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.
Monday, December 14, 2009
The disappointment for conservatives in Nicholas sarkozy
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
-Here's the conservative home article:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/international/2009/12/the-ideological-confusion-of-nicolas-sarkozy.html
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Ben Bradshaw's distasteful remarks
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.
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.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
A response to pierre Lellouche criticism of cameron's eurosceptic position.
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.
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
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
A Critique of Noam Chomsky - given before his satelite talk to leeds university Students-please read!
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.
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.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Good news from the latest opinion polls
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.
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.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Bob Crow couldn't care about the British Public
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.
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.
Friday, October 9, 2009
A riposte to maryam ahmed and the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign walked out on an israeli Palestinian talks
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
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.
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.
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.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Look No Further than Boris Mayoralship of London to look at what a succesfull tory government will look like
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
biased bbc anyone?
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.
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.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Gordon Brown Decides to be part of a tv leaders debate
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.
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.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Netanyahu churchillian speech to the UN.
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
Thursday, September 17, 2009
the union leaders on another planet
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.
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.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Sir Terry Wogan is right - Newsreaders do have an easy job
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
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
Monday, July 27, 2009
more left of centre thinking by the bbc
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
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
Friday, July 3, 2009
Belgian MEP calls opponents of Lisbon Treaty Stupid
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.
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
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)