud. He is a member of the Tory Reform group, whose job it seems over the years was to criticise one of the Conservatives greatest prime minister's in Margaret Thatcher. Not only that Zahid Raja seems to think in his role in CF he has the right to criticise groups who think taxes should be cut and spending cuts. It is worse than this the reason Zahid Raja has campaigned against spending cuts was not for the good of the country but rather out of pure self interest. This is because he advocated his own profession of doctors getting paid more than they are already doing. Not for him the mantra of we're all in it together. He has also called his own university d**ks for advocating spending cuts. Considering that Universities are awash with overspending, it is a serious worry that someone running for such a senior position doesn't recognise that we need to cut public spending both to boost private enterprise and to deal with the massive deficit. It's also worrying that he doesn't realise that he might have to go through some pain to help the country. He has also criticised the excellent right wing pressure group the Taxpayer's Alliance for calling him out on these socialist views. His reaction to them shows someone who is thin skinned and cannot take criticism. Not exactly the qualities you want in a leader. With views like this he would better fit the socialist Labour party. We need selfless people running CF branches, not selfish people.

If Zahid’s views were not enough to put you off voting for him, he is also up against an extremely sound guy in Grant Tucker. I first met Grant Tucker at a Freedom Association event in Cheltenham. Grant is an extremely friendly guy as well as charismatic. With these people skills, with Grant at the head of Wales CF, there will be some fun events for Wales CF members to enjoy. He is not short of a view or two, and won't simply toe the party line when he feels it is wrong. Grant is also an experienced campaigner who will put in the hard work in this area when he needs to as well as passing on his much needed experience in this area. Grant is a proud thatcherite, and will stand up for these sound values when it is needed. Grant is also a proud member of the Freedom Association showing himself as a friend of freedom. He has worked successfully with the Freedom Association in Wales. He also has links to other right wing pressure groups. With this in mind I really feel Grant will be able to work with these groups successfully to create some excellent events for Wales Regional CF. Grant also has the interests of Wales Regional CF. This is why with Grants connections with other CF's across Wales he will work to have a CF presence in every constituency, so that Conservatives presence can spread across Wales. He is not running for his own ego, as many feel Zahid Raja is doing.

So I urge the good people of Wales CF to vote for Grant Tucker if you want a true Conservative, who has the interests of the people of Wales CF at heart rather than himself.

VOTE GRANT TUCKER FOR CF WALES REGIONAL CHAIRMAN! http://www.votetucker.co.uk/

Racing 4 Peace by Simon Stiel

2010-09-22T11:45:00.004+01:00

Today we have a guest piece from Simon Stiel on an excellent organisation which is involved in a scheme celebrating co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians. In a relationship which is often marked by darkness on both sides, it is heartwarming to see that there is some light in the relationship. Perhaps politicians on both sides should take note. Whatever your viewpoint on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, It is clear that both sides want peace and they just have different ways of achieving it. I therefore urge everyone to support this excellent project which Simon will talk about below in any way possible.

RACING 4 PEACE BY SIMON STIEL

Israeli-Palestinian peace talks are happening again. They have happened before and arouse hope across the world. Yet they have constantly petered out with no satisfactory conclusion for both sides. Over the last decade, Israelis and Palestinians have collaborated together in several fields as non-governmental organisations: film, the environment, music, academia and sport. Racing 4 Peace represents another endeavour, this time for motorsport.

The Israeli and Palestinian founders of this team met each other at the go-kart track in Latrun, Jerusalem in 2006. Rasheed Nashashibi is the Official Karting champion in Palestine and he met Israeli engineer Aric Lapter. Rasheed described the meeting: “I was racing and wearing my racing suit. I had a Palestinian flag on it and I noticed he was wearing a similar T-shirt. I got a call from the track saying he wanted my number; that’s how he got my number and he called me. He came over to my place and said. ‘I have an idea about racing, do you want to meet up and talk about it?’ That’s all it all started.”

Rasheed was astonished even more when Aric told him he’d the first single seater built in Israel. “I was like, show me the pictures!” The car is a Formula Vee. Based on the Volkswagen Beetle, it is designed for the Formula Vee series, a cheap form of motor racing.

Aric and Rasheed have tested the car at the Arad air strip in the Negev desert in Israel. The tests have demonstrated how well designed the machine has been as Rasheed explains: ““It has at the end, a circle where we do a big turn at the end and we do some cones. We do left hand and right hand turns. It’s all slower than a proper track, but it’s all we’ve got you know.”

A GPS device was fitted onto the car and during the test, the lateral G force was measured at 1.6; which is considered impressive. Six tests have taken place. “It was really good considering the car has old tyres. The last time we drove it we pushed it really hard. The handling is very neutral. It’s a lot of fun, you should try it!” Rasheed laughs.

The two aim to compete in Britain as team-mates. At the moment, they’re looking for $100,000 to cover the cost of transporting the car and racing. So far, due to the economic depression, they’ve only got $2000. Fortunately, publicity has been helped by a documentary being made by renowned Israeli director, Omer Reiss. The BBC has sponsored the film and may pay for two weekends of racing.

The two men aim to be role models for their peoples. Rasheed has helped Palestinian children embrace karting as another popular sport and Aric hopes one day motor racing will be legalised in Israel and open motorsport up to Israeli talent. With the necessary funds, they could make a real difference and they need all the help they can get.

www.racing4peace.com

A response to Melanchton's suggested letter to Conservative MP'S

2010-09-19T17:56:00.004+01:00

Over on Conservative Home Melanchthon has encouraged us to write to our local Conservative MP's to ask them where the government has repatriated powers to Britain from the EU and that they will push the government on this issue. This comes about from the news that the government is in favour of a new European Union treaty, as long as they can use the treaty to repatriate powers to Britain. Here is my response to Melanchthon's suggestion below which I wrote on Conservative Home. The response comes from the article here:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2010/09/new-eu-treaty-something-for-you-to-do.html#comment-6a00d83451b31c69e20134877e8267970c

We can ask our Conservative MP'S to tell us where we have repatriated powers from the EU. However if they are being honest they will admit that we haven't repatriated any powers from the EU to Britain but have in fact done precisely the opposite.

This has been done by signing up to the European Investigation Order, which increases criminal justice harmonisation across the EU, whilst making the work of British police force and judiciary null and void. They will be forced to follow European Union orders in the name of further EU integration, rather than doing their jobs.

Then there was the creation of the European External Action Service, which in all but in name created a European Diplomatic Corps. This means nowadays that European diplomats will be speaking on our behalf. In all of this the British Foreign Office might as well cease to exist. It will not have much power to do anything after all. Clearly this is a serious loss of national sovereignty.

With the best intentions in the world trying to repatriate some powers from Brussels as a member of the European Union is impossible. No European bureaucrat is going to let a member state on the proviso of national sovereignty get some powers back from the EU. It goes against everything, which the EU institutions and the people in charge of these institutions believe. The only way to get power back for the UK so we can become a sovereign independent nation state again is to leave the EU.

So Melanchthon's suggested letter to Conservative MP's may be good in one sense.It will show up the old lie that we can be in Europe but not run by Europe.

The Referendum Lock Wont Work.

2010-09-15T22:48:00.002+01:00

In recent days Douglas Carswell MP and Bill Cash MP amongst others have criticised the government's referendum lock legislation. The referendum lock aims to trigger a referendum lock on any issue where further powers pass to the EU. The government decides when powers may potentially be passed to the EU. Apparently this is to stop further powers going to the EU. There are a series of major flaws with the legislation though.

The referendum lock is completely pointless especially since the Lisbon Treaty, which we are signed up to is a self-amending treaty. Considering the government's recent decision to sign up to the European Investigation Order the government does not seem to be particularly interested in stopping further powers going to the EU. With this in mind even if the referendum lock had any powers, which it does not, the government would simply bypass it.

The only way to get out of this nightmare project which daily takes sovereignty away from the UK is to leave the EU. If we did this we wouldn't need a referendum lock, because the EU wouldn't be allowed to grab any powers off the UK anymore. To conclude we would be Better Off Out.

Freedom Of Expression Has No Bounds

2010-09-10T19:06:00.006+01:00

News across the world has been going crazy recently about an evangelical pastor based in Florida attempts to burn the Koran in a ceremony to commemorate 9/11. Pastor Terry Jones in his previous comments has shown himself to be extremely Islamaphobic and these views are not acceptable. I hate Pastor Terry Jones and his bigoted views. However for the same reason I do not support those calling for the building of the Islamic cultural centre near ground zero to be stopped, for the same reason I will defend anti-globalisation organisations right to protest and a holocaust deniers right to debate, I do not support those calling for Pastor Terry Jones Koran burning event to be banned.

This is because freedom of speech and expression has to be protected even if it ends up protecting nasty people. Unlike in other countries the USA until now has always understood this. This is because of the American Constitution first amendment that protects freedom of speech. Therefore abhorrent people can burn the American flag because this is their right as free citizens of the United States to do so. This meant that the Texan Gregory Lee Jones in an Anti-Reagan protest, right to burn the American flag was defended in the Supreme Court. I and many others at the same time have the freedom to call people like Pastor Terry Jones as abhorrent racists and run counter-demonstrations as long as we do not engage in physical violence. However I do not have the right to gag his protest and neither does the state. This is because freedom of expression means abhorrent people have the freedom to offend. If we shut them down we would be living in a dictatorship and I'm sure no one wants that. I would prefer to live in a society where everyone can express an opinion and go on a march without fear of arbitrary arrest or state intervention to ban it. This is despite the fact that offensive people will take advantage of these rights. The alternative choice is to live in a society comparable to the Soviet Union where your every move is watched and the state traps every individual inside a prison. This all means that hardly anyone will speak out or protest due to fear.

There are those who say the ban is endangering security, however Pastor Terry Jones is not calling for the killing of American soldier. Those who are carrying out these attacks have deep hatred for the west and will look to any excuse to attack soldiers from the west. They are not attacking American and British soldiers in Afghanistan because of Pastor Terry Jones. They are attacking American and British soldiers as they hate that the free values of the West. We should not give into them, just because they would like to see us live in a less free society where freedom of expression no longer exists.

It is testament to the USA that they can let extremist organisations be they Muslim, Christian or Jew to express their opinion in any way they see fit unless they take part in physical violence. These rights would not be allowed in countries such as Saudi Arabia, where religious freedom is not allowed and when those expressing religious beliefs, which the state does not recognise are dealt with severely. The excuse given here a lot of the time is that a reduction in religious freedom was needed on the grounds of security. This is a feeble excuse. No one after all is secure in an authoritarian society. If the USA government banned Pastor Terry Jones’ protest, they will throw away a long tradition of promoting religious freedom, including the religious freedom of those with deeply warped views.

To conclude I do not support the calls calling for the burning of the Koran ceremony to be banned. Whilst it would be easy to call for a ban, it would be a betrayal of freedom of expression and freedom of speech. We betray these values at our peril, as they are the foundation blocks of a democratic and free society. Without them the very essence of democracy in the USA and the West in general starts to crumble.

Bill Etheridge Is A Nasty Conservative and Proud Of It

2010-09-07T18:18:00.006+01:00

Today this blog post will be written by Bill Etheridge. Bill Etheridge is a Conservative activist in Dudley. He has also created a branch of the Campaign Against Political Correctness for the West Midlands. He is also a proud member of The Freedom Association where he has been great help. Bill is proud of being a conservative and stands by right wing values which he feels proud of. Today Bill will be writing a post on what it means to be what the media call "nasty conservatives". He will also show why it is precisely the values of so called nasty conservatives which need to flourish in our country to make us great again.

BILL ETHERIDGE. I'M A NASTY CONSERVATIVE AND I DON'T CARE WHO KNOWS IT

I recently formed a new group; we call ourselves “The Nasty Conservatives”. Within 24Hours we had over sixty members!

The aim of the group is to counter the ridiculous propaganda that has been propagated for many years by the Left, that anyone who stands for Right of Centre, “Conservative” values, is “Nasty”.

The word “Nasty” is particularly effective as a label or descriptive term. The dictionary definition for the word has several meanings including; dirty, repellent, malicious, spiteful, dangerous and unpleasant. All in all “Nasty” is a powerful and exceptionally negative word.

With brilliant determination and consistency the Left of British politics have managed to label first the Conservative party then anybody who follows a Right of centre agenda as Nasty. The term is a brilliant way of avoiding any debate of the tough issues or of strong measures to solve them. It has such power that David Cameron and his inner circle felt a policy of “detoxification” was required to improve the image of the Nasty Party.

So to paraphrase the mantra that the British public has been subjected to over recent years, anything other than a soft, Social Democratic approach to politics has been labelled as beyond the pale and unpalatable. While the New Labour machine worked hard at spinning the line that reasonable people like their Government to be “touchy feely” with a caring feather light touch and anything other than that is somehow barbaric, the liberal elite controlling the BBC and much of our education system where busily rewriting history. The rewrite characterised the 1980s as a bleak period, where the ruined wastelands of Britain were ruled over by the wicked Margaret Thatcher and her evil Tory henchmen.

The distressing thing is that this twin pronged approach was so effective it has created several “Truths” that are becoming established in the collective consciousness of the British people. Amongst these “Truths” are; the valiant miners were working class heroes supported by the country but crushed by a police state. The only good Budget is a progressive, redistributing one. We can’t leave The European Union it would cost too many jobs. We benefit from a Multicultural society and it is to be encouraged and celebrated. Reading these statements we all know what the programmed response should be to anybody who questions them, these people are uncaring, a bit crazy or worse still racist.

I reject these “truths”. I don’t believe that the Government needs to be focusing on redistributing wealth, I would rather it helped create an environment where wealth creation is easier. I certainly don’t believe the Miners strike was a noble effort by them on behalf of the working class. I believe it was a politically motivated attempt by a Marxist led mob to unseat the democratically elected Government. I don’t believe we need to stay in the European Union for economic or any other reason. I certainly don’t believe in “Celebrating Multiculturalism” as the cliché goes, rather I believe that immigration has run out of control and it needs to be brought right down. Those immigrants who have settled here need to be encouraged to integrate into British society and its values.

The last paragraph is a classic set of beliefs that would have me immediately labelled as a “Nasty Conservative” or as one of the latest derogatory terms goes “A head banger”. In the past, I have been guilty of wondering whether the prevailing consensus was right and I better just keep my head down. My doubts, however, have been totally assuaged by the disastrous fall, spread over several years, of the Labour government. It is quite clear that the forces of New Labour have literally brought this country to ruin.

The only way to save our country from the brink of permanent decline is to embrace radical, hard line Conservative values. The time for half measures and towing the line has passed. Blair and Brown were in power too long for the damage they did to be easily reversed, maybe it can’t be reversed at all and it’s too late. If this were the case, in the spirit of Churchill who declared that he and the cabinet would lie “Choking in their own Blood” before giving up on our Country. We must fight on until the bitter end, when the once majestic Britannia finally slumps to the status of a Third world state with faint echoes of its former greatness symbolised by impressive architecture and archaic ceremonies, laid on for the tourists.
I am a “Nasty Conservative”. I am a member of the Conservative Party, The Freedom Association, The Bruges Group and The Campaign Against Political Correctness. I will do everything I can to reverse the disastrous path our country has been set on by decades of social engineering, political correctness and weak leadership.

If you are proud of our country and its wonderful history, while still believing we could have a great future, then it is your duty to fight back. This fight back can take many forms from joining a political party or pressure group to simply refusing to accept the lies any more. Strong measures and determined leadership are what is needed to repair the damage done by Thirteen years of New Labour; we need to be “Nasty” to save our Country!

David Willets Supports Social Engineering

2010-08-24T15:43:00.007+01:00

In a move which will strike fear in the hearts of meritocrats like myself David Willets the minister in charge of universities seems to want to take us back to the social engineering of the Labour years when it comes to university places. He wants it to be made easier for poorer people to go to university. This would be done through providing quotas for poor people to universities, which the universities would have to go by. What is even worse about this is that it is Whitehall who would be in charge of quotas centralising further education further. This is despite the government's belief in the big society. The big society can only be achieved through decentralisation.

That will mean that they could achieve lower grades then middle class people, but if they are seen to have great potential then they will receive the place above them. This is a case of positive discrimination, where excellence goes out of the window in the name of socio-economic background and diversity. It is an example of governments once more trying to enforce equality when this is not a desirable outcome. I abhor this as I think that Universities should be unashamedly elitist choosing on the basis of excellence alone. I feel it is my duty to point out to the aptly nicknamed "two brains" David Willets that potential is not the same as actual achievement. This means that you can only actually judge on actual achievement.

The government would not need to push for poorer people to go to university or in general people going to university if they abandoned the ludicrous vision of trying to send as many people as possible to university. Universities are not meant to be for everyone and indeed a lot of people are not suited to university life and the government needs to remember this. There would be no need for a quota then as there simply would not be the number if we remembered what Universities are there for. That way people would not be forced to go to university from whatever background and those who came from a poor background but were academically strong could go to university as their would be the space to take them on. Universities could go back to being unashamedly elitist rather than social engineering labs and in the space of less people going to universities apprenticeships could come back in vogue. This would increase the manual skill base which in the grand rush to push everyone to go to university we are lacking. Additionally with the clear evidence that A-levels have been devalued and the quality of students going to university has decreased is it really wise to introduce a reform that could make this situation even more widespread?

In conclusion it is not the job of universities to address the inequalities we have in society or the advantages certain children have either through education or socio-economic background. Perhaps as Douglas Carswell suggests on his blog it is just another example of ministers not resisting the urge to tinker in business which has nothing to do with them and should be left out of the hands of government. David Willets needs to remember this before considering this ill thought out reform.

Gaza Decision Correct- Five Years Later by Yisrael Neeman and Elliot Chodoff

2010-08-23T13:21:00.004+01:00

Today I have a guest piece from Yisrael Ne'eman and Elliot Chodoff of Mid East on target. This is an organisation which writes informative pieces on Israel and the Middle East in general. They are experts in the field. They have written an extremely interesting piece on the Gaza disengagement decision five years on. Like them despite its unpopularity in Israel it is a decision that I still support. The reasons in support of the Gaza Disengagement are listed by Yisrael Neeman and Elliot Chodoff below in their article.

Gaza Decision Correct – Five Years Later

The decision to disengage from Gaza five years ago was the correct decision, then and now. Today this is an unpopular position as many people are drawn into the populist attacks against the withdrawal in light of the rise of Hamas. According to public opinion polls the average Jew in Israel believes the Gaza withdrawal was mistaken, but then that same average Jew believes the Israeli government should bring home Gilad Shalit at all costs – freeing 1000 Palestinian prisoners, many of them involved in mass murder of civilians. Public opinion is fickle, in May 2000 the Four Mothers protest group and public pressure forced Israel to withdraw from the security zone in south Lebanon. The same public opinion voted the Likud's Ariel Sharon into the prime minister's office in February 2001 (at the time he was seen as a super hawk) with a margin of 62.4% to Labor's Ehud Barak (who was PM at the time of the withdrawal) with 37.6% of the ballots cast.

In the summer of 2005 there were 8,000 Jews living in Gaza surrounded by 1.3 million Arabs, mostly Hamas supporters. Dozens of tunnels (and possibly over a hundred) already existed connecting Egyptian Rafiah with Gazan Rafiah under the Israeli patrolled "Philadelphi" border road. Hamas was on the rise and despite Israeli efforts to the contrary more tunnels were constructed all the time. Arms and ammunition flowed into Gaza from Sinai. Some 85% of the Gaza Strip, and virtually all of the Arab population was controlled by the Palestinian Authority with the remainder held by the Israeli army and Katif/Erez Bloc settlements. The IDF was not present in Gaza City, Khan Yunis, Dir el-Balah, Rafiah or the smaller towns and refugee camps. The PA ruled in these areas. And lest we forget, thousands of Hamas Kassam rockets rained down of Sderot and in the northwest Negev since April 2001, more than four years before the Disengagement.

The Jewish communities in Gaza, with a few exceptions, were militarily indefensible. Placed geographically in pockets, mostly along the Gaza coastline, they suffered from long, exposed access roads and frighteningly close proximity to hostile urban centers. The distance from Khan Yunis to Neve Dekalim, for example, was a few hundred meters, well within effective sniper range.

Overall there were some 3000 IDF troops in the region, most of them tied down in defending fixed positions and responsible for the well being of the civilian population of 8000. Everyone was a "sitting duck" surrounded by Fatah "police" as well as Hamas terrorists. Hundreds of attacks took place (remember the Hatu'el family massacre?) along the unprotectable Kissufim-Gush Katif road, along with constant shelling of civilian targets, but the outside world including the staunchly pro-Israel Bush Administration barely took notice, as long as the victims were “settlers.”

There existed no military method to ensure security for the Jewish population of the Gaza Strip. To recapture and hold all of Gaza would take an investment of tens of thousands of troops in perpetuity, hopelessly pinning them down and rendering much of the IDF ground force useless as a modern military. There are those on the Right, who forgot the bad old days of patrolling the Gaza refugee camps, who at the time advocated such a policy of troop commitment and continue today with the "I told you so" attitude without considering the ramifications in terms of Israeli casualties among troops and civilians. Palestinian losses, in particular civilians caught in the cross fire, would also be a daily occurrence, making this policy less sustainable over the long term.

In sum, the IDF did not have the resources, personnel, or geographical position to successfully protect the Jewish residents of Gaza. The force committed was unable to accomplish its mission, and could not be used in offensive counterterrorist operations. The result was the paralysis of some 30% of the IDF’s infantry capability, with guerrilla and terrorist forces threatening the country from the West Bank and Lebanon, while Syria and Iran waited in the wings. Stretched this thin, the IDF was reducing its missions on other fronts, and had virtually abandoned combat training for the ground forces. These factors contributed significantly to the IDF’s performance failures during the war with Hizbullah in 2006.

Politically, Hamas won the elections for the Palestinian Legislature in January 2006 taking 72 (plus another 4 independent Islamists) of 132 seats in a crushing defeat of the secular Fatah incumbents. Gaza was the stronghold of Hamas power as it had been for close to 30 years. Had there not been an Israeli withdrawal half year previous Palestinian voters would have been even more encouraged to support Hamas in its demands to force Israel from Gaza and to punish Fatah, which they considered collaborationists with Israel for signing the Oslo Accords. Internally the hated Fatah regime was exposed in all its corruption, in particular its theft of development and aid funding coming from abroad. This brought about the short lived hybrid government led by Pres. Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) of Fatah whose cabinet was dominated by Hamas PM Ismail Haniyah and his Islamist cabinet.

In June 2007 a Hamas military force of 6,000 overthrew the regional Gaza PA regime, handily defeating the Fatah led Palestinian Police force of 22,000. Could an Israeli presence in Gaza and direct intervention have prevented such an internal Palestinian upheaval? And who would have Israel placed in power? Fatah? And let's not be ridiculous in believing an Israeli military administration could have exercised control, having already failed in the late 1980s during the Palestinian uprising of 1987-91. Once replacing the PA and taking full control Israel would need to spend billions of shekels every year for the well being of 1.3 million Gazans (with an estimated birth rate of 5.5% - among the highest in the world) and counting. Costly Israeli military intervention may have postponed a Hamas putsch but not prevented it. How safe would it have been for Israelis living in Gaza after Hamas solidified power? Imagine the Cast Lead Operation with the Katif Bloc still in place. In the end Israel would have left Gaza with more casualties, more condemnations than the UN and Goldstone could ever dream up and much less deterrence. One should also not be so naïve as to think the IHH and Turkish PM Erdogen would not send a flotilla and encourage more.

Israel never intended to annex Gaza and give all its 1.3 million Palestinian residents citizenship. Holding on to Gaza only weakened Israeli security and made the situation much worse than it is today with 8000 civilians and 2000 soldiers held hostage to Hamas fire at any given moment.

Finally in one aspect all governments failed miserably. The Gaza evacuees were not cared for as promised. Some communities rebuilt themselves, certain individuals took initiative and found new horizons, but many were treated with virtual "criminal neglect". Permanent housing could have been built in the Askelon/Ashdod region for those who could not make a decision for themselves concerning their future. Partial compensation could have been given up front, pending a final agreement.

The government is definitely at fault, however this does not whitewash the settlement leadership and national religious rabbis, many of whom declared that an evacuation "could never happen" or were overconfident they would halt the Disengagement. Many refused to prepare themselves for the inevitable, believing rabbinical declarations to the end. Packing up one's house at the last moment is not planning for the future. Treatment of the 8000 evacuees once they left Gaza was a disaster then and is still not fully remedied today – and this is fully condemnable. Compensation must be made as soon as possible.

Overall, leaving Gaza was correct five years ago as it is today. Had there been no Disengagement the situation would be much worse today.

Time to Stand Up To The Surveillance Society.

2010-08-15T15:29:00.003+01:00

Rob Halfon MP for Harlow writes an excellent article on his blog reminding us about the threat of increased surveillance into our lives. Unfortunately the threat is not just coming from the government, it is now coming from large private corporations also. Chief among them is Google. Rob Halfon has already raised an excellent EDM on this which I urge you to encourage your local MP to sign.

The issue which Rob Halfon raises in his blog is vital. This is an issue which must be debated in parliament and I look forward therefore for Rob Halfon and like minded MPs raising the issue in parliament further. Also if this government truly believes in giving the British people there freedoms back then the government will also look into the issue also and start getting tough with google also. In the UK we are spied on too much by both the government and private corporations. This invasion of our freedoms needs to be stopped. As innocent civilians we should be allowed the right to a private life. The government and google needs to be reminded of this. In general the surveillance society needs to be stopped because it has got to a stage at the moment when the sinister Big Brother mentioned in George Orwell's book 1984 is alive and well. I am positive though that with MPs like Rob Halfon speaking out on the matter Big Brother can be slayed.

Here's the link to the blog article here:
http://roberthalfon.blogspot.com/2010/08/privatised-surveillance-society.html

The Most Influential Ministers Outside the Cabinet for the Right and Wrong Reasons

2010-08-10T11:09:00.002+01:00

Conservative Home has asked those signed up to their sight to say who are the most influential ministers outside the cabinet and the reasons why. For me this is an important exercise as many of these ministers will be the political stars of the future and therefore it is important to keep them on the radar. Additionally whilst the secretaries of state are the public face for the policy most of the detail of the policy comes from the junior ministers and without there support the policies can quickly lose their momentum and be consigned to the dustbin. I have therefore put who I see as the most influential Cabinet Ministers. Some are these are for positive reasons and the others are for wholly negative reasons. Incidentally these are only concentrating on Conservative Ministers and not the Liberal Democrat Ministers.

Those who are influential for positive reasons are:

Chris Grayling working with Iain Duncan smith for finally taking on the mantle of welfare reform and running with it. Oh and showing it is not just the left who care about the poor, and actually it is the right through their beliefs in wealth creation who have the best solutions for helping people out of poverty, whereas the left would just leave people in the poverty trap. Iain Duncan smith's plans are innovative and his simplification of the benefit system will lead to a situation where no longer will it pay to be out of work. Without someone as committed as Chris Grayling behind him, the welfare reform team would not have the drive it needs. Chris Grayling showed when he was the Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions that he was committed to welfare reform.Now in government he is working closely with Iain Duncan Smith to put this into action.

Anne Milton, the Health minister, I completely disagree with her on smoking, where she is one of the most fiercest tobacco control advocates. However I like her plain speaking saying simply that the doctors should call fat people fat. It was a nice change from the politically correct language of New Labour and long may straight talking continue.

Mike Penning for applying the death nail to the dreaded speed cameras. No longer are we stuck with a government which seems to have a pathological hatred of motorists. His actions also proved that often Speed Cameras were just there as revenue raisers to take money off the hard pressed taxpayer and had no effect on safety whatsoever.

Grant Shapps through suggesting that council houses shouldn't be for life. He grasps the nettle that council houses for life damage aspiration and encourage fecklessness and idleness. In general I have been impressed by Grant Shapps who is pushing the localist agenda strongly. I believe he will be a rising star.

Nick Herbert for making policeman accountable to the public through the creation of elected police commissioners. This was a brave step in the face of concerted opposition from chief police officers. Hopefully it will rebuild the trust which has been lost between the police and the public.

Then there are those who have been influential for all the wrong reasons:

David Liddington the Europe Minister has shown himself to be a committed europhile. This is shown in the government's drift towards further European integration when David Liddington became a cheerleader for the European External Action Service, which in my view is a European Diplomatic corps that will undermine British Diplomacy and lead to the end of a independent British foreign policy. David Liddington along with William Hague seems to have no problem with this and has been actively pushing it.

Crispin Blunt for his terrible work as part of the justice team. Whilst I do in general support Ken Clarke's ideas on prison reform I draw the line at Crispin Blunt's cheer leading for prison parties. Not only was this a terrible PR gaffe showing a profound lack of judgement, it also run roughshod over the sensible view that prisoners should not be rewarded.

The Most Influential Right Wing Journalists

2010-08-04T23:33:00.002+01:00

Conservative Home also asked in Centre right for our opinion on the most influential right wing journalists. In journalists we are reminded that the written pen and now they typed article can be extremely influential. It is also where you can see the right wing is heading in the UK is heading and the fault lines within it. I have included no one in the sun here namely because for me the Sun is not exactly the home of excellent journalists. I now this sounds snobbish but it is just my view.

Here are my 4 most influential journalists; I’ve not done it on name recognition alone:

1. James Dellingpole- in his editorials in the spectator and elsewhere, he has been busy debunking climate change alarmism, whilst showing the brittle evidence Anthropogenic climate change is based on. This has become particularly relevant after the climate gate incident at East Anglia University.

2. Simon Heffer- Whether you oppose or support Heffer's criticism of Cameron, no one can say you cannot see his influence of a new editorial tone from the telegraph, which is increasingly critical from the right of David Cameron.

3. Bruce Anderson- One of the few writers in the independent who hasn't been infected by the leftist bias. Whilst he remains, the Independent hasn't completely abandoned living up to its name the Independent " that’s to say being a paper which has no political stance and has journalists of all political perspectives". He has also written some very good articles in defence of David Cameron.

4. Alistair Heath- The editor of CITY AM who also contributes to the spectator, has been one of the few defenders of capitalism, free markets, low regulation, low taxes and the city of London, when others have given up. Whilst he now may be a single person, he will provide I believe the intellectual depth to defenders of capitalism in the upcoming years

Influential tory backbenchers.

2010-08-04T22:07:00.003+01:00

Conservative Home through its centre right blog asked an interesting question after making a few suggestions of their own about who have been the most influential Conservative backbenchers.

Conservative backbenchers have become increasingly important in general since the advent of the coalition government. This is because as David Cameron has been increasingly sidling up to the Liberal Democrats, many on the backbenchers have felt that they have being ignored.

They point to the issues of the EU where the conservatives in their general election manifesto said they would be doughty defenders of British interests, yet the reality has been when in government they have put into law the European External Action Service which should now been known by the moniker the EU diplomatic corps, which many believe due to its sheer size and scope will undermine an independent UK foreign policy. Then their was the opting into the European Investigation order, which has undermined the UK's judicial independence, and handed over our judicial and police powers to the EU. This seems more pro EU rather than eurosceptic, and therefore there is no wonder that conservative backbenchers have been unhappy about this.

There has also been the ill judged attempted emasculation of the 1922 committee, when Cameron tried to put conservative government ministers on to it and was forced to back down, as well as an ignorance of any policies coming from conservative backbenchers.

This is why in my view Conservative Home's question is more important than ever. It is also important in my viewpoint as the conservative backbenchers now represent the grassroots of the party like myself who at times feel disenchanted by the coalition government who at times seems very unconservative.

My choices were as follows:
I think Tim Montgomerie who runs Conservative Home forgot one big name who has been tirelessly fighting for the Tory right and has stood up for his eurosceptic principals whilst being a doughty defender of his constituency. He also highlighted channel 4's positive discrimination policy. This man is Phillip Davies.

Another person is Graham Brady who has been doing a brilliant job in his 1922 committee of defending the rights of conservative backbenchers who otherwise would have had a much harder time having their voice expressed.

Then there is Christopher Chope who successfully defended the rights of the 1922 committee not to be emasculated by the conservative elites. He is also running an effective yet under the radar campaign against the AV referendum. He has also along with Phillip Davies and others been involved in getting second readings on some of his private members bills such as the UK sovereignty bill, which the government if they had the choice wouldn't like to debate.

Jacob Rees Mogg has been a breath of fresh air with some excellent speeches, he's clearly very independent minded also. His budget speech was great, reminding us who had caused the mess, Labour and why capitalism is still the answer.

However for his defence of Britain against the EU and good work in the culture, media and sport select committee. For my view it has to go to Phillip Davies. He might not get much attention, but he is one of the most respected and influential backbenchers in my humble opinion.

The European Investigation Mad, Bad and Dangerous - Therefore the Coalition signed up to it.

2010-08-02T17:47:00.003+01:00

The European Investigation Order literally makes my blood boil. It is one of the most illiberal and undemocratic orders issued by the EU, which will squeeze our liberties even further, and surrender more of our sovereignty. We could have opted out of this terrible scheme, we could have stood up for Britain's interests. So what did this coalition government do which promised us that our liberties would be protected, and no further sovereignty would be surrendered to the EU well quite clearly from the message here, they did exactly the opposite, they have opted in to one of the most authoritarian pieces of legislation going and smashed up a key promise of theirs to protect liberty and protect sovereignty.

That we’ve opted can be seen by Baroness Neville Jones in the House of Lords speaking on behalf of the government and Theresa's May statement in the House Of Commons. There wasan option to opt out, but following the British government policy of capitulating to the EU demands it decided to opt in. Apparently if we do not like the policy we can opt out later, but the pessimist in me believe I'll see that happening when pigs fly. When after was the last time a government got powers back from the EU? from my recollection not since the heady days of Thatcher re-negotiating our budget contributions in the mid 1980s.

We have lost even more control of our judicial and police activities to EU member states and in particular other EU member state's police forces where for example in countries such as Bulgaria police brutality is common. So in one full swoop our police activities will become ever more brutal, as they now will be forced to bring in Bulgarian Style Justice, to meet with the requirements of the European Investigation Order. After all when the Bulgarian police order the British Police to investigate a crime, under the European Investigation they will have to. No wonder Fair Trials international is so opposed to the European Investigation Order. Considering the other countries in the EU who have signed up to the European Investigation Order, its hardly going to lead to a less brutal police force and a fairer justice system.

The European investigation order will work hand in hand with the European arrest arrant which came into law after September 11th to supposedly to protect us from terrorists but has actually not protected us from terrorists, but instead undermined many innocent people's rights to a fair trial and protection from extradition. UK citizens can be extradited to other countries to be arrested for minor cases-as happened with Andreas Symou when he was arrested by the Greek authorities for a crime he didn't even commit. Thus showing that this alone had led to massive abuses of the freedoms of British citizens.

The European investigation order takes this even further at a time when we ourselves as the Ian Tomlinson incident showed and the powers given by RIPa to police - worry us that we have given to much power to our own national police, which has led to abuse and a lack of protection of UK citizens from what is becoming increasingly a police state, this makes the situation much worse.

This is because now police authorities from other countries now have these powers, they have the power to spy through our bank statements, to look through other data, and they can do all this by making simple requests of British police which the British police must I repeat must obey, in other words it is an order not a request. There data safeguards are even worse than ours- so there is on a greater scale more chance of our data going missing and our privacy exposed, and further more us the average British citizen not just being spied on by British police but by European police. Truly the next story about Bins and surveillance will be Foreign Police rummaging through our Bins.

In doing all of this we hand over our police and judicial powers to the EU, which has a very bad history of undermining member state's liberties, due to its consistent undermining of sovereignty. The European Investigation Order is an example of this where the EU's attempted harmonisation of police and judicial policy across the EU has put liberty in danger and put values such as innocent until proven guilty into jeopardy.

Apparently this doesn't break the coalition government's non-existent referendum lock, which said if there was any attempt of significant extension of EU powers would trigger it. Theresa May and Baroness Neville Jones had the bare cheek to say to Lords and MPS who opposed the European Investigation Order and thought it was a significant transfer of sovereignty of getting it all wrong and not understanding what the European Investigation Order was about. Im sorry ladies but the problem they know all to well about what the European Investigation is about. Given all this, and that it is a significant transfer of powers to the EU, we should according to the coalition government have a referendum on the subject. I'm still waiting for the referendum, I fear it could be a long wait.

The duplicity goes even further than this I’m afraid though. The government through a House of Lords statement in the 15th of July said they wanted more scrutiny of EU laws etc and EU work, and that it had been lacking in the last parliament. Yet the European Investigation Order has been railroaded through parliament, from orders upon high from our political masters the EU. No proper debate was allowed and there was no vote on such a substantial piece of legislation, even though more time to debate was called for by amongst people like Dominic Raab MP in the house of commons and Lord Stoddart in the house of lords. The coalition government just like New Labour is in danger of saying one thing and doing exactly the opposite.

Oh and all the bureaucracy which will be created will mean that we the taxpayer gets to pay for the privilege of losing our liberties, as the EU will probably say to meet the demands of the European Investigation Order there will have to be an increase in the EU budget and thus our contributions will skyrocket even further.

Supposedly this coalition's government was to stop further powers going to the EU and in fact repatriate powers from the EU to the UK in particular the UK parliament. Additionally the coalition government was supposedly committed to protected UK's citizen’s individual freedoms. In opting into this law, the Coalition has shown that for all their words, when push came to shove, they preferred to let our liberties wither away at the altar of the EU, rather than stand up for the national interest and protect our hard won liberties which has been earned over centuries.

Is Oliver Letwin a Conservative

2010-07-24T21:12:00.003+01:00

The man who looks like he has come out of outer space, and is to clever by half, and is reportedly behind such great cameron ideas as vote blue go green and hug a hoody as well as being on the very wet left of the conservative party, has dropped another clanger. No wonder the Conservative Party try to keep Oliver Letwin out of the limelight as much as possible, he seems to have a habit of rubbing up the Conservative Party members and MPs in particular the grassroots even though he's a member of the conservative party.

On wednesday this week he was at it again, saying that the conservatives ruling as part of a liberal democrat-conservative coalition is much better than having a sole conservative government. What is it really better that thanks to being in coalition with the lib dems, we are reconsidering the death tax to pay for social care, or that thanks to being in a coalition we have to raise capital gains tax. Worst of all thanks to being part of a coalition government due to a lamentable election campaign partly run by oliver letwin, we don't even have a conservative government. As a member of the conservative party, the job of oliver letwin is to work towards a conservative victory, clearly a coalition government isn't that. Due to mr letwin's love of a coalition government -perhaps he should be crowned as the first member of the condem government, he obviously find it to hard to be a true blue anyway, just think of all the tough but necessary decisions a proper conservative government would make after all.

Mr letwin's remarks show a worry in general though, that a clique around cameron has contempt for the conservative party and its traditions and the coalition government has given a new lease of life to it. No wonder the grassroots with idiots like Letwin, wonder if Mr Cameron is a conservative at all.

A radical way to simplify the UK tax system

2010-07-21T20:59:00.006+01:00

The UK has one of the most fiendishly complex tax systems in the world; with over a thousand of pages of waffle to wade through and many different tax systems all at varying rates. You need to be a genius to work it all out and most citizens including myself are not. If we don’t know a lot about our tax system, we do not know a lot about where are taxes are going, and if we don’t know where are taxes are going inevitably we cannot trust the system and therefore this leads to a lot of unpaid taxes. Not only this but the government can take advantage of the complicated system to sneakily put up taxes through stealth taxes and also can get away with vast amounts of waste, as complicated systems are nearly always not transparent system. This by the way is the tax system we were left with after 13 years of Labour Government.

The Coalition government says it wants to simplify the tax system, there were also many in the past including at time members of the conservative shadow team like George Osborne who also wanted a more simplified tax system. The way this is apparently going to be achieved is through the office of tax simplification, an organisation created by the government but apparently at arms length. Far be it from me but why doesn't the government actually initiate making the tax system simpler and therefore fairer and lower in the long term, rather than palming it off on another self made quango which will cost the taxpayer a lot of money where the government is just trying to avoid responsibility for making difficult decisions. Also given the fact that we have a massive debt cloud hanging over us, and we need to make serious cuts to public expenditure, we don’t exactly have money to waste on pointless quangos, however well intentioned they may be.

There is though a way to simplify taxes and cut taxes for everyone poor, middle class and rich and be completely fair, and be a system where people know where its going and can budget for it. It is called a flat tax. The flat tax has worked in Eastern Europe to turn countries that had broken economies thanks to being part of the Soviet Union, to places where people want to invest. Indeed those eastern European countries who have introduced a flat tax system have seen on average since 1994 around a 5.5% growth rate, where those who didn't introduced this type of tax system only received a growth rate of 2.6%. The proof therefore is in the pudding.

The only taxes, which would exist in a flat tax system, are a flat and low rate income tax and a flat and low rate profit tax. No other taxes would be needed, rather than a tax system, which runs into thousands of pages, we could have a tax system, which are only at the most a few pages long. If a flat tax were introduced into the UK it would lower marginal tax rates significantly and therefore make the UK one of the most attractive places for businesses to come to. This is needed as to get out of the economic slowdown, this country needs investment and lots of it, what better way to do it then through introducing a flat tax system which will make everyone's lives easier and deal with the deficit at the same time.

Also tax fraud and avoidance would decrease. This is because with fewer taxes and exemptions, there is simply less chance to defraud the system, either by individuals or by the government themselves. You wont therefore see the ludicrous situation year on year where people are either told that they have underpaid in taxes or overpaid in taxes. Not only this broadens the tax base, which means the grey economy which makes up around 10-12% of the British Economy will be encouraged to join the open economy. Putting it simply there will be no point to avoid taxes anymore, because they are lower enough to not people off.

It is also a fair system. It will mean that everyone pays a similar amount of the income lets for example put it at 15% of income. This would be lower than the present system, but at the same time, it would mean that the rich proportionately would pay more because for example 15% of a £million is much more than 15% of £10,000. This is fairer than the present system where thanks to taxes like VAT the poor pay more than the rich. Also due to the lower tax levels for the poor, a life on benefits will suddenly look a lot less appealing as they get the chance to keep more of the money for themselves. So another possible benefit is a tax system that would encourage individual responsibility and freedom, rather than the system at the moment that supports a dependency culture.

There is one problem with the flat tax system; I must admit it works best in system where government expenditure is low. Unfortunately the UK Government expenditure as part of our whole economy is notoriously high; it is at between 40-45% at the moment and rising. For someone like myself who believes strongly in small government, this is deeply distressing. However I truly believe if we had a flat tax system, then the government would be forced to reduce their size and income, leading private businesses and individuals to flourish, and for less government interference in our lives.

Ultimately then if you want a simplified tax system, which will make us a country with lower taxes, a freer country, a fairer country and a more entrepreneurial country then the flat tax is the way to go, and by the way its a lot cheaper than setting up another quango (the office of tax simplification). I hope although doubt that the coalition government will listen to my advice.

Google Ignores its principles

2010-07-21T20:07:00.004+01:00

Google rightly in the past through its search engines and videos and images etc has been praised as an ocean of freedom of speech and expression, promoting the Internet as a freedom zone. For example it was through google search engines and images you could see the Muhammad Cartoons. It was through google video you could see clips of Jerry Springer the Opera. It appeared google stood firmly against censorship.

All this was true until recently. Google in its dealings with China seemed to have forgotten their principles, and left them at the door to its negotiations with the Chinese government. There were worries when google first went into China considering China's high record of censorship which seems to be taken straight out of George Orwell's 1984 manual, which China's authoritarian government seems very fond of. It was reported today that Google rather than letting Chinese Citizens see the freedom of the web with no censors, so for example they could look up stuff relating to Tibet and the 1989 Tiannamen square massacre through going through Google's Hong Kong search engine. It was a loophole where google let Chinese citizens see the world in the way they could see it, not controlled by their government.

Today though google closed the shutters on this window of truth for Chinese Citizens. This is because Google did a deal with the Chinese Government where they can now stop Chinese citizens from reaching this loophole and even further they have made sure that google's China search engine is now censored by the Chinese government, that's to say the Chinese government now basically controls it. Google then inadvertently through doing this is strengthening an authoritarian regime, by giving them a pass to control the Internet, one that before was not open to them.

Google as a private company first point of call is to their customers, they have ignored the millions of Chinese customers who would like to see the real world through a free Internet and not a world as the Chinese Government wants them to see it. Not only that they are now offering a half baked service to their chinese customers. It is up to other search engines to take advantage here and stand up for the principles of freedom of speech and expression through the internet and use the loopholes of the internet to get past Chinese Government censors. Maybe then Google might learn the lesson that listening to customers and standing up for your principles is more important than having a cosy relationship with a dictatorial government.

PC world is alive and well

2010-07-09T11:37:00.002+01:00

on 30th June a Conservative health minister Simon Burns called the speaker of the House of Commons a stupid and sanctimonious primordial dwarf. Speaker Bercow or as the Daily Mail's parliamentary Sketchwriter Quentin Letts calls him accurately Squeaker Bercow, remember only got in on the back of becoming in all but name a labour cheerleader despite being a conservative MP in the last parliament, voting with the Labour government wherever possible, and they greatly repaid him by backing his campaign to become speaker. Not surprisingly many conservative MPs are disgusted by Mr Bercow and love getting the time to express this, and I for one speak up for their right, and if they want to do this in colourful language -so what, after all freedom of speech means freedom to offend.

Well apparently the primordial dwarf community is upset and Mr Simon Burns was forced to apologise to the primordial dwarfs and has been chastised by the Walking With Giants Foundation-surely the Walking with Giants foundation has got better things to do in their time then get needlessly offended. If ever you needed an example of Political Correctness going to far this is certainly one. It is an example where every community now due to political correctness will jump on a comment, so they can be offended. What next, will we be forced to apologise to the follicly challenged community for calling people bald, on the recent logic being applied by the politically correct brigade, I would say so.

The practice of forcing people to apologise for possibly causing offence to anyone needs to stop, if we maintain the values of freedom of speech in this country.

Some Good news

2010-06-21T15:44:00.003+01:00

Clearly someone in the colaition has been reading my blog. No sooner had i rallied against speed cameras, where now a weak later, no new money will be provided for local councils for the money collecting machine otherwise known as speed cameras. Three cheers to Mike Penning the Roads Minister who in a statement said the government will provide no more money for speed cameras fixed speed cameras. This is a victory for common sense. In a time when we are massively in debt, we can't fritter money away on speed cameras, which haven't actually had any effect on speeding motorists and road accidents and deaths. Perhaps the next stage is to cut the funding for speed cameras for local authorities as a symbol that the government is on the motorists side and not trying to crush them.

The message Mike Penning also gave out was positive, saying if local councils wanted to use fixed speed cameras, then they could finance it themselves, showing that autonomy from the centre was being allowed. What was more positive was the messsage afterwards from Mike Penning saying that we strongly encourage them to use other methods and effective safety measures. I hope this is an acknowledgement that fixed speed cameras have failed and it is time to move on.

In noticing that the public think the growth of speed cameras have got out of control, at least in some areas, the coalition has got its fingers on the pulses of what people are feeling.

The Shocking amount of fraud undetected in Local Councils

2010-06-21T15:30:00.002+01:00

Today, it has shockingly been found that over 97% of council fraud is not detected, to put this in a monetary context that is £3.4 billion. This is deeply worrying considering the money being fraudently used is our money, paid for in council taxes which is going up year on year. apparently these higher council taxes would lead to more efficiency, well as the high level of fraud shows they haven't. Once more this shows that higher taxes are not the answer.

It is time also for the murky world of local government financing to be thrown open, at the moment we don't know where a lot of our money is going. It is time for all finances of the council to be published online, so we the public can see and comment on how are money is spent.

its time for us to know where are money is going and stop the waste, otherwise once again the people will be losing out, whilst local government officials will be laughing all the way to the bank. I dont know about you but if the government is truthful about wanting to give power, how about they make a start in working with local councils to decrease the disgraceful level of fraud.

Facts About CCTV Cameras

2010-06-14T19:04:00.007+01:00

Today is the first guest written blog post for this blog. It is written by Alex Deane. I have had the privilege to have heard Alex Deane twice in political debates and can therefore see why he was an Cambridge University debating champion. He is now the head of an excellent organisation called Big Brother Watch. Big Brother Watch is an excellent organisation, which has been documenting relentlessly the ever growing intrusion into our lives either by the state or by private organisations. They have grown from strength to strength which has been highlighted by the increasing coverage given to big brother watch in the national media. If you would like to learn more about this organisation please go to http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/. Today Alex Deane will be writing about CCTV Cameras.

We are being watched by the state ever more closely. Research which suggested that we have 4.2 million CCTV cameras in this country is now 10 years old; nobody has done an updated study since.

Having surveyed all councils in the country, Big Brother Watch published new data in 2009 which showed that the number of cameras run by local authorities alone (a fraction of the total, of course) has trebled in the past decade. As our American friends say, "do the maths".

I’m not a Luddite. Technology has a role to play in law enforcement. But there are serious concerns about privacy and the nature of the state’s role in society – and of course, the public purse offers finite resources, and money spent in this way is money that cannot be spent on other forms of policing, such as officers on the street. It’s a question of balance.

We’re the only country that’s gone so far down this path. The Shetland Islands has more CCTV cameras than San Francisco Police Department. CCTV is now the single most heavily-funded crime prevention measure operating outside the criminal justice system, accounting for more than three quarters of spending on crime prevention by the Home Office.

The growing network of surveillance can in no way be justified as a crime-fighting tool. As the number of cameras has gone up, the number of crimes detected using them has gone down. Between 2003/4 and 2008/9 there has been a 71 per cent fall in the number of crimes "in which CCTV was involved" for detection purposes in the Metropolitan Police area. The proportion of all crimes actually solved using CCTV in London also fell from half in 2003/4 to one in seven in 2008/9; the Met’s own figures now state that for every 1,000 cameras in their jurisdiction, one crime is solved each year - a staggeringly inefficient figure which strongly suggests that even disregarding privacy concerns the cameras aren't worth the money in terms of simple return.

Perhaps that’s because cameras are often turned off or not working - which is much worse than them simply not being there, as law enforcement becomes dependent on an unreliable resource. When they’re working and turned on, sometimes they’re not pointing in the right direction. Footage is often scrubbed before law enforcement officials collect it. When it’s working, turned on, pointing in the right direction and not scrubbed, the quality of footage is often such that courts cannot use it. This is not an argument for more and better CCTV, given the privacy concerns surrounding it and given that we already spend too much money on it as things stand. Using material put into the public domain by councils renewing their CCTV networks, Big Brother Watch has established a figure of £3,000 maintenance per year per camera - if one contemplates the number of cameras around, that kind of expenditure would buy you a bobby or two.

Polling suggests that CCTV remains relatively popular in this country. I accept that there are some people who simply don’t mind that images are recorded. But, absent them being offered a choice between CCTV and something else, I think that that’s a reflection of whether or not people want crimes to be investigated and solved. Even some hitherto supportive voices have questioned the wisdom of flying CCTV drones, once the stuff of dystopian science fiction but now being trialled in the UK. Furthermore, the recording and (in principle, permanent) retention of the images of innocent people does cause significant privacy concerns, as those cameras become ubiquitous. One of the first reaction of any person coming to the UK from abroad is surprise at the extent of our surveillance culture. One hopes that we learn from that surprise and scale back our watching state, rather than that surprise fading as the British disease spreads to their countries in turn.

Alex Deane is the Director of Big Brother Watch
http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/

make some cuts, and put us back in control of our lives

2010-06-12T15:35:00.002+01:00

in the past 30 years, there has been the war on the motorists, the war on drinkers, and the war on smokers, and thanks to jamie oliver there's been the war on obese people. They all seem like good aims, i mean after all no one thinks speeding to excess levels is good and everyone knows too much drinking and smoking is bad for you, and that being morbidly obese doesn't help you in later life. However here's the thing generally when the government tell's you what do, it is human nature to want to do the opposite. Also in general the nanny state overstate's the case and the risks. So yes for example we all know drinking too much is bad for us, but isn't it up to us if we want to enjoy a few drinks, and is it really fair to keep putting the price of alcohol up and up, stopping people from enjoying the odd drink which they should be entitled to but have been priced out disgustingly by the state.

Then there is speeding, unfortunately as numerous newspaper reports show, speed cameras in general have nothing to do with stopping speeding and everything to do with being a money spinning exercise for local councils and as such is a stealth tax in all but name. Also from personal experience in my family, they penalise people for example going 34mph in a 30mph, when common sense would tell you this is a complete overeaction to put 3 points on a person's license for this. There is also with the war on motors, the constant rise in petrol, where thanks to our tax on petrol we have some of the highest petrol prices in the world, putting many hardworking motorists into debt.

then their is the anti smoking lobby. All the smoking ban has done so far, is kill the pub industry which whether you like or not relied on smokers. The old rules where you had smoker's areas in pubs worked, the smoking ban was just another attempt by the fun police to try and tell people how to live their lives without thinking of the effect they would have on great british pubs.

Then their is obesity, there have been ludicrous attempts to control what goes into our school dinners and control the amount of trans -fats etc. How about we reintroduce this concept of personal responsibility rather than the state telling people what to do, thats to say, you eat in moderation, you don't need to state to come in with their size 10 shoes and all the costs involved, telling you we are going to ban these foods, it is counterproductive and people rightly will want two stick two fingers up at the oppressors telling you what do.

So my proposal to save some money getting rid of all these Government quangos trying to tell us how to live our lives and in the midst increasing state dependency, destroying peronsal responsibility, and increasing state intervention in our lives. So get rid of Alcohol Concern, Action on Smoking and Health, Consensus Action on Salt and Health. That would save millions of pounds. On top of this they could cut the ludicrous amount of tax on petrol- which is harming our road haulier industry which we need to stimulate and get rid of the ludicrous supertax on cider as well as not even contemplating minimum alchohol pricing. On top of this, cut the number of speed cameras in half. There i've saved millions of pounds in waste we do not need, whilst giving people more of a say in life, and if this coalition government truly believes in less state interference, more freedom and cutting the deficit then the good place to start is here.

stand up for Britain's Interests Mr Cameron

2010-06-11T14:00:00.003+01:00

mr cameron it is time for you to stick up for britain and stop sucking up to barack obama, his anti english jibes in relation to BP are disgenous, damaging our pensioners. Obama is using a major crisis for electoral tactics because he fears the way he has dealt poorly with the crisis will damage him in the midterms and conveniently forgets the role of haliburton who was involved in the cementing work on the seabed, transocean the american company owning and running the rig, and Cameron International US -manufactueres for the failed blow out preventer which was meant to contain any oil spill. In other words BP has disproportionately taken a kicking from the President. Find your voice Mr cameron if your truly ruling in the interests of Britain. I found it worrying that so far all we have heard is mr hague saying he has heard no sense of anti-british sentiment from the american government on the BP oil disaster, sorry Mr Hague, you must be hearing different things to the rest of us.

If Obama keeps criticising Britain, i remind him of the words Bhopal and Agent Orange, and would remind MR obama that BP have done more than the american government and companies ever did for example in Bhopal. Truly this is a case of double standards. Also a point of clarity for the american administration its Beyond Petroleum it hasn't been called british petroleum for years, so stop this xenophobia. Boris was right to say there is a worrying level of anti british sentiment from the American Government, Cameron needs to follow suit.

this american government from the response to the Argentinian government's belligerent stance on the Falklands, to BP etc seems to be doing the best to destroy the special relationship which I truly believe in. If Cameron doesn't stand up robustly to Obama now, the damage done will be irreparable, as the american government will realise that there is no point in the relationship when they can get away with ignoring its rules. No relationship however strong, can survive when one side is acting like they want a divorce.

The EU - Undemocratic, wasteful and anti National Self-Determination- Time to get out

2010-06-09T13:18:00.004+01:00

Its funny i didn't used to be a fully blown eurosceptic, i truly believed with some reforms and through tinkering round the edges and getting some powers back we could get the EU to work in the interests of Britain. However the EU's actions on the lisbon treaty, which by the way according to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs select committee is 95% the same as the constitutional reform treaty which was voted down in referendums by dutch and french voters. Clearly then democracy means nothing to the EU, this is worsened by the fact that when Ireland had the temerity to vote no, they were forced to hold another referendum, and in the UK we were stopped from having a referendum because we would give the wrong answer. We give billions a year to the EU, yet it is one of the most wasteful institutions ever, it hardly ever signs off its audit books as its former auditor and now member of Ukip Marteas Andreassen Highlights, and if you think are expenses scandal are bad, you should just look at the EU parliament. So on a cost/benefit analysis of the EU, it is not value for money.

Also as a person who strongly supports national self determination everywhere, the EU undermines national sovereignty and in particular within this parliamentary sovereignty. The Lisbon treaty process crystalised this for me, the EU couldn't care about nations, or democracy and couldn't care about how much money they wasted as long as they moved forward in its vision of a EU superstate. Therefore the conservative/libdem coalition government's approach of getting a few powers back here or there, simply will not do, the only way we can get out of this nightmare is through pulling out.

we need an in/out referendum on the EU it is scandalous we waste money on this undemocratic institution who doesn't trust britain to govern itself. Just look at how it is trying to oversight our own budget, because they do not trust our own national government who we elected, to run their own budget, they the EU commission who no one elected thinks they can do it better.

Additionally EU law which we have hardly any say in and often originates from the secretive commission overrides parliamentary law, this damages parliamentary sovereignty and the only way we can stop this is pulling out of the EU. This is something the conservative right needs to unite behind - recent polls said if there was an in/out referendum over 50% would vote to pull out - we on the right believe in giving the people more power from government and therefore politicians need to realise they are out of step with the British public in supporting continued membership of the EU. It is what the british people want, and in the constitutional reform bill we should push for an in/out referendum. This is because in my mind all the constitutional reform in the bill, doesn't matter whilst we remain a member of the EU which ignores democracy and national self determination.

in summary the EU costs us loads, overides our own laws which our parliamentarians voted on and damages the UK. The conservative right needs to speak with a clear voice on this and I look forward to excellent new independent minded MPs like Mark Reckless uniting the conservative right behind this cause being a nuisance to the government who has not taken a strongly eurosceptic line, and calling Cameron out on trying to ignore the elephant in the room that being the EU.

the coaltion and even Vince Cable advocate public sector pay restraint

2010-06-03T09:24:00.000+01:00

Its not stretching the truth, to say I am not Vince Cable biggest fan, from his soaking the rich strategy, to flip-flopping on all the major issues, to being the architect behind the capital gains tax rise, Vince cable has been in my view on the wrong side of the political debate.

So today it is good for him to realise and talk about public sector pay cuts saying it is necessary from top to bottom, as well as more transparency in whitehall so we the public can see what we are paying for and whether they are worth it. In these areas it is a good start from the coalition from cameron's attack on the ludicrous pay packets for the civil servants, to pickles tackling of the quangos and local government executive pay- unlike Labour the coalition seems to realise that public sector pay has been over the top and needs to be constrained.

to read a good post on Cable's common sense approach -which hopefully he will follow through on, on public sector pay and comparing it to Labour's disastrous public sector pay policy please go to http://networkedblogs.com/4rXBI- it comes from the freedom association

Why the international media and governments got it wrong on the Gaza Flotilla

2010-06-03T08:57:00.000+01:00

There is an excellent post by Alistaire De Kare Silver from the centre for social cohesion, on why rather than blaming Israel, everyone needs to look at who is really to blame for all of this and the suffering of the palestinian people - namely Hamas.

http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/blog/2010/06/humanitarian-aid-or-political-agenda.html
heres the excellent post I urge you to read it.

Why There Is A Blockade on the Gaza Strip

2010-05-31T12:28:00.003+01:00

it needs to remembered why their is a partial blockade on Gaza. In a perfect world both Israel and Egypt wished they wouldn't have to enact a blockade on Gaza but unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world. It must be remember since Israel left the Gaza Strip in 2005 with hopes of peace, in return it received more than 10,000 rockets and terrorist attacks.

Constantly when Israel has opened the borders in Gaza, rather than food and fuel going in, which may be needed, Hamas instead, showing that in reality it couldn't give two figs about the palestinian people, smuggles weapons in, all sorts of ammmunition, and has even been known to hide in sugar packets ammonium nitrae,and also uses building materials such as pipes to use in mortar bombs and rockets. Therefore the whole point of the blockade, jointly carried out by Israel and Egypt I must add, although strangely enough you do not hear much condemnation of Egypt, is there to stop attacks on Israeli Civilians, it is there to weaken a terorist movement in Hamas. If Hamas stopped trying to smuggle in weapons to attack Israeli civilians there would be no need for the blockade and Israel would stop it.

Additionally it is important to remember that it is only a partial blockade, Israel still provides at least by conservative estimates about 15,000 tons of supplies and humanitarian aid every week to the people of Gaza. Not only this but there are often even in times of war, treatment of gaza civilians in Israeli Hospitals, hardly the actions of a callous government. Indeed to prove this Israel has said that it will deliver any humanitarian aid to Gaza, as it does daily. This has all meant that since the ceasefire in January 2009 well over a million tons of humanitarian supplies entered Gaza from Israel. That is almost a ton of aid for each man, woman and child in the Strip. Indeed Israel even offered to help the Gaza Flotilla with its goods through offering to accommodate them in any way possible, and deliver the donated goods through Ashdod, using normal search procedures. The activists rejected the offer. Clearly petty political games, are more important than aid to Gaza.

Due to the obvious tight security checks about anything coming into Gaza any illegal entry of a vessel into waters, would be checked and this was indeed what Israel intended to do, again as all part of the security measures they have had to initiate thanks to Hamas. If the flotilla was peaceful they would have been fine, but as highlighted in my previous post they were not.

Its also important to note as highlighted by Tom Gross that everything you hear about the blockade and the continued lack of goods in Gaza may be stretching to this-to learn about this go to http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/001114.html.

the truth about the gaza flotilla and why it got attacked.

2010-05-31T12:11:00.004+01:00

Unfortunately yesterday morning in the early morning at least 10 israeli soldiers were wounded, and 10 violent protestors on the free gaza boat were killed.

If you listened to the media, or indeed politicians from across the world, this is all Israel's fault and only Israel is in the wrong. If you wanted to highlighted how bias the media is against Israel, there reporting of this incident, without a semblance of even trying to look at both sides of the arguments highlights this.

It needs to be remembered that this boat, far from containing a load of peaceful but nutty leftwing protestors, is not the case. If this was the case they would not have initiated the figting against Israel, or indeed attacked members of the Israeli Army. Like any nation Israel through its army has the right to defend itself and this needs to be remembered. When an army is attacked it has to respond and this is what the Israeli Army, did, there needed to be no bloodshed and no casualties if the Israeli army hadn't been attacked with knifes and guns on the boat. Israel did not want this after all the transport minister from the Labour Pary Binyamnin Ben-Eliezer said on behalf of Israeli government said we certainly regret the loss of life. Looking at it from this angle, the protestors don't seem to be the peaceful angels they are being portrayed as. In all of this Mark Regev the Israeli Spokesman was right to say that Unfortunately this group were dead-set on confrontation," Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev told the BBC. "Live fire was used against our forces. They initiated the violence, that's 100% clear," he said.

Secondly my suspcicions were raised when it said one of the protestors seriously wounded, was a senior member of the Islamic Movement Raed Saleh, the Islamic Movement by any counts is an islamic extremist organisation with links to terrorism, they get much of its support from the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is one of its offshoots, this group is constantly trying to enflame tensions between jews and muslims in Jerusalem as well as constantly producing anti-semitic bile. The so-called idea of peaceful protestors for me goes out of the window, when you have members of a terrorist group onboard. Additionally the turkish government's involvement need to be looked at as a writer for MidEast on target, Yisrael Neeman was right to say that "Erdogan is outwardly supporting Hamas over Fatah. Had he supported the PA and Fatah he would have shipped all the humanitarian equipment to them and had Fatah take the credit for its distribution. Instead he decided on a clash with Israel using his own Turkish Muslim Brotherhood supporters from the IHH (the so-called relief agency with reported ties to Islamic terror organizations) in an effort to undermine those in a state of peace with Israel and the Fatah led PA who presently are attempting to arrive at a two state solution with the Jewish State. It is just another example of the turkish government's involvement in the last couple of years with islamic extremists.

The protestors were not peaceful, they contained members with strong links with Islamic Extremist groups, by their actions they did nothing to help the people of Gaza, and they caused the attack on the boat.

the telegraph claims its first scalp in the honourable David Laws

2010-05-31T11:30:00.005+01:00

The hounding of david laws by the telegraph is disgraceful

no.1 - the implications on his sexuality have nothing to do with them. he should be allowed to have a private life,I could not care if he is gay, straight or bi-sexual -white, black, muslim, asian or jew or whatever religion or nationality or indeed no religion, as long as he has the qualities and expertise to be good at his job that he clearly did. Yet the telegraph seemed to make this the crux of his story - clearly David Laws wanted to keep his relationship private he didn't even tell his family, he should have been allowed to do. Also he did not have a conventional relationship like some partners they were not joined by the hip and they had separate bank accounts and there own lives- why again the telegraph made a big deal out of this is beyond me unless of course they want to wreck the coalition and couldn't care about reporting well informed news.

no. 2- he has acknowledged his mistakes, referred himself to the parliamentary commissioner and is already repaying the full amount, showing his humility a degree of class and what a genuine bloke he is. This quality for me shines through, when you compare him to many in the expenses scandal, much worse than him such as for example the odious Elliot Morley or Julie Kirkbride who were not willing to own up to their mistakes or resign until pushed. I'm not saying what David Laws did was right, but he has acknowledged it and his claims were not terrible. Not only this, maybe it will make us realise that Politicians are human beings with all their frailties too, something the expenses scandal -which in my opinion is now being mightily overblown by the telegraph, to try and paint every politician as a crook seem to forget. Yes there were some bad eggs and the telegraph was right to expose them, but the telegraph has gone and hounded to far, acting more like a salacious tabloid, then a quality broadsheet.

no.3- David Laws has started excellently at his job, being honest with the people about the scale of cuts. In the 17 days of the job, he showed up Liam byrne for the fool he was, with his disgusting note to him, and did more than his labour counterpart did in three years. When he spoke to the house of commons, his delivery was masterful and was better i must admit then a lot on the frontbench. you only have to hear his great response to a Labour question, saying that we have a different view to labour and dont believe that the state is always right and should always be involved and we want to devolve power to communities and the localities - to understand that for him this is what held true -just as the coalition thought. He also was ready to take a scalpel to public spending, cutting the neccessary waste, and the plans he set out were credible to do this. As someone who has always been on the right of the liberal democrats as his involvement with the right wing orange book club within the Libdems shown, he was never one of the slippers and sandals brigades on the Liberal Democrats, in fact two years ago we tried to get him to join the Conservatives but he honourably said no. As the Shadow liberal democrat education spokesman, he helped formulate the excellent pupil's premium ideas, as well as supporting the idea of free schools - on the basis of Sweden. Laws was a reformer who thought radically and I truly think the coalition will be worse for losing him. I look forward to his intelligent interventions on the backbenches in support of the coalition,and hope to see him back on the frontbenches soon - the coalition certainly could do a lot worse.

The telegraph on the other hand, once a fine newspaper, is not simply reporting the news anymore it is trying to make it. Not only have they apart from the odd article from Boris Johnson, written nothing but negative dribble about the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, rather than having a nuanced perspective looking at both sides of the argument, they have also in the past offered nothing but negativity about David Cameron. I have no problem with this but for a quality newspaper they have to at least have a semblance of showing both sides of the arguments,as well as not blowing the expenses scandal out of all proportion like they did. From now on in I will not consider buying the telegraph or reading it online until this is sorted out.

so my two messages are good luck to laws, and sort yourself out telegraph.

farage the hypocrit.

2010-02-27T11:41:00.001Z

I agree with Nigel farage that Herman van rompuy is a non entity and im eurosceptic although not to the extent of UKIP, however farage is a hypocrit, he hates the EU apparently so much so, that he takes a 64,000 salary and 2 million in expenses- hypocritcal nigel?

if mossad was behind the operation, Israel cocked up

2010-02-27T10:36:00.008Z

First things first, lets remember something which the liberal media mainly the guardian , independent and BBC seem to forget, namely that the Hamas operative killed in Dubai was not a nice man, innocent or a little guy in the operations of Hamas.Mahmoud al-Mabhouh had blood on his hands, he had killed 2 israeli soldiers in the past and was smuggling weapons from Iran into Gaza, he was to all intents and purposes a terrorist. It was also wrong of Sarkozy to call the killing of this terrorist cold blooded murder, murder happens to an innocent person and a hamas operative isn't innocent. I will therefore shed no tears for this guy being dead, it means millions of israelies can live easier at night with one more enemy out of the way, although i feel arresting him would have been a better choice.

However the operation in Dubai was a complete and utter farce, ill planned, ill thought out and sure to cause diplomatic outrage with countries such as Britain and Australia who have been loyal friends of Israel, whilst giving succour to Israel's enemy's everywhere.If this was done by Mossad Israel has a lot of explaining to do. 22 years ago israel promised to stop using British passports for operations, yet today, 12 innocent israelis who have dual citizenship with Britain had their passports stolen and pinched and doctored without their knowledge, or indeed even the British Government's knowledge. That is simply wrong and the UK is right to demand an apology and an explanation as well as an investigation if it was Israel. You simply dont do that to a trusted ally , or put Israeli lives in dangers by using their dual citizenship against them. Seriously if this was mossad 26 faked passports from germany, france, ireland, australia and the UK - was this really neeeded to kill one man -slightly over the top me thinks. Not only this now every israeli citizenship will be supected of being a double of agent, and mossad's freedom of manouvre will be decreased, and israel faces the threat of world isolation. At the UNGA; Israel just lost ten votes including - Gosh! - the UK, Ireland, and France, who voted AGAINST the Israeli line, and Germany and Australia, who both abstained. Israel's allies our dropping like nine pins.

then their is the operation itself, anyone with half a brain knows dubai is one of the most security concious countries everywhere, with nearly as many cctv cameras a wealthy businessman. Yet precautions to hide the spy's identies if it was mossad seemed incredibly lax, they might as well have waved to the camera and said im going to kill a hamas operative. Not so much cloak and daggers more like keystone cops.

then their was the response after the killing the increasingly belligerent, racist far right Avigdor Lieberman with a large case of foot and mouth and who is reprehrensibly Israel's foreign minister basically told all his allies smugly he couldn't care if the killing had broken diplomatic protocol and Israel's allies should just fall into line and praise israel, making an already tense situation even worse. When one of the most pro israel papers in the australian turns against israel and says never do this to us again, you know Israel's diplomacy at this important time is rubbish.

then their is the position of Binyamin Netanyahu. In his first time in office in 1998 their was the botched Khelaad Mashal operation and now this. Once is an accident, twice suggests a seriously lack of oversight by the prime minister. The mossad chief needs to be fired for his incompetence by Netanyahu or Netanyahu should do the honourable thing and resign for not controlling mossad. He apparently thinks a major diplomatic crisis wont happen, well i'm sitting and looking at it, as Israel one by one is losing their best allies under netanyahu due to the beligerency of this government's policy abroad first turkey and now Britain and Australia. Tsipi Livni all is forgiven!

i really hope this isn't mossad, the operation seems so botched for an intelligence service whos meant to be an envy of the world.

Treatment for Cancer patients at home

2010-02-08T11:06:00.002Z

The title suggests that Gordon Brown in domestic Policy has finally come up with a great idea to help us out of the recession. Apparently every cancer patient will receive one to one care at their home if the Labour Party is elected for the next general election. It sounds like a good idea although like most labour election pledges it will probably only be short term and is an effect an attempt to buy voters off. Unfortunately we then need to remember the state of the public finances and suddenly it doesn't seem like good idea to increase public sector debt even further on an unfunded and unfeasible plan. In fact it looks downnright dangerous.

Then Unfortunately you remember we're 150 Billion in Debt and thats not including the £100 Billion public sector pension's timebomb, or the £50 Billion or so PFI debt which is not even on the books. With this in mind where is Gordon Brown going to get the cash for this policy to become viable. Is he seriously considering adding even further to the debt, when it is already the size of the US deficit which may i add has a lot more people and is much larger than the UK. Well it seems that he's pretty set on this policy so obviously so, which will lead to more taxes to the hard suffering taxpayer in the future. This is because according to most estimates this plan will cost at least £100 Million and where exactly with the level of debt are meant to magic this money from.

What gordon brown really needs to do is cut spending so we can finally get to the grips with the gigantic black hole in debt we are facing, but unfortunately Gordon Brown is like an addict to spending and no matter what you say to him like an alcoholic he just will not give the poison up.

The EU president: Value For Money? no way

2010-01-05T09:24:00.003Z

its nice to know that a position which is pointless, that no one wanted, and is introduced as part of an unpopular treaty where the EU leaders at large showed their disdain for democracy is costing 300 million a year for taxpayers. Thats 50 Million a year more then the American President costs the USA taxpayer.

For 300 Million a year, you'd expect an all singing all dancing famous statesman as President for the EU, and who have the EU got Mr Herman Van Rompuy- well known to no one outside Belgium.

Prince Charles doesn't know what he's talking about

2010-01-04T16:38:00.004Z

in recent comments leaked to the News of the World, Prince Charles has landed the blame for all the islamic unrest in the world to the israeli palestinian conflict. Not only this but apparently the reason their is no peace in the middle east is the israeli -palestinian conflict. He goes on from this blaming the american and british government's support for israel as the main source for the islamic unrest in the world, and the fuelling of islamic extremism.

This is an incredulous claim, and it's a load of rubbish
1. 9/11 - had nothing to do with the israeli palestinian conflict - it was carried about by islamic extremists who dont like the western liberal way of life
2. Their was unrest in the arab world even before israel existed - so israel did not create this
3. The arab states even when israel has existed have caused muslim unrest themselves -look for example of how syria killed 3,000 muslims in hamla, how the lebananese government treats palestinian refugees
4. What has calling for sharia law got to do with the israeli palestinian conflict - a key demand of islamic extremists.

5. Very often unrest in the islamic world is the arab governments disgraceful treatment of its citizens from saudi arabia to egypt.

Quite simply israel is used as a smokescreen by islamic extremists, they would still be there attacking the west if israel didn't exist. Sayed Qutb the father of modern islamic extremism created it as an ideology to attack the west and moderate islam - and yes part of this goal was focused on destroying israel but it was not the end goal. It was also not the source of islamic unrest in the world.

Oh and another thing, look at your mother charles, who does a great job as queen, because as is constitutionally allowed, she is meant to be completely neutral. From the environment, to medicine, to the economy , to foreign policy, you have hardly been neutral Prince Charles, so i advise you to stop damaging the monarchy and shut up - because a - your meant to be neutral and B - as shown here very often your opinions are ill informed.

A story the news wont tell you about.

2009-12-25T14:53:00.002Z

According to the media in the UK, Israel is constantly collectively punishing the palestinians, whilst the rest of the world wails about this supposed injustice. Neither of these statements are true.

In Lebanon, you will be automatically put in a refugee camp if you are palestinian, you will not be allowed to leave this refugee camp, and you will not be able to get a profession or occupation. On top of this there unemployment is much higher, they face discrimination in all walks of life, and are not represented in the Lebanese parliament, mainly because they cannot vote. Compare this to Israel, where in the west bank Israel has helped in the past year through the removal of 100s of checkpoints, which has led to 7% growth in the west bank, they can go to the supreme court, where if they so wish they can complain about their treatment, there are elections they can vote in for the palestinian authority, and their water and electricity is provided. This is not to say the situation is perfect it is not, their is discrimation, but it is not on the same level as Lebanon, and constantly Israel is trying to improve the situation.

Often israel is compared to apartheid south africa, this is not true in any way shape or form, if you really want to see a situation where apartheid is practiced on the palestinians look no further then Lebanon.This is disgusting and out and out discrimination yet you do not hear the so called pro palestinian movement talking about this as they are too busy trying to deligitimise Israel, then look at the facts.

Apparently it was just the right who thought the PSBR report was awful according to Polly toynbee

2009-12-14T15:24:00.003Z

the bastion of the left and guardian columnist and new labour luvvie Polly Toynbee blames the Right wing newspapers for their negative report on the PSBR(pre budget report). From my perspective i can see how any newspaper of any political persuasion would find it hard to defend a budget which will leave us in trilllions of pounds of debt, where political bribes are put ahead of necessary spending cuts as the treasury department v prime minister's office row showed, where everyone gets taxed to the hilt, and enterprise is discouraged. If Polly had bothered to check as Conservative home have helpfully shown -the guardian equally criticised the PSBR report.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/leftwatch/2009/12/does-polly-toynbee-read-the-guardian.html

So universal agreement that this government's economic policy is a complete disaster. NOW when it gets to may lets kick this morally banrupt government out of power.

The disappointment for conservatives in Nicholas sarkozy

2009-12-14T15:06:00.002Z

When Sarkozy became President of France in 2007, British Conservatives finally thoughy france had realised that gaullism with it's brand of statism and corruption didn't work. We hailed the french thatcher who would let the market rip, and turn france into a supporter of the UK and America. We saw him as principled and willing to defend capitalism, unfortunately as time and Conservative Home higlight, we've ended up with a man who has a french napoleon concept- who wants to destroy the city of london, end free market capitalism, is best friends with Gaddafi and wants a european superstate. He once and for all shows why conservatives need to stay principled and not retreat to the language of the left.

-Here's the conservative home article:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/international/2009/12/the-ideological-confusion-of-nicolas-sarkozy.html

Ben Bradshaw's distasteful remarks

2009-11-19T17:44:00.002Z

When the bbc rejected the gaza disaster appeal -due to their belief in political neutrality there was a hornets nest of disgust - saying the bbc was pro israel etc - this is the same organisation though who as i have showed on my blog is steadfastly pro israel.

I did not know then but do know now, that the culture secretary ben bradshaw says israel has a long reputation for bullying the BBC. this is a disgusting statement for a start israel is a democracy and therefore doesn't bully news organisations and it has a free independent media - and does not tell any media organisations what to say. Secondly the BBC has a history of being vehemently anti israel- as the hushed up balen report showed. Thirdly his calling of israel as a bully shows his own political bias.

A response to pierre Lellouche criticism of cameron's eurosceptic position.

2009-11-05T10:32:00.001Z

Actually, Lellouche, what is pathetic is a government holding a referendum on the EU Constitution and then ignoring the "no" vote - not even bothering to hold a referendum a second time- like you made the irish do.

As France did.

In fact, not only pathetic, but downright fraudulent.

but then the french view of the EU never wanted to include democracy in it.

why the mail is wrong, cameron right, and like usual the situation we find ourselves in is all the fault of the Labour Party

2009-11-05T10:13:00.002Z

the mail is not acting realistically. Unfortunately once the lisbontreaty is in law David Cameron can do no nothing about it, nor any conservative leader howevever eurosceptic they are. As far as i know after all no human can turn back time.

What is missing from the papers is that we shouldn't have got to this psotion in the first place, both the liberal democrats and labour party promised us a referendum on the Eu constitution which is substantially the same as the lisbon treaty -with the guarantees we negotiated being seen as quicksand - according to the house of commons foreign affairs select committee. If both lib dems and laboru had followed there manifesto promises and voted for a referendum in parliament the british people could have had there say- and the treaty may not have gone into law.

As it is, it has and cameron has no let matters lie -he is seeking to renogiate our relationship with europe on social, economic and asylum issues - which i fully support. He has also made it clear that pulling out is not an option-which once again i agree with as a eurorealist- i dont support a united states of europe however i support a european union of member states -and i believe if cameron battles on our behalf on the issues he has stated we can do this.

A Critique of Noam Chomsky - given before his satelite talk to leeds university Students-please read!

2009-10-28T07:33:00.005Z

If you listen to the leeds university department and the students, Noam Chomsky is the best thing since sliced bread, he's a true hero, who sticks it to those nasty countries, the United States and Israel, he's the only one brave enough to talk the truth, he's jewish- so he cant apparently be accused of anti semitism, and because he's left wing he's cool. Well im here to break it to you, this is a bunch of hogwash. Noam Chomsky, is a holocaust denying, rabble rousing, far left, defender of terrorists, anti semites who like's writing forewords for anti semites. You see it's not just the far right you have to watch with anti semitism it's the far left.

Those who defend Chomsky on the supporting of holocaust denying charge say to things
1. He cant be a supporter of the deniers he's jewish
2. He's Defending freedom of speech.

The reply's to this- Just because he's nominally jewish, doesn't mean he cant hate jews. to the second question, im a great supporter of freedom speech, from nick griffin's appearance on question time, to the mohammed cartoons, to david irving being put in jail - i supported the freedom of speech position on all of this, but this is nothing to do with freedom of speech. it is not giving publicity to a holocaust denier and therefore supporting him - to give you an example i will defend nick griffin's right to freedom of speech on question time -however i will not then go out of my way to write a preface to a publication or book he writes, because that is tantamount and can be seen as support of his ideas. are you that naive, im all for freedom of speech that is not what a foreword to a book is - a foreword to a book is support to that writer.

Then theres chomsky's pure undiluted anti semitism which alone should mean he shouldn't be treated seriously, and seen by the public as a crackpot in the same box as people such as Nick Griffin, yet perversely he's seen as a respected academic - if this isn't an example of how we are not targeting the far left's anti semitism, what is. This came from Noam Chomsky's Mouth-here is use of anti semitic language and please dont tell me this guy has been misquoted etc - after all he is a linguistics professor -here's the passage -We might ask how the Times would react to an Arab claim that the Jews do not merit a 'second homeland' because they already have New York, with a huge Jewish run population, Jewish-run media, a Jewish mayor, and domination of cultural and economic life. (1)
- that aint anti -zionism thats pure undiluted anti -semitism

Or how about his defence of terrorist groups like hamas. Apparently this is justified because these terrorist groups are anti-american. My reply to this is that, there is many ways of being anti american(which i dont support as im pro-american) which dont involve blowing yourself up. Also these extremist terrorist groups such as hezbollah deny the holocaust, say the jews committ blood libels, in the case of hezbollah, have al manar tv which has been banned in france due to it's anti semitic content, all whilst targeting innocent israeli civilians. Not exactly the group anyone from any side of the political spectrum you would of thought wanted to defend, yet good old Noam Chomsky has done so, apparently they should be allowed to have weapons, because there just so damn powerless without them. To quote Noam Chomsky on this argument that they should be in the hands of Hezbollah (the arms) as a deterrent to potential aggression, and there is plenty of background reasons for that.

It's nice to know the university seeks fit not to tell students about the real side to chomsky's character when talking about his tele-visual talk to the university, nope apparently he's a hero and a respected academic. Yep he is but only because no-one is allowed to challenge him , or has the guts to challenge him. Guess what he's not going to be debated on his talk either, giving it from soas a hotbed of far left activity he wont be challenged,and he cant be challenged by anyone on tele-visual where's he appearing at other univerisities cos guess what they can't ask him questions.But hang on i thought chomsky was meant to believe in freedom of speech obviously only when it suits him.

Good news from the latest opinion polls

2009-10-25T09:20:00.001Z

The Latest Opinion Polls from Ipsos Mori, ICM and Political Betting are out and there extremely positive for the Conservative Party. We now according to the opinion polls, have a 17 point lead, the Conservative Party being around 44%, Labour 27% and the Liberal Democrats 18%.

Of course as I’m sure Eric Pickles will remind us all, this is not a time to stop with the good work done through canvassing and leafletting and other forms of campaigning. However it does show that up to now that the Conservative Party is being seen as a genuine credible alternative to the Labour party.

Anyway guys read the opinion polls it will put a smile on your face. Here is the link: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/

Moving away from party political opinion polls, there was also a new poll on the general publics’ view on ID cards, which the Conservative party are implacably opposed to. The ICM poll found 38% thought that ID cards were a good idea with 62% being opposed to the idea. Public Opinion is changing on this and it seems here as with a lot of other areas the Conservative Party are winning the public argument.

Bob Crow couldn't care about the British Public

2009-10-10T15:47:00.003+01:00

the head of the RMT union - the transport union is millitant left ex communist Bob Crow- they were even seen as too left wing by Ken Livingstone who called them a protection racket".

Yet Bob crow is proud of the fact that this year alone due to this ludicrous ballot system and incomprohensible demands is that by september there have been 100 strike actions( having strike ballots)-when there is not even a justification to strike.- yet he wears this as a badge of honour he is proud of the fact. He doesn't seem to care about the 1000s of commuters lives he is making a misery, the amount of taxpayers money he is costing, the effect it is having on a transport system -as long as he purues his politcal agenda it seems he couldn't care that he is wreaking havoc on the british economy. Crow has said it's a human right to strike -yes if you have a general grievance but not as is most of the time with you, for no reason, then you are impinging on the human rights of the vast majority of british citizens.

Bob Crow is just a sympton of some of the union leaders who feel now with the economic downturn there time has come from transport, to bins, to post -strikes are happening galore-strong government is needed to stand up to the union leaders. It is not about being anti union- it is about being anti union-leaders - who act undemocraticaly and are acting against the vast majority of union members they are supposedly representing.

A riposte to maryam ahmed and the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign walked out on an israeli Palestinian talks

2009-10-09T17:29:00.004+01:00

Here's a message to those who walked out of an israeli-palestinian debate at the union-at the university of leeds. It's also a response to maryam ahmed who wrote to the student newspaper defending the actions of Palestinian Solidarity Campaign which i believe included herself.

1. The guy who defended israel was not israeli - are we now allowed to have people on
campus who defend the right of the state of israel- or do you call extreme allowing
israel's right to exist - and having a representative of the israeli government.

2. The palestine solidarity group -the speaker you wanted to bring in was a supporter
from hamas - you mention racism - yet Hamas is racist, sexist, anti semitic and
homophobic. They voice islamic extremism and last month kiled 50 palestinians for so
called collaboration with israelies. Do you support a hamas group -which says it wants to
throw all jews into the sea, who are sponsored by the leader of iran mahmoud ahmadenejad
who has denied the holocaust repeatedly. Are you really surprised then that the union
didn't support your choice - a guy who supports hamas -with all the problems that entails
-im not saying israel is always right-but im giving you the chance now loud and clear to
condemn hamas

3. You have used similar tactics before when lorna fitsimmons came to speak-she rightly
criticised islamic extremists -not muslims in general -but just the small minority of
extremists -yet you just ignored this and said she was islamaphobic -by virtue of this are
moderate muslims such as Ed Hussain, Shiraz Maher and stephen schwartz -islamaphobic and
self hating muslims

4. The panel was neutral -1 pro palestinian, 1 neutral, 1 pro israeli -what more do you
want. You criticise the israeli guy for defending israel-yet this was why he was bought -
let him do his job and then debate im -dont just walk out and act like a spoilt child

5. What happened in gaza wasn't a massacre-please may i remind you of the context a-
Israel for 4 years had had thousands of rockets fired at it - for no other reason then
they were israeli-the only reason the casualties were low was because the israeli
government unlike the palestinan government spent money on protecting it's citizens in
bomb shelters. If france constantly rocketed england - trying to kill as many civilians
as possible- would you expect the english government to do nothing. B-hamas hid in
civilian areas including in schools, hospitals and houses - they had people as young as
12 fighting for them , they fired from civilian areas and used civilians as human
shields, and dressed up in civilian clothes - it is therefore largely there fault for the
civilian deaths - they used civilians to protect themselves -and this led to deaths.
Still noone knows the exact number of dead but it was predicted around 800 of the 1200
deaths were hamas - yes the other 400 is to high but you have to put it in the context
that israeli army posted leaflets telling people to leave and phone calls before
strikes-hamas told them not to.

6. do you support the two state solution-like me - and yes i do think israel should get
out of the west bank - or do you just want israel not to exist whatsoever.

7. Do you recognise the jewish nature of the state of israel- just as im sure you would
recognise the muslim nature of saudi arabia.

8. You weren't prevented from taking part of the discussion -you walked out - what a
childish action. i cant help think you are insinuating that jack codd is biased through
doing this action hwich he isn't

9. are you taking the piss the palestinian voice is heard all the time from the un -to
the un palestinian refugees commission- yet my grandparents who were kicked out of iraq
because they were jewish and israel was created- along wth 750,000 others are ignored
-they dont have millions of pounds given to them, there plight is ignored, they dont have
international sympathy- or any redress from the crimes committed from arab governments.
It is the palestinian leadership which has failed the palestinian people- if in 2000 they
had accepted - barak's peace plan we would have never been in this mess -yet arafat chose
terrorism through the intifada.

10. It's not to do with racism or religion it's to do with land- a -yes israel should get
out of the west bank - b- recognition of a sovereign nation-ie israel which most arab
countries wont do or hamas - whilst that stays how can israel have peace with a group who
wants to kill them.

11. The comparison with south africa is rubbish -firstly israel has many black citizens
of its own, israel is not racist, yes they have made mistakes -but on the basis of trying
to defends its citizens - for example israeli arabs whilst by no means are there
conditions perfect-have the highest living standards in the arab world

12. What would a boycott actually achieve -you would make the israeli people more extreme
-and the groups you would be targeting like universities are the hub of the israeli peace
movement -way to have a non-joined up policy.

13. Some in your group shouted victory to the intifada -do you know how insulting this is
to jewish people -where hamas for example sat actively to kill as many people in israel
simply for being a jewish state.

- look forward to hearing a reply from you,

stephen hoffman

Cameron gave a speech worthy of a prime minister.

2009-10-09T15:28:00.002+01:00

Cameron was straight with the british people today, unlike Mr Gordon Brown who lives in cloud cuckoo land.

He was honest saying there would have to be cuts and pain for the british people -but in the long run - it would be for the benefit of the british people - something gordon brown with his head buried in the sand won't acknowledge.

Cameron also gave a great speech ideologically - saying that unlike we conservatives oppose big government, because we believe in people power, and also we don't believe that everything can be solved by the state.

Finally he attack labour on the traditional labour territory-helping the poor they haven't done this and a conservative government will.

Look No Further than Boris Mayoralship of London to look at what a succesfull tory government will look like

2009-10-05T17:51:00.002+01:00

Days after Boris was elected to mayor of London Ken Livingstones arrogantly had t-shirts which said "Dont Blame me i voted for ken"

Well Since that moment Boris has done a brilliant job as London Mayor. In unpopular times -he has made the tough decisions to depend the city of london which despite the credit crunch - conservatives believe and indeed i believe is still the motor of the british economy both in terms of wealth and taxation. In doing so he has stood up to the EU who have tried to tame the city of london so they get a competitive advantage-Cameron just like Boris will stand up to the EU -when they are working against British Interests. .In a time when supporting free trade and capitalism has been unpopular -Boris has stood up for free trade -which gives us innovation, competition, lower prices and more choice for the people.

Boris has like the conservatives will do made the tough choices on public Spending. After the glut of spending left by the irresponsible socialist spending policies of Ken Livingstone and his cronies -Boris had to cut spending and he has done fast. By doing this boris has proved the old lie wrong that cutting spending will cut services, or rising taxes. None of this has happened,in fact it just cuts bureaucracy which helps frontline services.Through winning this argument boris has provided a blueprint for the Conservative Cameron Government-if it gets to power to follow. According to Paul Waugh - Boris has cut the following:Cutting 1,000 admin jobs have gone at London Underground following the integration with Metronet, saving £570 million
* Cutting "several hundred" more posts elsewhere across TfL
* Saving £220 million from consultants bills
* £400 million from switching to more efficient computer systems
* £130 million from moving staff out of central London to cheaper premises in Southwark and North Greenwich.
* £185 million from re-negotiating the Oyster ticketing contract alone. A further £240 million from changes to contracts linked to the c-charge and low emission zone
* £200 million cut in marketing and press budget, redirected to fund extra police on Tubes and buses.
* Pay for senior staff has been frozen and bonuses cut, and the pay settlement for most staff will "reflect the economic realities being faced by millions of Londoners".

-not a bad list.

And in the words of Boris Johnson if i can make cuts in city hall, George Osbourne can make cuts in whitehall.

Under boris crime has reduced, transport is slowly improving, and spending has been put under control -the same is what the Conservatives will want to do if they get to power.

The conservatives are the party of reform.

2009-10-05T17:36:00.002+01:00

To leading the way on the expenses scandal, to elected police chief, to elected mayors, and more power to local people, to decentralisation, to cutting the number of members of parliament and to reforming the public sector, to biting the bullet unlike the labour on welfare-the Conservatives under the leadership of David Cameron are the party of reform.

No more was this in evidence than George Young's speech saying how through reform parliament can onc3e again regain it's honour after the expenses debacle. Under a Conservative government no more will backbenchers will be ignored but they will get a real say- this will happen through backbenchers havingpower over what and when they debate, instead of the Executive having sole control over the whole Commons agenda.The Executive under labour has guillotined too many laws -and Cameron will readress this. Along with this the executive will no longer be able to guillotine bills -as for example they did on the Lisbon treaty. Then we can have real interesting and lively debate in the house of commons which the conservatives will be at the heart of

The regional select comittees who have been such a waste of money wil be abolished -they have achieved nothing and have just been a talking shop.

Select committees which have done a vital job in holding the government account will have more power -through having unwhipped elections. With more power - you will have a greater level of scrutiny of the government which is good for democracy.

The number of people in parliament for starters will be cut by 10% -to save us the British taxpayer money.

Not just this but for the first time in history the conservatives are considering giving people a real say in the legislation process. they are considering after a second reading of a bill -and before the select comittee stage- the public will get a say in laws which effects them. This is another example of the tories giving people real power.

To sum up the people want change from a tired, lieing, incompetent,unaccountable, unelected - in the cases of brown and mandelson, government - the conservatives through there packages of reforms offer this- Vote For Change -Vote for the conservative party.

biased bbc anyone?

2009-10-04T16:18:00.005+01:00

1. For starters Andrew Marr interrupted David much more on average than Brown and Clegg

2. What has Cameron's wealth got to do with his ability to govern-Churchill had a lot of money , thatcher not so much -none of it made a difference so why the question-and again why when voters meet Margot James the tory candidate for stourbrdige go on about her wealth. It's about ability not how much your worth -someone should tell the BBC is. Also they dont seem to go on about wealthy labour mps

3. Fox hunting -with all the other issues around, ie welfare, afghanistan, the economy etc -why give a full feature to this on the politics show- it is not a matter of national importance.

Gordon Brown Decides to be part of a tv leaders debate

2009-10-03T18:58:00.002+01:00

get your popcorn ready ladies and gentleman, get ready for a real good laugh because Gordon Brown that awesome debater is going to debate cameron and clegg. Tissues at the ready to wipe the tears of laughter.

This is a godsend for the tories, Gordon Brown will show himself to be the angry out of touch, out of control dictatorial style leader that he is.

Well actually to say gordon brown will be involved in an american style leader debate may be a bit strong -after all brown has said he will only accept a leadership debate on his own terms. So it could end up being a bit like the labour leadership debate there was meant to be - Gordon brown will try and bully anyone who dares challenge him and end up just debating his own reflection- even though would be great - the contradictions of the man will rise to the surface.

Netanyahu churchillian speech to the UN.

2009-09-27T21:29:00.002+01:00

Go to the link here - where Netanyahu stands up to ahmadenejad who denies the holocaust and for the UN for letting Ahmadjenejad spew anti semitism-and for the UN bias against israel - this is all true -please here this excellent churchilian speech. Say this to ahmadenejad and all those others who deny the Holocaust in the words of Binyamin Netanyahu IS THIS A LIE ! here is the you tube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wyWDvjftlk

the union leaders on another planet

2009-09-17T10:27:00.002+01:00

if you want to hear good old headbanging leftwing old labour go no nearer than the trade union conference.

apparently according to them we can spend, spend, spend , tax , tax, tax , nationalise everything and we will all be ok and the recession will end sooner- unless those nasty tories get in of course.

In the real world - the truth wide ranging cuts need to happen in all areas of government , the size of the public sector needs to be cut, the salaries of those in the public sector needs to be frozen, and final salary pensions abandoned, - if you cut spending you can cut taxes, which will stimulate the economy. In the words of the meerkats - Simmpless.

the trade unions wouldn't matter of course accept due to the money they give to the labour party, Gordon brown despite protesting would meet there demands. Thats why you need a conservative government independent of the unions, so they can make the tough decisions.

Sir Terry Wogan is right - Newsreaders do have an easy job

2009-09-03T13:43:00.002+01:00

Well someone had to burst the baloon which is newsreader's pomposity. these people who think they are amazingly talented and then will appear on programs so everyone can hear there so called superior opinion - george alagiah -with his food documentary for starters.

but honestly newsreading easy - i mean you have to be a complete idiot to not be able to look presentable and read an autocue - a chimp could do it -and they cost a darnsite less then news reporters.

In other words its not rocket science so just get on with it

-heres the article -with terry wogans views http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8235462.stm

more left of centre thinking by the bbc

2009-07-27T17:29:00.002+01:00

as im sure you'll aware ben stephenson a bbc bigwig recently got in trouble in a guardian article when he said the bbc needed more left of centre thinking. - what my reply to this is there can hardly been any more left of centre thinking then there already is.

Look no further then this left of centre thinking then new labour luvvie James Naughtie - who in an article on the bbc internet site oozes love for the danish system of loads of benefits high taxes and big public sector. well of course like everything theres achievement but james only looks at the achievements and doesn't bother looking at the negatives. After all why bother when your trying to get a political point across, why bother looking at the other side. All you simply had to do james was look at another country who used to be like denmark high public spending , high taxes etc - it was britain in the 50s and 60s and by common consensus it was an utter failure.

Another highlight of bbc's left of centre thinking was with the excellent program the death of respect. documentary made by the respected panorama documentary person john ware it touched on the areas of support for marriage, tough on crime , the lack of communities, the lack of civility in britain - it was a program which for a change done by the bbc which wasn't from a left of centre perspective. So like any documentary like a panorama program it was on prime time right - errm well no. Because of it's political viewpoints or the bbc said it was controversial( ie it doesn't fit are left wing agenda) it was put on at the ungodly hour of 11.30 - is it not surprising therefore that viewing figures were low.

this would be hilarious if the taxpayers weren't paying for all this. In my view unless the bbc actively becomes neutral the licence fee should be scrapped and the bbc privatised. then they can be as left wing as they like -because i wont be paying for it

Belgian MEP calls opponents of Lisbon Treaty Stupid

2009-07-03T08:04:00.002+01:00

if nothing else could show how opposed to democracy fanatical EU enthusiasts are, there opposition to the No side on the Lisbon treaty and indeed a referendum shows it. It is a perfectly reasonable opinion to be opposed to a lisbon which many feel including myself will take power away from people and give it to EU wide bodies, leading to a European superstate which many don't want - i would prefer an intergovernmental EU where nations work together - and therefore states keep it's powers and choose where to work and co-operate. with this in mind i feel there should be no more EU integration - because i believe that would be damaging to member states interests and give more power to unaccountable EU wide bodies -which would damage democracy.

Yet Apparently me and many others who take this perfectly reasonable views are apparently stupid and stupid for wanting a referendum. This is taken by a cheerleading supporter of further EU integration Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck. So apparently we're stupid for supporting democracy and having minds and opinions of our own - and my own riposte and you wonder why people are Eurosceptic and sceptical of the lisbon treaty?- the sheer disregard shown to anyone who has a different opinion is breathtaking.

U turn on Post offices is wrong and misplaced

2009-07-03T07:15:00.002+01:00

So Gordon brown has capitulated to the left of his party who once more score another blow for nationalisation and a return to the bad old days of the past where nearly everything is nationalised.

Whilst people go on and say look royal mail was making a profit they forget some main reasons why royal mail at least needed to be privatised or at least partially privatised. There is a looming pensions crisis in royal mail , due to final salary pensions - this we the taxpayer our propping up whilst Gordon Brown got rid of the tax incentive on them in the late 1990s so private firms can no longer afford them. So taxpayers were royally stuffed by Gordon Brown. Going back to royal mail with this looming pensions crisis the debt facing royal mail and therefore the taxpayer will be staggering it therefore needs to be privatised to relieve the taxpayer.

Secondly it is unfair that royal mail is protected from competition ie from TNT -this means they are not pushed to offer a better service and the customer-every houshehold in Britain has less choice, this is not a satisfactory situation

what the government has done is simply buried there heads in their hands and given up, there doing nothing about royal mail which will simply make the matter worse. They are choosing political positioning - so gordon brown can stay in his job and stop the left from rebelling against him , over the interest of the country when it is clear royal mail needs reforming. Whilst the decision to privatise or part privatise royal mail, may not be popular, it's something which needs to be done to help the country in the future.

The Furore over second Jobs is misplaced.

2009-06-25T10:07:00.003+01:00

Today the Daily Mail in it's infinite wisdom has said it will publish a story this month, which will show how scandalous MPS are, the only problem being the MPS are doing nothing wrong in the cases they are highlighting.

They are criticising people such as William Hague and Ken Clarke for having second jobs ie being non executive board members on firms and giving after dinner speeches. However there forgetting one important thing MPS having second jobs is costing the taxpayer no money, it is simply a way of MPS making money for there family in a legitimate money rather than through expenses biting the hand that feeds them the taxpayer. Secondly if anyone who has heard William Hague give after dinner speeches will attest to, people would lose out if he gave this up, and why should we the people be deprived of hearing a brilliant speaker.

Furthermore second Jobs gives MPS an experience of the real world, it gives them an expertise in areas they otherwise would not know about, in fact i would encourage as many mps as possible to have second jobs, firstly they would gain income so they would be less likely to claim expenses, and seondly they would get an experience of the real world. The issue is being pushed by Gordon Brown because not many labour mps especially cabinet ministers have second jobs, so it is a cynical attempt at a smear on the tories which unfortunately the Daily Mail is falling in to.

It also has to be rememebered that before politicians become MPS as parliamentary prospective candidates they have second jobs , they need this because by conservative estimates it costs 60,000 a year to be a parliamentary prospective candidate- money which has to be raised for the individual person. Therefore second jobs are clearly needed to pay for this. Thus when a parliamentary candidate wins a seat and becomes an MP, they will have second jobs and in many cases although i will accept not all it doesn't affect the quality of work in fact it enchances it.

so to finish off second jobs good, second homes bad.

Well Done Bibi

2009-06-14T21:07:00.003+01:00

Binyamin Netanyahu has just done a very hard thing especially for a man from the right of the israeli political spectrum ,a man who was opposed to pulling out of gaza, opposed to oslo ,and lets be honest said some pretty terrible thing about great peace loving israeli leaders such as yitshak rabin.

Yet today despite all of this and thanks in no small part to the insistence of Barack Obama , binyamin Netanyahu has accepted the principle of a palestinian state, he has accepted the principle of no new settlements. This man is no longer an extremist. To those who say the palestinian state will have nothing because it is demillitarised , this was a requirement from those on the left of the politcal spectrum , from rabin , barak and now netanyahu , of course Israeli leader do not want a fully millitarised state by it's borders who will have elements in their leadership still seeking the destruction of the State of Israel.

The palestinian leadership responded pathetically to this speech by netanyahu saying he has hijacked the peace process. Surely though he has done the opposite, he is willing to talk to you about a palestinian state without preconditions, all he ask is for you to recognise the Jewish State, that is not an onerous demand , yet your response suggests the palestinian supposed moderate leadership under Mahmoud Abbas cannot even do that. Israel is pushing the peace process forward it's over to you now , Mr Abbas, you can either show yourself as a man of peace or as i fear your utterances suggest Arafat mark 2 -that is to say you pretend to want peace but won't recognise israel.

A Blatant Attack On Civil Liberties which has to be stopped

2009-06-08T16:56:00.003+01:00

Amongst all the furore of the expenses scandal, the slow demise of the labour party, the pathetic leadership of gordon brown, and the rise of the BNP, as well as the poor state of the British economy, civil liberties has been pushed into the background of british politics - ignored.

This is worrying - the government through anti-terror legislation, RIPA legislation, EU crime Legislation, the Religious hate bill, the death of trial by jury and innocent until proven guilty, the ban on protests outside parliament square and the NHS database and DNA database as well as wheelie bins with cameras in and the proposed id cards- show the labour government hasn't exactly been a friend of our civil liberties, more a fan of 1984 book policies , but they seem to forget that was a warning of what not to do, not a mantra of what governments should do.

This all relates to an articles right down at the bottom of the BBC politics page, they now want all are phone and web use on a database, infringed on and snooped on in yes can you guess what the expense is, in the fight against terrorism. To me this is a terrifying attack on british civil liberties, the whole point of the internet is it is meant to be a forum of fresh new ideas and yes even extreme wrong ideas, where governments in most circumstances apart from places such as downloaded child porn should have no say whatsoever. Also the snooping on phones is particularly worrying, you will be punished it seems if you think or speak out of turn on the phone - this smacks of the thought police. Also what right does the government have to monitor my phone calls when im speaking to family and friends, that is my private life, none of their business as the government should stay out of our private lives.

This to me is more important than any expenses scandal. Why you may ask, well for the simple reason, that in my views, the right of the individual is paramount, and if this legislation is pursued the british people will have no private life whatsoever when they phone and email people for example.

here's the article .http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8087530.stm whilst it is the talk of a spy chief and the government doesn't go as far as saying it will record all conversations and messages. it says it wants to monitor all our emails and phone calls -the only difference is they won't reveal all the information- in my view they shouldn't have the information in the first place.

The Archbishop -defending priviledge against principles

2009-05-23T13:13:00.004+01:00

rather than being outraged at the thought that MPS have been stealing off the taxpayers for the past 20 years or so , the archbishop of canterbury Rowan Williams said The continuing systematic humiliation of politicians itself threatens to carry a heavy price in terms of our ability to salvage some confidence in our democracy." - is the man for real the MPS deserve to be humiliated and the people have the right to know - many MPS should count themselves lucky that they haven't been arrested. A message to the archbishop , it's not the people who are undermining democracy rather the MPS themselves are.

John mann a labour MP proving that there are still some honourable mps in response to the Archbishop's comments said John Mann told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the public had "a right to know" about MPs' expenses and that, ultimately, British politics could be strengthened by the affair.

He said: "Clearly there's major embarrassment, there will be casualties, we don't know politically who the casualties will end up being, and so it's major trauma for the political system and for politicians.

"But if we handle it well from now on, we'll recover confidence and we could have a far better political system even within a matter of months."

FINALLY!

2009-05-19T11:20:00.001+01:00

The person who has been impersonating a speaker for the last 9 years that being Gorbals/gormless Mick aka Michael Martin is to resign this afternoon. Unfortunately this is about 9 years late- he shouldn't have been Speaker in the first place, but hey ho at least he's done something decent in his life and is going to resign, i hope not to late to salvage some of the House of Commons integrity.

Sack The Speaker

2009-05-18T16:57:00.004+01:00

If in any other job you'd shown first breatHaking bias to your own side in the case of Michael Martin to the labour party, tried to destroy the freedom of information act, backed parliamentarians who sickeningly wanted to carry on the gravy train which is mps expenses through blocking publications, claimed a ridiculous amount for himself and his wife on expenses,allowed Damien Green an mp for the conservatives to be arrested by the police on commons property, told off david cameron for answering a perfectly fair question to one of the worst prime ministers the country has had in Gordon Brown, and then breatakingly when the telegraph reveals the gravy train which is MP's expenses he has a go not at the MPS who have stolen off the taxpayer, but has a go at the person who has leaked the information to the telegraph,and then disgustingly attacked Kate Hoey an MP for the Labour Party, for saying she should be concentrating on reforming the expenses system, and then having a go at Norman Baker and David Winnick for defending Kate Hoey.

Today saw another lamentable perfomance from the speaker who should now have a new nickname not as Gorbals Mick but as Gormless mick. Today he attacked douglas carswell a conservative MP for having the temerity to bring about a motion with signatures from MPS from across the party political spectrum asking him to go.

If he didn't hold such an important position , this would be a joke, he needs to go now , before he destroys the reputation of the House Of Commons even further than it already has been.

in any other job if you had lied to the taxpayer, shown bias to your own side, blocked innovative ideas, and tacitly supported criminal acts by supporting the MP expenses gravy train, you would be sacked, and investigated by the serious fraud office. Unfortunately I have a horrifying feeling Michael Martin will continue as speaker ,fluffing his lines, defending the criminals against the innocent.

it cant get any worse for gordon

2009-05-09T14:31:00.002+01:00

Harriet Harperson wants your job, charles clarke is criticising you , hazel blears thinks your useless, you cant smile for toffee ,and you've proven what John Hutton said you would be as prime minister A FUCKING DISASTER

still the only way is up oh wait i forgot , nope there is one more indigity , getting the piss taken out of you by John Prescott of all people that's right john prescott.

Abbas Wont Recognise the Jewish State

2009-05-01T13:39:00.004+01:00

Israel it seems is not to blame for the faltering peace process, Like Usuals the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Israel is a jewish state and is recognised as such , apparently the PLO recognises Israel, and all the israeli side asked for was to recognise that it is a Jewish State, Yet Abbas the head of the so-called moderate PLO cant bring himself to recognise israel as a jewish state, what basis for the peace process now, this is latent anti-semitism , why cant the Jews have a State Mr Abbas?.

The quotes are from my weekly Conservative Friends Of Israel Email:Abbas: “I do not accept the Jewish State”

· Palestinian Authority president and Fatah chairman Mahmoud Abbas stated unequivocally Monday that he does not accept the Jewish state.

· "I say this clearly: I do not accept the Jewish State, call it what you will," he said at a preliminary conference of the Palestinian Youth Parliament in Ramallah.

· At the end of the conference, Abbas was presented with a large framed map of "Palestine," covering the entire area of Israel.

- So this supposed moderate it seems is no better than Hamas.

An article on this can be seen at Palestinian Media Watch

http://www.pmw.org.il/Bulletins_Apr2009.htm#b280409

Two Quotes which sum up my view on the speech by Ahmadinejad

2009-04-22T11:32:00.003+01:00

The rabble rousing anti semite given a hearing by the UN and even cheered on by some nations - that in itself is deeply disturbing, two quotes in response to this explain how i feel about it :

MOSHE KANTOR, EUROPEAN JEWISH CONGRESS PRESIDENT
If Hitler himself had addressed this forum, would UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon sit as politely as he did for the lies and hatred spewed forth by Ahmadinejad?

Shame on him, and shame on anyone who stayed in the room to hear, or applaud, his evil rants.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER
We will not allow the Holocaust deniers to carry out another Holocaust against the Jewish people. This is the supreme duty of the State of Israel. This is my supreme duty as prime minister of Israel.

The Durban Review Conference - It would be a joke if it weren't so serious again.

2009-04-22T10:46:00.003+01:00

Welcome Ladies and Gentleman to the annual anti semitic circus held this year in Geneva by the esteemed UN , yes that's us the UN, protecting dictators is our game , stopping protestors against the dictators is our aim - after all the great UN secretary has expressed his dismay at the boycotters of the event - is the guy being serious - so legitimacy should be given to an anti semitic circus, where Ahmadinejad and his venezuelan mate Chavez can ban freedom of speech- ie blasphemy laws to stop offence caused to Islam - ie Mohammed Cartoons - i got a sentence to destroy their argument here from Voltaire , I absolutely disagree with what your saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it.

Now we come to the crux of the event Ahmadenejad being the key note speaker at an anti racism conference , this is the same guy who has denied the holocaust , had a holocaust denial conference where such luminaries as the Facist David Duke were invited , called for the destruction of the state of Israel, is well on his way to building a nuclear bomb and supports terrorist groups worldwide. Lets stop all the nonsense here , it is an anaethma to call this an anti racism conference it is a pro anti -semitism conference - Anti semitism is on the rise across the world,and what does the UN do in it's infinite wisdom , it gives a forum to anti -semites. Yet after all of this the UK government sees it as fit to turn up to this conference giving it a veneer of legitimacy , if there was any more evidence of how lacking in judgement Gordon Brown is , this was it - the US , Australia ,Germany just to name a few have boycotted it, the UK will be at this conference with great luminaries like Robert Mugabe , and Hugo Chavez who last year went in to the realms of anti semitic conspiracy talk when having a go at the group of people who killed jesus , who had all the money in Venezuela.

Gordon Brown A Phoney Yep ! Allowed to Say It , No!

2009-03-18T14:01:00.002Z

So everyone thinks Gordon Brown is a liar , he doesn't experience the real world , he is a phoney , who doesn't understand normal life and this is exactly what David Cameron said , yet apparently he's not allowed to say according to the speaker-Absolutely pathetic- Michael Martin once again protecting his fellow scot and labour party member -Gordon Brown -sheer bias- not only that but once again the speaker damages freedom of speech.

It has come to the time where Michael Martin needs to step down as speaker of the house of commons his litany of bias against the tories is legendary , his contempt for freedom of speech even more so - please resign for the sake of the integrity of the House Of Commons.

Big Brother Is Watching You

2009-02-21T10:52:00.001Z

We already have the most cctv cameras in europe , we have cameras in our bins , we have a council which thanks to RIPA can now investigate loads of parts of our lives. we have a dna database which has many innocent people's fingerprints on it including children , we have a government who loses are data including driving licenses and benefits left, right and centre, who still wants to plough ahead with a massive nhs database and ID cards - anyone would think the government thinks freedom is a commodity which there happy to lose. Well today as a daily mail article shows it's just got even worse now when your buying that bottle of wine for your MRS you will be spied on in supermarkets and wine places - is there no part of an english person's life any more where they aren't spied on .

Here's the article link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1151505/Buying-wine-Spy-cameras-watching.html- judge for yourselves if we know live in a police state .

Clarkson tells it how it is and gets in trouble for it

2009-02-06T14:57:00.003Z

Brown is an idiot he does only have one working eye and he lies all the time saying he's saved the world economy. so jeremy clarkson was just stating the obvious

all the liberal pc brigade get off your high horses .

can people say nothing today without others being offended . - Also ever heard of freedom of speech and freedom to offend . Believe me i and many others in private at least have probably said much worse about brown. i for one feel no qualms about insulting a person who destroyed final salary person's, taxed people to the hilt , borrowed way to much and wasted taxpayer's money. Taxi for brown i say.

all the scots labour mps are moaning - bet brown told them to do clarkson wasn't saying he's a crap prime minister because he is scottish he was simply stating that Gordon Brown is scottish which he is. Gordon brown has lied to us repeated he said he wouldn't raise taxes he did , he said he's saved the british/world economy he hasn't , he said he would obey his golden rule he hasn't , he said he didn't postpone the election he did , he said he abolished boom and bust -he hasn't these were all lies.

as for getting rid of him - Top gear is great - dont .

I also think the latest news that clarkson has apologised was a mistake . He shouldn't apologise for making a harmless jokes

here's a link to what jeremy clarkson said :http://entertainment.uk.msn.com/tv/news/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=13779495>1=61503&ocid=today&vv=650

Hamas doesn't want peace with Israel

2009-02-02T21:34:00.002Z

Apparently until the end of blockade hamas will still fight israel, this will translate till israel gets out of the west bank and then until israel ceases to exist .

All this shows is Binyamin Netanyahu was right on this issue - although on other s such as the peace process i completely disagree with him.what the hell was the point of the ceasefire- hamas still wants to destroy israel and hasn't been significantly damaged.

here's the link which shows hamas comittment to terrorism.http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090201/wl_mideast_afp/mideastconflictiranhamas_20090201183342;_ylt=Ah_ZF8ag9afMi1L3DWT23wKaOrgF

Israel needs to stand up to racist that is avigdor Lieberman

2009-01-28T09:55:00.003Z

There is a party called Yisrael Beiteinu Led by Avigdor Lieberman it is essentially racist far right in character with a leader whose penchant seems to be pissing of israeli arabs. Yet for some reason the israeli government indeed the israeli judiciary system under Menachem Mazuz seems to be giving into him. Just recently in an act of stupidity the two main arab parties were banned, sure a minority of them supported hamas , but the majority didn't and anyway for a 20% part of the population who already feel disenfranchised this will only make the situation worse .

Just Recently Avigdor Lieberman like usual made some extremely racist remarks he said "Lieberman had called UAL MK Taleb a-Sanaa "a clown" and "a terrorist," adding that he should "be treated as such. We will take care of you like we take care of every terrorist; we will take care of you just like we took care of Hamas."

Lieberman's current Knesset campaign slogan, "No loyalty, no citizenship," is aimed at the Arab party leaders, whom he has consistently claimed constitute a fifth column working against Israel. Lieberman should have been banned and his party should be also banned unless they stop the anti arab rhetoric

At least the supreme court has now reinstated the two israeli arab parties, but the monster that is avigdor lieberman is allowed to preach his racism , tainting israel's image abroad.

The vatican gives succour to holocaust deniers everywhere

2009-01-26T21:06:00.002Z

a deeply worrying article in the times here, 3 days before Holocaust memorial day -the pope reinstates bishops who denied the holocaust - absolutely disgusting -this disturbing article is found in the times.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5591687.ece

The scourge of anti semitism it seems goes to the heart of the catholic church.

An angry message to leeds uni Occupiers

2009-01-26T20:02:00.000Z

This is utter rubbish israel was defending itself against hamas terrorists . Terrorists who want to destroy the state of israel, terrorists who use children to carry out there aims terrorists who fire from civilian areas including schools and hospitals . terrorists who use civilians as shields . terrorists who have killed 200 members of fatah in the past month.

Do you just ignore what is happening to the people in southern israel. Why should the israeli ambassador be expelled, that is tantamount to calling for israel not to exist - there are 60 arab states 1 jewish democratic state who isn't medieval who aren't terrorists and give equal rights to their citizens. i dont hear you calling for the end of hamas

The Government needs to cut spending not waste it

2009-01-25T10:55:00.005Z

Every year the Taxpayer Alliance produces a book called the bumper book of government waste and year and year hte amount of spending the government , the EU etc wastes gets worse and worse. 2009 is when government spending and thus waste goes into overdrive. Being the tax and spend socialist he is and with an opposition in david cameron who is scared to mention the word's spending cut's event though this was what bought Britain out of the recession in 1992 and in the earlhy 1980s , Brown is given a free run to wrack up government waste , and Gordon's having a great time , treating the taxpayer's money like his own personal credit crunch. The problem is the last time the government tried to tax and spend there way out of a recession it didn't work , what happened in the 1970s was the tax and spend policies crowed out the public sector , reduced incentives for entrepreneuralism saddled people with higher taxes and increased the power of the unions to a stage when the question could be asked who run's the country and the resounding answer back was the union. Brown though hasn't learnt from history and is repeating this mistake.

The bottom line is the Government cannot be trusted with too much of the taxpayer's money it will be wasted, it will lead to a deeper recession,and it could bankrupt the country. From the NHS it system , to amount of managers and consultants not needed in the NHS , to the wasted money of putting camera's in people's wheelie bins to ID cards and the amount wasted on government reviews , as well as the million's spent on Saving Northern Rock a much smaller bank than RBS which should have on the moral hazard argument been let to go to the wall. All this money could have been saved , taxpayers could have got value for money , but like a baby addicted to milk , the government is addicted to spending taxpayer's money.

To Conclude the latest book on Governmnent spending in 2008 before the recession hit's it peak showed the Government has misspent (that's government speak for thrown the taxpayer's money down the swanney) 101 Billion pounds , the scary thing was this was before the latest government spending binge. This shows that spending more is not the right answer in recession or a time of economic growth , the right answer is to be prudent with people's money and where possible cut government spending.

Why Israeli shell's hit a hospital

2009-01-15T14:10:00.003Z

Yuval Diskin, in a report to the Israeli cabinet, said that the Gaza-based leadership of Hamas was in underground housing beneath the No. 2 building of Shifa Hospital hence why the al shifa hospital was hit , in the past this hospital has also been used to hide hamas munitions and treat hamas terorrists as well hamas terrorists pretending to be injured. this was the same hospital where hamas operatives killed 30 palestinians for collaborating with israel .

this just shows what a disgusting group hamas is - the left should think about this when they idiotically ask us to support the resistance in gaza, saying we all are hamas , and in a particularly disturbing example in holland shouting. Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas, with the help of useful idiot lefy socialist parliament member Harry Von Bommel shouting supporting for another intifada against israel. The left as Nick Cohen showed in his book what's left at least the far left is actively engaging with islamic extremism , someone needs to wake them up and show them what idiots they are being.

The real facts on the hamas -Israel War - what the media ignores to tell you.

2009-01-15T12:34:00.001Z

heard that israel's killed thousands of civilians , that the attack is disproportionate, that hamas is a brave resistance force not endagering the lives of civilians , that israel has killed un workers and bombed schools , well a lot of these allegations are quite frankly crap believed by a world media interesting in smearing israel .

please go to this site - it debunks many of the bogus allegations thrown at israel
http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=hsJPK0PIJpH&b=3587015&content_id={2824FE24-90B2-4815-966B-B60ED1E3739D}¬oc=1

some light thrown on un school incident

2009-01-07T21:49:00.002Z

i may have been hasty to judge israel it appears according to a jerusalem post article that there was definitely mortar fire from hamas terrorists coming out of gaza -a couple of palestinian bystanders speaking under anonymity have said this also . there also appears due to the power of explosion there may have already been explosives in the school put in by hamas - if this happened i retract what i said completely earlier about israel's attack on the school on the grounds that a there was definitely terrorists firing from the school and b -they actually blew up the school not israel.

i wont support day 11 of israel's offensive in gaza

2009-01-06T23:21:00.004Z

i am one of israel's strongest supporter and will continue to be so . i have supported all of israel's actions against hamas in gaza until now

i am sorry i cannot defend the hitting of a school by the israeli millitary killing 50 people including 30 children, i cannot support israel when this is the second time in 2 days a school has been hit ,and whilst i supported the ground offensive the idf normally so accurate should not be this inaccurate , i would understand if these were palestinian run schools as these are used and controlled by hamas but this was used by civilians a school run by the un to keep them out of the line of fighting so they wouldn't be exploited and used by hamas ,and israel ends up killing them and in one full swoop loses support across the world and handles the initiative to hamas. This breaks the idf code of conduct which israel cant afford to do , especially after ten days of doing the right thing when civilian casualties were low and hamas high , but this 11th day israel got it so so wrong.this is a massive and stupid blunder and now israel will have to stop their actions and accept a ceasefire because if they dont , they will even lose the support of there strongest ally that being the United States.

This is turning out the same way as the israel-hezbollah war - with the terrorists coming out on top. this is an utter catastrophe for the world -but once again shows israel is relying way too much on the airforce and not enough on hand to hand combat.

Hamas will receive more support from leftwing liberals as well as the islamic extremists who dont realise that hamas in it's charter states it wants to destroy israel and throw all jews into the sea. israel has just given a massive coup to anti semites and groups like hamas which include al quaeda everywhere.

report on israel- with the facts unlike the bbc

2008-12-22T09:22:00.003Z

recently 80 rockets have been fired at hamas from israel , yet you wouldn't hear this on the bbc , or if you do hear it , Israel apparently is in the wrong to defend themselves. What israel should start doing if they want to be proportionate is lobbing rockets back at Gaza - the bbc would have a field day at this.

Then there's this whole crap about collective punishment. Im sorry the palestinian group hamas now controls gaza , why the hell should israel be providing fuel and food for a foreign territory - does England provide france no . How about hamas stop indoctrinating children through hate filled messages at school and start providing their people with food and water -but then to them bombs and rockets are more important.

Then their's bethlehem - yes there are problems - but not from what left wing church leaders such as stephen coulter will tell from nasty israeli jews - no from islamic extremists who are persecuting Bethlehem's christians - did the bbc report this you bet your bottom dollar they didn't.

baby p -and the sickening suppor for harringay's social services leader.

2008-11-15T10:27:00.002Z

a baby is brutally hacked to death , causing outrage everywhere, social services met this baby constantly and could see bruises - even a broken back yet did nothing , a doctor clearly saw the baby was in distress and did nothing - the social services head should be villified, and yet madly 60 teachers across the UK are pledging their support to the dangerously incompetent leader of Harringay Social Services her name being sharon shoesmith. The teachers says she has worked relentlessly for children-no she hasn't she has presided over infanticide - which she should have stopped - if anything she should be sacked with immediate effect -and put in jail ofr assistance to murder-she could have stopped it after all.

this is not only what has happened -an independent inquiry blames legal advice-and says their have been numerous example of good work done by social services- Hello ever heard of a thing called common sense- a baby is clearly being beaten -yet social services do nothing - hmm yer great job not.

Finally the Real Mccain arrives in a gracious concession speech

2008-11-05T11:44:00.004Z

stuck to the bush regime of spend spend spend, a failing economy , two wars not going to plan ,along with the one of the most unpopular president's in history, it was always going to be a tough yer for the republicans , but if one man could save them , it would be John Mccain the maverick (the person who deserved to be the president in 2000)instead of the buffoon Bush. A person who put what was right before party politics a man who stuck it to the extremists in his party for example on free trade, campaign finance, taxes , government spending and immigration. Mccain since 2006 though thanks to the GOP and the religious right has had to stop being himself , he suddenly supported Bush's unfunded tax cuts, stopped calling the religious right the agents of intolerance, became more populist on the economy , although to be fair he always stuck up for free trade,and worst of all was forced to pick Sarah Palin , as the choice of Joe Lieberman wouldn't be allowed .

Then there was the negative campaigning . For sure Obama engaged in negative campaigning against him but Mccain's was much less subtle and more open. You could tell he was never comfortable with Obama Bashing but he let it happen on his watch. It seemed only in the last two weeks when the pressure was off and he started to relaxed, he stopped the personal attack and launched attacks on policy (how he should have started) the whole spreading the wealth ,and how Obama's policy were like socialism were pertinent and true , however the damage had been done thanks to Sarah Palin saying Obama had palled around with terrorists -and then of course Mccain had to say this -thanks for that Sarah (Idiot )Palin.

It was only in his concession speech we saw the Real John Mccain. Standing up to the morons in his own party who booed him when he praised Barack Obama he pleaded with them to stop. They more than anything lost him the election -he couldn't be a maverick with these idiots as his supporters. The Bipartanship he showed in the Mccain-Feingold campaign finance bill, and the immigration bill with Ted Kennedy came out -as he offered his support for Barack Obama . Then there was the taking the blame moment , he didn't have to , he could have blamed bush , the war , the economy , his own supporters, the republican brand , but showing his humbleness he blamed himself -that takes guts. McCain's speech was wonderful and captured the very essence of 'Country First'. What a shame to pull out your best speech as you concede.

Barack Obama could do no better than offer Mccain a man still with much energy as shown by his frenzied last few days of campaign across America, a role as a secretary of state- for example the role of secretary of state for defence -it is surely what a true American War Hero deserves - and after all if Obama's pledge on bipartanship means anything (which after his partisan election campaign -for example not standing up to the democrats on the issue of free trade) - i doubt , then it would be the right choice.

Even with a flawed campaign ,and getting thrashed in the electoral college(a system the electoral college that to me seems a joke and certainly not democratic) the popular vote was close, 52% for Obama 47% for mccain. Who Knows if Mccain had been the man we know he is ,and not the man the Republican Machine wanted him to be , he might have won the election.

Good luck for the future John , Be true to yourself

israel hands hezbollah a propaganda victory in a futile prisoner swap

2008-07-18T21:31:00.002+01:00

would you free ian huntley for the dead victim's body to be returned to their family ? the answer would surely be no , yet Israel has released samil Kuntar - a person who killed a whole family including 3 innocent young children 30 years ago for the bodies of ehud goldwasser and eldad regev - that's not to mention the other hezbollah prisoners . In other words Israel has given up a murderer for almost no gain- here are some articles which explain this very well

HERE'S THE FIRST
Israeli critics question lopsided prisoner swap By STEVEN GUTKIN and ARON HELLER, Associated Press Writers
Wed Jul 16, 5:31 PM ET

JERUSALEM - Critics of Israel's lopsided prisoner exchange with Lebanese guerrillas said Wednesday that such deals only encourage more hostage-taking — a fear underscored by Gaza militants who said the swap proves that kidnapping is the only language Israel understands.

ADVERTISEMENT

The deal, in which a notorious Lebanese attacker, four other militants and the bodies of 199 Arab fighters were traded for two dead Israeli soldiers, closed a painful chapter from Israel's 2006 war in Lebanon.

But it also raised questions about whether Israel should reconsider its policy of bringing back every soldier from the battlefield at just about any cost.

Israel has been carrying out unequal prisoner swaps for decades, including handing over 4,600 Palestinian and Lebanese captives in 1983 in exchange for six captured Israeli soldiers. In the past it's even traded live prisoners for bodies, as it did Wednesday.

The rationale for such trades was a wartime ethic seen as essential in Israel's early days to instilling loyalty and commitment from its troops.

In today's world of asymmetric warfare — with militant groups increasingly focused on kidnapping as a way to pressure Israel and with the fight against terrorism now a worldwide challenge — the lopsided swaps could have graver consequences than in the past.

"What we've done now has made kidnapping soldiers the most profitable game in town," said Israeli security expert Martin Sherman.

"There is absolutely no reason why Hezbollah should not invest huge resources now, along with Hamas, in the next kidnapping."

The issue is of immediate concern because the government is deeply involved in indirect negotiations to free its other captive soldier, Gilad Schalit, held by Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip. Unlike Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, the two soldiers whose bodies were returned Wednesday, Schalit is believed to be alive.

Following this week's Cabinet vote that cleared the way for the Hezbollah deal, Construction Minister Zeev Boim, one of only three ministers to vote against it, said he was afraid the swap would make it harder for Israel to win the release of Schalit.

"No one should be surprised if Hamas will now raise the price for freeing him," he said.

Hamas made it clear Wednesday that it intended to do just that.

"As there was an honorable exchange today, we are determined to have an honorable exchange for our own prisoners" held in Israeli jails, Gaza's Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said. "Let them answer our demands." Israel holds about 10,000 Palestinians in prison.

Haniyeh's spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri went further, saying the swap "shows that the only successful way to free the prisoners is by kidnapping soldiers."

Explaining his opposition, Boim, the construction minister, said Wednesday: "We needed, in my opinion, to take this opportunity to change the rules we were dragged into many years ago, which have led to many lopsided deals."

But the Israeli military said the deal drove home the Jewish state's deep commitment to its soldiers.

"This painful process exemplifies Israel's moral commitment to secure the return of all of their soldiers sent out on operational missions," said a statement Wednesday from the Israeli Defense Forces. "It demonstrates a compelling moral strength which stems from Judaism, Israeli societal values and from the spirit of the IDF."

Wednesday's exchange involved freeing a Lebanese militant convicted of what many consider to be among the most gruesome crimes inflicted on Israelis in their history.

Samir Kantar was sentenced to three life terms for killing an Israeli man in front of his 4-year-old daughter, then killing the little girl by smashing her skull with his rifle butt.

During the grisly attack, the girl's 2-year-old sister was accidentally smothered by her mother during a desperate attempt to silence the child's cries as the two hid in a crawl space.

For Israelis, the 1979 attack was a nightmare scenario feared by many in a nation living in a constant state of war: a terrorist breaking into their home in the middle of the night and kidnapping and killing a family.

Because of the visceral reaction, successive governments held off on including Kantar in any previous swap. Kantar was 16 years old at the time of the attack and he has consistently denied killing the girl, saying she died in crossfire.

That Israel paid such a high price for dead bodies could provide an incentive for militants to kill future hostages, said Yuval Steinitz, a lawmaker from the opposition Likud Party.

"This is a very dangerous precedent," he said. "We are telling them that they don't have to do their utmost to keep captive soldiers alive, to save them if captured."

Nor was the high price of the swap lost on ordinary Palestinians.

"Nobody would have expected that Israel would give up the likes of Samir Kantar. Hezbollah has shown that they are mighty people, and Israel is afraid of them and had to meet their demands," said Samar Mohammed, a 23-year-old architect in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

Despite the criticism in Israel, the swap could provide a badly needed boost for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, whose grip on power is gravely threatened by a burgeoning corruption probe.

Olmert launched a monthlong war against Hezbollah in June 2006 in response to the servicemen's capture. His handling of the war was widely criticized, and he has been under considerable pressure to resolve the issue of the soldiers' fate.

Wednesday's swap closed a painful chapter from the war, and Israelis reacted to confirmation of the young men's death with a mixture of anguish and anger.

One of the soldiers' aunts sank to the ground in despair, and other mourners demanded revenge, chanting "Nasrallah, you will pay" — referring to Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah.

2.Hezbollah prisoners freed in exchange for dead Israeli soldiers
2 days ago

BEIRUT (AFP) — Five Lebanese prisoners freed by Israel arrived to a hero's welcome in Lebanon Wednesday, hours after Hezbollah handed over the bodies of two Israeli soldiers seized by its guerrillas two years ago.

Among those freed in a prisoner swap greeted with triumph in Lebanon but anguish in Israel was Samir Kantar , who was sentenced to five life terms for a 1979 triple murder, including of a child.

The prisoners were transported to Lebanon late afternoon in a convoy of four International Committee of the Red Cross vehicles via the Naqura border crossing, where they were cheered and applauded by crowds of Hezbollah supporters who had been waiting all day for their arrival.

They were then flown by helicopters to Beirut, where they were accorded a red carpet welcome by Lebanese President Michel Sleiman, Prime Minister Fuad Siniora, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, the entire cabinet and a host of lawmakers and religious leaders.

The five -- Kantar and Hezbollah fighters Khaled Zidan, Maher Kurani, Mohammed Sarur and Hussein Suleiman -- stood on a platform as Sleiman spoke and then shook hands with the politicians lined up to greet them.

"Your return is a new victory and the future in your presence will be a path in which we will realise the sovereignty of our territory and the liberty of our people," Sleiman said.

"I tell Samir and his companions that they have a right to be proud of their country, their army and their resistance."

Kantar kissed his mother, Siham Kantar, 71, after the meet and greet with the politicians as crowds and the media swarmed around him.

His mother had burst into tears while waiting earlier at the airport when she was told that her son had arrived in Naqura and was indeed free after more than 28 years in jail.

"I never gave up hope for a day," she said, choked by emotion.

"This moment makes up for 30 years of waiting. I want to hug and kiss him. My only wish is to see him."

The four freed Hezbollah fighters were captured in the July-August 2006 war which killed more than 1,200 people in Lebanon and 160 in Israel were also freed. They and Kantar were the last remaining Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails.

Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah made a rare public appearance at celebrations attended by tens of thousands of people in the southern suburbs of Beirut Wednesday night.

"The period of defeat is over and the time of victory has arrived," Nasrallah said at the celebrations marking the success of emptying Israeli jails of Lebanese prisoners.

"This people and this nation and this country that gave a clear picture to the world... cannot be defeated," he added.

Kantar told the cheering crowds he thanked God for giving him the strength to endure his almost three-decade imprisonment, which made him the longest-serving Arab prisoner in Israel.

The five prisoners were released in exchange for the bodies of two Israeli soldiers, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev , captured on July 12, 2006.

The fate of the two soldiers was not known until their bodies were returned to Israel Wednesday morning.

"Today we hand over Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev," Hezbollah official Wafiq Safa said at Naqura, as men placed two black coffins on the ground amid a crowd of onlookers.

The mood in Israel had been sombre as it waited to learn the fate of Goldwasser and Regev, whose capture in a deadly cross-border raid in July 2006 triggered a devastating 34-day war in Lebanon.

"Both soldiers have been identified," an army spokeswoman told AFP after forensic tests on the remains.

Goldwasser's family broke down in cries of despair when they saw the footage of Hezbollah handing over the caskets, while neighbours gathered around the Regev home, lighting candles and quietly shedding tears.

"Eldad! Eldad! What have they done to you?" wailed Regev's aunt Hana.

Many in Israel question whether the nation is paying too high a price for the return of the soldiers who are to be buried on Thursday, saying the swap risks bolstering its arch foes in the region.

Israel also was to transfer to Lebanon the remains of 199 Palestinian and Hezbollah fighters exhumed over the past week.

Among the first bodies handed over was that of Dalal al-Moghrabi , who led a bloody commando attack in 1978 that Israelis describe as the "Coastal Road Massacre."

She was killed in a battle with Israeli forces after her group blew up a bus they had hijacked on the road between Tel Aviv and Haifa, killing 36 people.

Lebanese television showed footage of a convoy of trucks crossing into Lebanon Wednesday evening carrying the bodies of the remaining fighters.

They were due to be transported to Beirut Thursday morning, Hezbollah said in a statement.

Israel's Jerusalem Post newspaper has billed the festivities in Lebanon as "a celebration of evil."

Israeli commentators warned the swap had given a propaganda victory to Hezbollah, setting a dangerous precedent for any future exchanges and possibly encouraging new attempts by militant groups to seize Israeli soldiers.

3 -my view- SO A Propaganda victory for hezbollah and Hamas rewarding them for their deadly acts - i hope Mr Olmert and his cabinet can live with the disastrous decision they have just made . Oh and also - the response by Mahmoud Abbas praising samil kuntar shows this man is no friend of peace -he is a supporter and lover of terrorism just like his former master Arafat-yet olmert deals with him -because Olmert likes giving in to terrorists as just shown

The Black Fightback against crime

2008-05-30T08:22:00.002+01:00

unfortunately in places like London , it is the black community who has the disproportionate number of people who are victims from gun and knife crime and who are criminals . It has been a stereotype for too long now that blacks represent the left of politics , this article smashes this assumption into smithereens ,and shows that the answers to crime are conservatism.

EVENING STANDARD
A new breed of leaders can tackle knife cultureLindsay Johns29.05.08
document.write('');
Once again this week, London is mourning a teenage knife victim: Robert Knox was stabbed to death in Sidcup last weekend and four others injured by a young man wielding a knife outside a club. It is not surprising that Londoners are looking for tougher solutions to youth crime, such as random searches on the Tube by police using knife scanners. What is surprising is that Boris Johnson's main man in this task is black. Deputy Mayor for Youth Ray Lewis, who holds a summit on knife crime tomorrow, has already made it clear that in tackling street crime he has little patience with the kind of tired clichés about race that we used to hear on the subject from so many black community leaders.

Lewis's tough approach says much about the public mood on crime. But more than that, Lewis is part of an unexpected dividend of Johnson's election - the arrival of a new breed of black and Asian social conservatives in positions of power.
Those who accused the new Mayor of tokenism over Lewis's appointment have already been proved wrong: he has chosen Muslim academic Munira Mirza and the Sikh Kulveer Ranger as, respectively, his culture director and transport adviser. So much for the hue and cry during his campaign over the "watermelon smiles" and " piccaninnies" comments.

What Johnson is helping most here, though, is the emergence into the public arena of a new breed of socially conservative black men with "old-school" values and thinking. Lewis and the west London youth worker Shaun Bailey (Conservative parliamentary candidate for Hammersmith) are the highest-profile examples; others include Uanu Sheshmi, director of the London Boyhood to Manhood education programme. It could mean a new and exciting politics, especially in a city such as London, in which the tedious old polarities (black = Left, white = Right) are finally replaced by more nuanced and fundamentally more honest positions.
With their strong emphasis on the nuclear family, traditional notions of masculinity and respect, and the importance of higher education, such black men have decided their future lies with social conservatives as opposed to Leftleaning progressives. After years of publicly funded programmes and progressive failure, Lewis and Bailey have had the temerity to ask what the best social policy for sections of the black community really is - regardless of whether that means they end up supporting the Tories.

Part of that shift is the emergence of a black British middle class, for a long time beleaguered and cowering in the shadow of its more vociferous, workingclass big brother. And it is finally beginning to assert its own intrinsically conservative voice. Inspired by the US black middle-class centres of Atlanta, New York and Washington, black Britain is slowly catching up.
In the same way that Bill Cosby was for decades the voice of middle-class black America, hopefully Lewis, Bailey and others will now articulate the mindset of the nascent black British middle class, itself weaned on old-fashioned African and Caribbean values of discipline, religion and, most importantly of all, education.

In my work as a volunteer mentor on the Southwark Black Mentor Scheme's Leaders of Tomorrow programme, we employ similar "old-school" beliefs, aimed at helping our young people to confound stereotypes, not conform to them. We are trying to enable our young people to fulfil their potential intellectually, not just physically.

We want to nurture the next generation of lawyers, doctors, academics and politicians, not rappers, DJs or athletes - we have enough of those already. Working with young people in Peckham has convinced me that the liberal "softly, softly" approach achieves little, save disappointment and disillusionment, and actually engenders the opposite of respect.
That is why the days when black men who stood for public office felt the need to align themselves automatically with Left-wing causes are now gone. Be it the "boot camp" methods of draconian discipline as employed by Lewis in his Eastside Academy or the mantra of personal responsibility as articulated by Bailey, conservative values are key to their successes.
Yet Lewis, just like Bailey, has impeccable "black" credentials. Unlike figures such as former Big Brother contestant Derek Laud or Lord Taylor (who stood as Tory parliamentary candidate for Cheltenham in 1992), they are not being labelled as "coconuts" - the old accusation thrown at black people who dared to speak out against the liberal mainstream, that they were black on the outside but white inside.

For Lewis, Bailey and the new breed are not just black - they are ¸ber black, in the sense that their backgrounds and lifestyles cannot be besmirched so easily by black detractors. Both are firmly rooted in the community; both are engaged in mentoring projects with inner-city black youth; both have dedicated their professional lives to improving the lot of black British people.
If further proof were needed, Lee Jasper himself, that old firebrand of the Left and Ken Livingstone's former race adviser, welcomed Lewis's appointment.

Both Lewis's and Bailey's conservative stance on the underlying causes of knife crime - the glaring lack of positive black male role models, the abrogation of parental responsibility and working-class over-reliance on the "benefits culture" - embodies views that, more than ever, we should heed.

The MTV Base generation, with their pimp-roll swaggers and their perverted notions of masculinity and faux respect, urgently need taking to task. Men such as Lewis and Bailey can do it in a way no white politicians can: they are not afraid to speak in a hideously un-PC language that is anathema to white liberals when it comes to issues such as black parenting.
That marks an important shift for black conservatives but it says something almost more surprising about white Britain. After decades of prejudice, it seems Britain is finally ready to accept them. It no longer sees black conservatives as the ultimate oxymoron, the jester-pariah figures living the white man's dream, to be scoffed at behind their wannabe-white backs.
But myself, I am just relieved that Britain is finally ready to allow these courageous old-school black men to step up to the plate and make their contribution. At a time when black and white boys alike are being cut down in the streets, God knows we need it. Here's hoping that the only coconuts we see in the future will be in the fairground or in the Bounty commercials, not on the political stage.

The Left Wonders why Israel doesn't talk to Hamas , this bulletin on Palestinian Media Watch gives a pretty good idea

2008-05-28T20:22:00.001+01:00

disabled and handicapped" Jews to avoid having to care for them, according to a Hamas TV educational program. As much of the world prepared to commemorate Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day, Hamas TV presented its latest sinister twist on Holocaust denial.

The Hamas TV educational program, broadcast last week, taught that the murder of Jews in the Holocaust was a Zionist plot with two goals:

1- To eliminate "disabled and handicapped" Jews by sending them to death camps, so they would not be a burden on the future state of Israel.
2- At the same time, the Holocaust served to make "the Jews seem persecuted" so they could "benefit from international sympathy."
Amin Dabur, head of the Palestinian "Center for Strategic Research" explained that "the Israeli Holocaust - the whole thing was a joke, and part of the perfect show that [Zionist leader and future Israeli prime minister] Ben Gurion put on." The "young energetic and able" were sent to Israel, while the handicapped were sent "so there would be a Holocaust."

click here to see video

The following is the transcript,

Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas) April 18 2008

Narrator:
"The disabled and handicapped are a heavy burden on the state,"
said the terrorist leader, Ben Gurion. [Zionist leader - Israel's first PM]

The Satanic Jews thought up an evil plot [the Holocaust] to be rid of the burden of the disabled and handicapped, in twisted criminal ways.
[Picture: Holocaust death camp, dead bodies]

While they accuse the Nazis or others so the Jews would seem persecuted, and try to benefit from international sympathy. They were the first to invent the methods of evil and oppression."

Amin Dabur, head of the Palestinian "Center for Strategic Research":
"About the Israeli Holocaust, the whole thing was a joke and part of the perfect show that Ben Gurion put on, who focused on strong and energetic youth [for Israel], while the rest- the disabled, the handicapped, and people with special needs, they were sent to [to die]- if it can be proven historically. They were sent [to die] so there would be a holocaust, so Israel could "play" it for world sympathy."

Narrator:"The alleged numbers of Jews [killed in the Holocaust] were merely for propaganda."

-- i thought the left were appalled by Holocaust deniers ,and that they shouldn't be legitmised , i suppose this changes for them if their an enemy of israel

No Need For Fathers , Abortion on Demand

2008-05-20T11:24:00.005+01:00

As the title suggests , this is what the second part of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill will create in the UK or at least solidify it . I am not a christian or jewish fundamentalist , so i dont come from an extreme relgious agenda ,its just i believe in a society where life is respected and fathers play an equal role . This will create a strong society and in the words of Iain Duncan Smith a leading figure of the right in the Conservative party and also an important member of the Centre of Social Justice a move from Breakdown Britain into Breakthrough Britain . This Bill encourages Breakdown Britain , and therefore it is my duty, whilst i cant vote on the Bill , to oppose it anway i can.

Firstly there is the abortion part of the Bill . Now i know of hardly anyone in the UK , who wants to take the dogwhistle of the American Religious right and call for an outright ban on Abortion. Much as i find Abortion horrid , i realise that it is needed to be legal , so we dont get the situation which we had in Britain in the 1950s and 1960s ,where woman got abortions through back door clinics and had their lives put at risk . However neither do i want a situation which we have today , where the abortion limit in this country is too high at 24 weeks ,and has encouraged an Abortion on Demand Culture , where Abortion isn't the last resort , but the first readily available option .Additionally Science has shown a foetus in the womb , has many human symptoms at 18 weeks , and can be born from this period. Recent research, such as that by Professor Sunny Anand from the University of Arkansas, has shown that fetuses are well enough developed to feel pain down to 18 weeks gestation. Surely all those mothers therefore must be in incredible distress , if they have an abortion after 20 weeks, it is a traumatic and unecessary operation . Furthermore the limit has created an abortion on demand culture , figures highlight this as the number of abortions carried out between 20 and 24 weeks has been rising in recent years. Lowering the limit to 20 weeks for normal babies will save almost 2,300 young lives per year. Science has made it possible to save lifes after 18 weeks , this is therefore why the limit should be reduced to 20 weeks , and that is why i am Supporting the Conservative MPS Nadine Dorries Amendment. After all the average Abortion time limit in the rest of Europe is 12 weeks . It seems a case to me of science advancing and the law not advancing with it . The 24 week abortion limit was created in 1990 , since then Britain has some of the highest levels of Abortion in Europe ,and technology has moved so lives from 18 weeks can be saved -if the limit was lowered it has been estimated over 2500 babies now being aborted could be saved . Im sure most people would agree that it is the Government's job to help save lives , not the other way round

There should also in my view be made amendments to make Abortion less attractive . Alternative options such as adoption need to be given more credence . At the moment Adoption is to hard , for example it is crazy that a white family , can not adopt a black child and vice versa - stuff like this needs to be made easier so adoption can be chosen over abortion and a life saved.

Another part of the Abortion part of the bill i fundamentally disagree with is the abolition od the requirement that you need two doctors to advice the women having the Abortion before the decision is made, and secondly that a nurse instead of a doctor can perform the Abortion . Abortion is an incredibly hard decision ,and therefore independent advice is needed to be given ,and this is what the two doctors provide , there role shouldn't be removed. A nurse's job is not to perform difficult operations or procedures on patients , this is a doctor's ,giving the termination process over to a nurse to me reduces the importance we place on the actual carrying out of abortion.

Then there is the other Ludicrous part of the Bill , to make it legal for fathers not to be consulted with IVF treatment and to be involved in IVF treatment and for it to be made legally binding for lesbian couples to have IVF treatment in replacement for this, in other words a single mother or a lesbian couple could have an IVF with no father figure . Now im not opposed to IVF , i think it has been a great scientific breakthrough , which has meant many families have been able to have kids, which otherwise would have been impossible . However i do have a problem with fathers being cut of this important decision , this bill would remove the requirement for IVF clinics to consider the needs of the father. If this bill did the same thing in relation to the women ,there would rightly be an outrage, therefore there should also be with fathers being removed,they are equally important to a baby's life as the mother is. No Mother can replace the father , so therefore it is necessary for a father to have a say in IVF . There shouldn't be discrimation against fathers , the rights of the child to have a father should be paramount. Babies could be produced without any biological access to their father , they would have no right to the father , the role of the father wouldn't be recognised, and it would be hard for them to track down their fathers. Figures from the Centre of Social Justice have recently shown that whilst there are thousands of Single Mothers doing a great job , those who have a mother and father comitt less crimes,and are more likely to have a better quality of life . This is why the amendment made in the 1990 bill towards IVF talking about " the need for a father " shouldn't be removed. The Archbishop of York was right when he said The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, did not agree saying that the Government was seeking to put the 'right to be a parent over the welfare of a child'. He said the proposals would mean the 'removal by design of the father of the child'. Baroness Deech is right when she says removing the clause would 'ignore the contribution made by half of the human race towards the upbringing of the next generation'. 'I know that plenty of children are brought up well without two parents but in an ideal world you need a mother, which is implicit in the law, and a father". To me to sum up on my opposition to this part of the bill , it undermines the importance of the father ,and will lead to further social breakdown in Britain.

I have no problems with Lesbians , what they do in there private life is none of my business , they can get married for all i care. However it is my sincerely held belief ,that the best position for a child is to have a father and mother - it's called traditional parenting . This doesn't even have to be done through marriage. From my personal experience -my parents are divorced , i have benefited greatly from still being able to see my dad on a regular basis . I dont Lesbian couples , unless there is a father figure should be allowed to bring up children , a kid with two "mothers" will become confused , the two women cannot play both the mother and father , it is simply not natural and detrimental to the child . This is therefore why i believe the amendment to make IVF much more open and easier for Lesbian couples should be voted down. For me it would be far better to keep the father's involvement in IVF there. This is why i back david Cameron in his stance when he says "Lesbian couples should be blocked from having IVF treatment unless they agree that a father figure would be involved in the upbringing of their child".

To conclude , this bill is rotten , it will lead to more social breakdown , and abortion on demand , no one wants this , so support in anyway possible those brave MPS who are voting against the bill.

Supporting the Labour Party is like supporting Watford FC

2008-04-26T07:14:00.004+01:00

Allow me to explain. For 12 years I have been a supporter of Watford FC a football club who seems to have more ups and downs in the past 12 years than a jack in the box. This year it was a new season , a fresh start for watford in the championship. And for the first three months or so , just like the start of Gordon Brown's premiership , everything went great , Watford were 9 points clear they were in command , just like the start of Gordon Brown's premiership Watford could survive easily whatever the opposition threw at them . Then it got to the big game for Watford against West Brom ,and the big decision for Gordon Brown , should he have a general election or not he panicked and decided not to a sign of weakness . At the same time the whole entire watford team panicked and got beaten 3-0 by west Brom . After this both teams - team Labour and Team Watford Lurched from disaster to disaster , Watford it seemed couldn't buy a win at home , The Labour party it seemed from the Iraq War to the losing of Millions of people's child benefit data to EU (ahem ) reform treaty or the abolition of the 10 p rate of tax, everything it seemed go wrong . Then for both it comes to a defining moment , Gordon Brown can show his strength and bat down the 10 p labour rebels of whom some are in their cabinet , Watford can get there promotion bid on track with a win against Crystal Palace at home. Unfortunately both blow it , Gordon Brown does a U -Turn promising a bumber deal where the poor will get lots of money , and Watford succumb to a two nil loss.

Both have leaders who looked so good - Watford with Aidy Boothroyd, and Gordon Brown with the Labour party. However at the moment both look like they couldn't motivate a guy on cloud 9 such as Joe Calzaghe at the moment . Both seem to be making baffling decision , Aidy Boothroyd with his decision to not use substitutes till 10 mins from the end , Gordon Brown with his decision not to sort out Northern Rock and then making a decision where the taxpayer faces all the risk . Both have made dodgy appointments or for watford transfers , Watford with the arrival of Collins John -who is continually injured and couldn't give a damn for the club -Nathan Ellington -over 3 million pounds what a waste of money , Mart Poom -what's the point of buying a goalie who sits in the reserves , Matt Jackson -i've seen a geriatic grandad run faster, and now to Gordon Brown's appointments Ed Balls, his right hand man - Every time he talks , people on the street think what a thorougly arrogant nasty man he is David Milliband - supposedly like Nathan Ellington the future of the team , both look about as confident in their jobs as i would dancing , and David Milliband also has the persona of a snivelling child , hardly a requirement of a Foreign Secretary , Tessa Jowell , Olympics Minister - how much is the Olympics going to cost now , have you lost count, or Mark Malloch Brown -a foreign minister , one of the goats , fiercely anti american , - great just what you need in a british diplomat not , Digby Jones -actually i like this guy , but he dont seem to like the Labour party , about as committed as Watford's Collins John.

In conclusion , the future for both at least for this season looks as bleak as George Bush chance of having a poll making him best statesmen of all time. Maybe that's telling people something , maybe the man at the top should be sacked.

The Millitant NUT leadership and it's selfish teacher strike

2008-04-24T06:57:00.005+01:00

Before you criticise all teachers from the NUT(national Union of Teachers) , lets get one thing straight , the strike wasn't voted on in a democratic way . The strike was passed by a majority who were there to vote on the issue , but there was only one third of the people in the NUT vote. In other words a minority of a majority have voted for this strike -the rest are apathetic. This doesn't sound much like democracy at all . In fact it just seems a way the leadership led by trotskyist Christine Blower can force through its ludicrous strike. Lets not criticise all teachers either. After all the NUT represents only about 1/3 of teachers , the NASUWT and the ATL , the other Teacher's unions , know as the more moderate unions are not striking -as A -they think the public dont support it , and B -they dont see the point .

Then the reasons for the strike , teachers dont get enough pay. OK the pay is below inflation, but so is everyone's at the moment be it in the public or private sector due to the UK being in the economic downturn , at least unlike the police the government accepted the independent arbitration pay rise given to teachers of 2.5%. Where do you think the government is going to get the money from to pay for an above inflation pay rise ,people are already highly taxed so not much manouvre there , the national debt is way to high so they cant borrow to much , to spend for teachers to get an above inflation pay rise. Im sure any maths or economic's teacher could tell you this , the NUT leadership though it seems , thinks you can get pay rises in an economic downturn from thin air. Also what other job , guarantees you 14 weeks Holiday a year - not any job i can think of . As part of the public sector they get an extremely good pension deal - much better than their counterparts in the private sector. Another reason given for the strike is that teachers work incredibly hard. Ok yes it's true ,and it doesn't help the amount of bureaucratic measures from a centrally controlled National curriculum telling them what to teach .However at the end of the day , the government has increased regulations for nearly everyone bar bankers in the public and private sector in the last 10 years ,and all people who are working generally work hard - because if they didn't , they would get sacked -thus the argument that teachers work too hard is null and void. The teacher strike also handily doesn't mention that over the past fifteen years , they have been receiving above inflation pay.

Even if you agree teachers get a raw deal , i thought teacher's job was to help and teach children. This strike is at a time when students are coming up to GCSE'S , AS , and A-Levels , when they need all the teaching they can get , they can't afford a day off school right now. How can they still claim to be commited to childrens' education. It is not the children's fault for teacher's pay , or the amount they work , yet they are the one's who are getting punished and to me this seems incredibly unfair and detrimental to their education. It is expected 1/3 of schools across the country will be thrown into chaos by the teacher's strike , the chaos doesn't effect the government who they are trying to pressure , it effects students and children. This makes people across the country less likely to support the teacher's position. It's not often i agree with Ed Balls , the government's education secretary , but he got it correct when he said "I'm on the side of parents who will be disappointed if their children's education is disrupted on Thursday because we have decided to accept an independent pay review"

As the Daily Telegraph says "The only way that substantially more cash could be made available for teachers' salaries would be through the introduction of the sort of structural reforms that the NUT has consistently fought: cutting out expensive central and local government bureaucracy, and allowing schools to control funding and determine their own pay levels".

Here the times , have what the other teaching unions think of the NUT strike - not a lot really . John Dunford, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Lecturers, said: “I am disappointed that the NUT has voted in favour of strike action over a pay award that represents a good deal for teachers in the present climate.”
Chris Keates, the general secretary of the NASUWT, said: “The majority of members recognise that, compared with other public sector workers, they have fared relatively well.” Maybe just maybe if you've not got the support of the general public or even a majority of teachers , you should realise the strike is pointless.

The acting secretary of the NUT said the strike is a last resort .All the above suggests it isn't , after all the other 2 unions , with teachers in the same boat , dont think that it has got to a position where they need to strike. The NUT leadership are known as the nutters , there latest action is living up to this name.

Ken has no good policies , so he steal's boris good policies

2008-04-21T17:20:00.004+01:00

Boris Johnson had an excellent idea called the mayoral fund to encourage a giving culture in london through charity and at the same time encourage entrepreneurship. Ken Livingstone then criticised it in hustings on tv and not on tv and in newspaper column's . However now in a feat no more amazing than Lazarus's return from the dead , Ken has suddenly decided - it's a great policy , and im going to steal it - and you know unlike Gordon when he steals policies off the tories , Ken is not going to hide and say ihe didn't do it , he will be honest and say yep stole it. Just one thing Ken - doesn't that mean you've just been lieing to londoners in recent debates about what you are going to do for London - after all you said u didn't want a mayoral fund and now you do.

here's the evening standard article on this issue. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23479499-details/

Ken Lies about the cost of the Olympics

2008-04-13T08:15:00.009+01:00

yet another reason why Londoners shouldn't trust Ken with their money , their's his coterie of advisors , The Londoner , the increase in the Congestion Charge to £25 , and the wasted money on his advertising campaigns and failing businesses through the London Development Agency. Ken Livingstone doesn't like to tell the voters this , because well he doesn't like being held accountable to London's Taxpayers. Now another story shows that Ken tried to cover up the true cost of the Olympics.

here is the article:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=558211&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source

Kofi Annan Embraces a tyrant

2008-04-13T08:15:00.005+01:00

Am i the only feeling disgusted at the way Kofi Annan the former head of the UN shook Robert Mugabe's hand and embraced him . This is a guy who has killed thousands of his own people , turned the economic powerhouse of Africa into a basketcase , rigs elections routinely , beats up member's of the opposition and blames it all on colonialism , when really it's all his fault . Still all that doesn't seem to bother Kofi Annan , they embraced like mates. Then he acts weakly saying there's nothing wrong with the delay in the electoral process , as long as the results end up being free and fair. newsflash , Kofi Annan , the reason there not fair is because during the long electoral process , his self Appointed Zimbabwe Electoral is helping him rig the election so his party Zanu PF win and the MDC -Movement for Democratic Change lose.

Why is this man feted by Kofi Annan , can you imagine him warmly embracing Hitler , Pol Pot , Mussolini , the Apartheid Regime of South Africa, Saddam Hussein , Mahmoud Ahmadenejad , no i dont think so . The difference with all of these , is there not his black brothers , whilst Robert Mugabe is , in his view and i am sad to say many African Leaders across the region is simply standing up to British Colonialism. Im no racist but Black leaders can be just as evil as asian leaders and White Leaders and Arabic leaders. when European Leaders are evil i dont see other Europeans blaming it on colonialism and embracing them , they roundly condemn the tyrant in the end as they did with Milosevic and this weakens them. Mugabe on the other hand is seen as fighting for the black man ,when really in Zimbabwe he is terrorising black Zimbabweans.He is never roundly condemned by African Leaders ,and this gives him a sense of legitimacy , which strenghens him , weakening the opposition to the tyrant. All this appeasement of Mugabe is embodied in Kofi Annan's embrace.

When Jack Straw shook Robert Mugabe hand many people were rightly apalled, Kofi Annan does something worse he embraces Robert Mugabe yet we dont speak out. To me that smacks of hypocrisy.

Dont mention Boris

2008-04-08T16:00:00.006+01:00

It's official the Labour party have lost their marbles . There so worried about the threat Boris Johnson's mayoral Campaign poses to Ken Livingstone , they are banning any Cabinet Ministers of their party from referring to the Conservative Candidate as Boris. Apparently saying the name , Gives the impression of Boris as a friendly guy and Labour dont want this. They prefer the more formal name Boris Johnson - apparently this gives the voters the right impression. If a labour party person does say it they face a £5 fine- it's like a swear box -the only difference being a swear box has a purpose. Far be it from me but what difference does it make if you call the conservative Candiate Boris , Boris Johnson , Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, noone cares apart from the Labour Party. Still this was thought up by Tessa Jowell not exactly known for her brains

Policies and actions speak louder than a name.for example Ken Livingstone is a very nice name , at the same time what Ken Livingstone has done to London is extremely nasty - just to name a few inviting an Islamist in Yusuf Al quawardari , wasting a fortune on the London Development Agency ,and installing bendy buses which purpose seems to be to look stupid and a death trap for commuters.

I dont hear the conservative party telling Boris he mustn't say Ken because that would sound too chummy. The labour party is running scared ,because they know people are fed up with Ken Livingstone and like Boris Johnson.

just in case you think im talking rubbish and this is a late April Fools -here's the proof - Labour really are that desperate

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3690008.ece http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7333427.stm

Ken Livingstone and his bag of dirty tricks

2008-04-06T16:16:00.002+01:00

this is an article i read in telegraph , it makes for interesting reading.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/06/nboris106.xml
the gist of the article is this Ken Livingstone and his advisors will do anything , be it legal or illegal to try and damage Boris Johnson politically .

FACTUAL INFO: Boris Johnson didn't chicken out of the Time Out Debate

2008-04-01T10:44:00.000+01:00

There is a story going around on a labour home blog , that Boris ran away scared from a mayoral debate on April 2rd , because he is scared of talking to London's voters ,as he doesn't have a message to put across to londoners . Before you hear this story in the media , take it with a pinch of salt , it's simply not true.

It is not helped by Time Out's representation of what happened . They say "We were excited and proud to be able to offer you direct access to all four main candidates on one platform, which would give you an opportunity to quiz them in person on their plans for our city. Disappointingly, Boris Johnson, who had initially confirmed his place at this hustings, has withdrawn from the event and so will NOT be attending. The last line is malicious in it's intent to tar Boris Johnson i thought Time Out as someone who shirks responsibility. I thought Time Out were meant to be a neutral organisation , the last sentence suggests otherwise.

What really happened is partly Time Out's fault , the organisers of the debate. Originally the debate was going to be held on April 3rd , Boris would have been able to attend this ,and indeed intended to be there . At the last minute , Time Out decided to change the day to April 2nd , not giving Boris enough prior notice to be able to make arrangements so he could attend. This is clearly bad managment on the part of the organisers . The organisers try to hide behind the lie that Boris Pulled out , but he didn't. Time Out should apologise for the lie they started , simply to cover there own mismanagement.

Boris was never free on April 2nd as the Labour Home blog says. He was booked that day for a long standing engagement to talk to local newspapers editors.It would be wrong if Boris shirked this responsibility to his long term comittment. Boris isnt superman he cant appear in two places at once.

Labour's message here is intentionally misleading and an example of negative campaigning at it's worst . Labour should stick to outlining there policies for London ,which we have heard surprisingly little of , rather than criticising there opponent Boris Johnson based on a lie.The Left’s united strategy for the London mayoral election seems to only entail trying to discredit Boris in an increasingly shoddy attempt to stop him winning. Is it because they are the one's really running scared ,because people are fed up of there policies which have led to increased crime and increased the cost of living for the average Londoner. Im not just criticising Ken Livingstone here , im criticising Sian Berry the Green Candidate and Brian Paddick the Lib Dem Candidate , all they offer is failed policies and negative campaigning .

Ken blames everyone apart from himself for rising violent crime , Boris presents solutions to it

2008-03-28T11:37:00.003Z

Sadly yesterday, the 11th teenager in London was murdered this year.Ken Livingstone response was to blame the newspapers and tv news. This was shown when last night on BBC London, Ken Livingstone was being interviewed, and when questioned about crime in the capital and his insistence that it is declining, he blamed the media by saying “If it bleeds, it leads...”. According to Ken everything is going swimmingly and its all the media fautlt. Apparently it's nothing to do with him even though yesterday the 11th teenager was murdered in London on his watch as London Mayor. This comment is also incredibly insensitive to all those parents who have lost teenagers this year because of violent crime. The message they are getting from Ken is that he doesn't care.

This response is the same thing we have heard from Ken for 10 years. First he'll say well there is no rise in violent crime when all recent evidence points against this. 27 teenagers were killed by guns or knifes on London's streets last year already in 3 months this year 11 have been murdered. It looks to me violent crime is rising not decreasing. Plainly facts dont matter to Ken.

On top of this evidence points to an increase in criminal offences on public transport in particular buses. You would have thought Ken would want to tackle this to give the people of London a better life , but no he'll pay for a million pound self promotion crime and billions on failing companies to the development agencies and millions to his coteries of advisors from Socialist Action, basically he'll give money to anything which will help him and his cronies and nothing to the issue worrying Londoners -crime. This epitomises how out of touch Ken is with the average Londoner does he honestly think that they prefer money to be spent on flashy promotional adds costing millions to tell us all to be nicer to each other on buses rather than doing something which will actually for example stop crime on buses , namely police .

Then he'll say the rise in crime is not his fault, its the fault of the previous conservative government apparently. This is a disgusting attitude to the serious issue that is crime . Ken Livingstone has been in power for 11 years and hasnt done nearly enough in particular to combat violent crime and offers no policies on how to tackle crime , Boris Johnson Conservative Mayoral candidate for London does.

Here is what Boris Johnson will do about the rise in violent crime in particular. He will get rid of the form filling culture endemic in London's police. For example to record a crime they have to fill thousands of forms and God forbid if there actually allowed to stop and search someone they have to fill in a ludicrously long form Ken could have stopped this but he didn't because it serves to his far left politics whose bible is political correctness. He seems more interested in policeman minding there ps and qs and doing there bit for racial equality than doing there bit for crime and actually being allowed to catch criminals. Boris will get rid of this culture of form filling, which has reduced the numbers of people wanting to join the police, has led to officers spending more time in offices than on the streets and even more worryingly stopped policeman from what they do best catching criminals. With this increased police presence , Londoners will feel safe, more crimes will be prevented and if crimes take place police will be able to catch the criminal. This will all be possible with Boris in Charge it wont be with Ken in Charge.

Ken says he will beef up the powers of community support officers so they actually have the power to protect vulnerable neighbourhoods. After 10 years in power , Ken has done nothing on this front , Boris says he will and i for one believe his word over Ken. 10 years of failed promises by ken, Boris aims to repair all this.

At the moment London's buses are a microcosm of the violence engulfing parts of London especially in outer London. How will Boris tackle this, well for a start he will get rid of the flashy ad campaign Ken Livingstone is proposing , telling us all to be nice to each other. This is quite hypocritical given his treatment of the London Assembly which he hardly acknowledges. The campaign will do absolutely nothing to stop rising crime levels. What Boris will do is increase the amount of police on buses , trains, bus stops and train station platforms. This is an active deterrent to crime not some wishy washy campaign costing millions and delivering nothing. Boris if he becomes London Mayor intends to put CCTV cameras on buses as a deterrent to crime we have it on train stations so why not also have it on buses ,where the threat of crime is equally high.

A major problem facing london is gang crime, which has fuelled the rise in Violent crime. In 10 years Ken Livingstone has done nothing to tackle this increasingly prevalent problem apart from telling the public that the right wing media and the conservatives are "scaremongering". Not really Ken your lieing to Londoners in presenting a rosy picture which is non existant. At the moment community groups are not receiving the funding needed to take teenagers out of the crime trap. These community groups are sucesfull in getting teenagers out of gun crime because they are there on the ground they know a lot about the community and the problems it faces. Many of those who have set up the community groups have been former gang members themselves , they know what drives people into gangs and how to get people out of gangs. They therefore need to get the right levels of funding, so they can be involved with the police in getting people out of gangs and rebuilding their lives. Boris would ensure community groups got the funding they needed.

A problem with the rise in violent crime is that the crime information which should be used to tackle it is inacessible. Boris Johnson intends to put online a crime map of London, where anyone from London can go online to see the crime levels in their area and what is being done about it. It will show which areas have the highest levels of crime ,what sort of crime and what is being done and what can be done to tackle it. This idea is not knew it was introduced in New York by the then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani all evidence has shown it has been extremely sucesfull and led to reduction of crime in New York and also the police were more accountable to the public. This idea by Boris is the big idea of the London Mayoral Campaign , no other London Mayoral candidate offers this highly sucesfull plan ,and this is another reason to vote for Boris Johnson.

To conclude all ken does on crime is blame everyone apart from himself and do nothing apart from spending milllions on pointless advertising campaigns. This inertia on the part of the London Mayor , has left London's police and youth groups unable to tackle crime which has led to a rise in violent crime. Boris will change all of this, he will inform people of what is happening with crime in the area and how it should be tackled .He will hand power from bureaucrats to those who are best at tackling crime , the people on the ground , Community groups and police . Boris has plans to make London safer , Ken in 10 years has been like a driver falling asleep at the wheel , no direction and no policies to tackle rising crime

A novel way to help London's environment and stop Ken's propaganda machine

2008-03-28T11:37:00.001Z

Every week the unsuspecting London Public are bombarded with vile propaganda from Livingstone's newspaper - the Londoner . Not surprisingly the london people are fed up of this , they can make up their own decision thanks without a load of propaganda being shoved in their faces to try and influence them , they like me thought London's newspaper's were meant to be mouthpieces of propaganda . They also dont like the £2.8 million a year they have to pay for this privilege. it's also incredibly gauling that this newspaper has the name of one of the World's greatest capital's as its name. Never has a paper been so undeserving of the title it has.

Boris Johnson's campaign seeks to end all of this , if elected he will abolish this paper ,and put all the wasted paper to good use. He'll not be only saving trees - as the paper uses oceans of paper's he'll be planting new Trees. London needs more trees not only do they look nice , they are a good way of tackling air pollution and dealing with the threat of CO2 which is a major cause of global warming . Boris with the money saved from abolishing this newspapers aim to plant 100s of new trees across the capital , so everyone in London gets the benefits.

To sum up vote boris ,and save London from propaganda , help the long suffering taxpayer by saving money and improve the environment .

the papers go trash crazy

2008-03-21T22:13:00.000Z

it's a week where the global financial system has been teetering on the brink , due to the credit crunch . Where tibetans have been brutally opressed by their Chinese Occupiers .Where John Mccain the Republican nominee has been visiting London and where the fallout from the budget in higher taxes are still being felt . It is a week when the democrat race between Obama and Clinton has been hotting up as we find out Jeremiah Wright , Barack Obama's spiritual advisor is a black supremacist . In other words a lot of important news has been happening .

Still if you were reading the papers apparently the most important things in the world today is DIANA , Heather Mills ,and David Cameron ignoring the highway code for cyclers - apparently this is what is important when discussing a potential conservative prime minister for the Daily Mirror and the BBC .

stop the trash and report real news which effects real people , we're not all interested in celeb culture , we want news which effects us , IE the credit crunch . For those saddos who spend their every waking day looking over celeb lives , go on the internet , we dont want your idea of importance splashed across the papers . with the news how it is , is it any wonder people find it hard to separate fantasy from reality.

The Greatest Response to terrorists is our liberty

2008-03-16T21:25:00.001Z

In an increasingly dangerous world , we are constantly told by the British Government that we need ID cards and 42 days without trial, bans on religious hatred , and more political correctness because there is a difference between free speech and violent speech etc etc .This is all apparently in the name of " national security " . Being the Sceptic that i am , i fear it is just a way for an overbloated government to control it's population.

Now i for one dont want to diminish the threat of international terrorism . We in the West whether we like it or not our engaged in a war in terror to protect Western Civilisation .We have been for the last 29 years , since the revolution in Iran that created a theocratic islamic state which has been used ever since as a rallying point for Islamist terrorism ever since. These terrorists want the most brutal of sharia law to be bought across the world by the international islamic caliphate , where woman are stoned and have to wear the hijab,where stealer's hands are chopped off ,where people are beaten and mass hangings take place ,where homosexuals are executed , where the newspapers are tightly controlled to print anti western Bile ,and where political opposition suddenly disappears , a euphemism for purging political opponents . We are fighting a worldwide Islamist phenonemon ,which hates the West's freedom and wants a world made in their image where freedom wont exist due to Iranian Mullah Style religion enforcers , telling you what you can and cannot do.

New Labour's response to this threat is all wrong i believe . The UK has the most CCTV cameras in Europe and thus is the most surveyed country in Europe . The Government wants to introduce ID cards for everyone so we are all suspects, which is a fundamental loss of civil liberty. They want to introduce 42 day detention without trial ,where the British legal system belief of innocent until proven guilty can be overlooked . Finally they want religious hate legislation put through ,which will make people like you and me , mind their P's and Q's essentially hiding the truth when talking about Islamist Terrorism .

The British government in all of this is creating a fear addled society , and this im afraid is what the terrorists want . The terrorists want us to be afraid of them ,because then we'll be more likely to give into them . The Terrorists want us thanks to their " threat" to be living in a police state. Finally they want British people through religious hate law in the name of political correctness disguising Islamist's real intentions , so they can take over Britain through stealth . This is already shown when the new home secretary Jacqui Smith announced in 2007 , that the Government will no longer being using the words Islamists or Islamic extremists , to describe terrorists such as the one's who flew 2 planes into the World Trade Centre on September 11th 2001 , or caused havoc in London on July 7 2005. The New name for them is Anti Islam Activists and if they carry out an attack, it will be said that they "are pursueing anti Islamic Activity" . Is it just me , or does this sound similar to the Newspeak Governments used in George Orwell's Novel 1984.

There is another way. We could as i believe we should do stick two fingers up at the terrorists .We could live our lives as normal ,without the prying of the state , if we reduced the number of CCTV cameras . This would reduce fear ,and fear is one of the Terrorist's most potent weapon . We could preserve the British Judiciary system believe in innocent until proven guilty , so that liberty is still seen as an important value . It would also be right , that anyone can say what ever they want about these Jihad crazed terrorists , in the knowledge that a government wouldn't flag them up on some trumped up religious hate law . In short where all the values terrorists want to undermine , liberty of the individual , a fearless society and freedom of speech are kept . That's a country i want to live in , not a Police State playing into terrorist's hands.

learn to stuff up the british economy labour style

2008-03-11T20:46:00.000Z

i got a new slogan
labour ," never knowingly sound economically "

quiz question what was it that ruined the british economy in the 1970s

- answer , a labour government spending to much and taxing loads, leading to high levels of debt, leading to the absurd situation in the late 1970s during a recession when you need to stimulate the economy - through tax cuts , labour was raising taxes

now whats happening today to the UK economy

oh yes it's the same , which leads to my other slogan " new labour , following the failed old labour policies of the past " - i and many other british people can see past a rebranding exercise , this is the same old labour policies , which always destroy the british economy and make people worse off.