Lord Lavendon's Blog

Last Post

2011-07-07T15:54:00.000+01:00

The author of this blog has decided to call it a day and this post and the one below shall be my final utterances from these pages . I feel that it has been a long time coming, it has been increasingly difficult to keep 'in character' and also write about the various issues of the day- social, political, theological etc- without slipping into my own personal view. Therefore, despite the fact that this has been a jolly good show, myself and Lord Lavendon have decided to go back to the country club, where he and I shall content ourselves with a good old brandy, cigar and the occasional bit of grouse shooting, fox hunting, fishing and all the other wonderful country pursuits that the previous socialist government banned. Cherry pip, tally hoe and pleased be advised that your are all welcome to come and visit a new site, here, in which the author of this blog writes as himself.

Best regards all readers and thank you for reading over the past couple of years.

hacked off

2011-07-07T15:40:00.000+01:00

My brief musings on the phone hacking scandal (I trust readers will be able to search the Internet on the back ground on what this is about ) :

State-imposed censorship is wrong, but so are the actions of the NOW, who have clearly been sticking two fingers up to the law for some time and have brought not just themselves into the gutter but also all the good journalists, who do act with integrity.

Brookes should go because as Truman once said "the buck stops here". There is no excuse to claim that she was on holiday when apparently the hacking of some of the people happened and therefore attempt to get off by placing the blame of all these serious allegations,on minions (who could presumably do what they allegedly wanted?).

The takeover of BskyB must now be halted as at present I cannot see that News International are "fit and proper" to run a flower stall, let along a listed corporation. The culture secretary is hiding behind rules and regulations, but if they really wanted to stop this, then I am sure that they would find a legal way to do so (just as Labour, flouting competition rules, found a way to merge Lloyds and Halifax to a mega bank in 2008).

The police also have a lot of questions to answer and this will lead to the same drop in reputation as journalists, although it is worse for the police because they are supposed to be the authority of the law. For every honest copper has now been tarnished by the actions of the greedy and corrupt.

Finally, Cameron must be wondering what made him hire Andy Coulson as his spin doctor and then director of the Downing Street spin machine (before he was pushed out). How many more errors of judgement has our prime minister made (that we don't yet know about) that will come back to haunt him and the conservative party?

Wow to that ocean of debt!

2011-07-01T12:59:00.000+01:00

So the politicians have until 2 August to agree to terms which will allow for an increase in the amount of money that the US government can borrow or if not the government will default on its obligations, be unable to pay its civil service -in effect a shut down & (even worse a repayment crisis) with the usual doomsayers predicting a financial meltdown if that occurs.

There are negotiations and horse trading in return for agreement on increasing this limit between the political parties, the congress and the white house, which is turning into a bun fight about cutting spending, raising taxes and the rest .

[ I cannot quite grasp the point of this, given that it took half a year to get the 2010-2011 budget agreed and it was a compromise agreement anyway, as one would assume that when this was voted upon Senators and Congressmen might have had an inkling that the debt ceiling would be breached during the year- which it did 1 month after the budget was finally passed- it is not as if the Congress does not have its own non-partisan budget office, but perhaps some-one else would like to explain this to me, as I really am at a loss about it].

The problem with the US debate (as it is in the UK ) is that I would suggest that the politics has gotten into this debate a bit too much or perhaps the wrong type of politics,because the difference between the two parties (as in the UK) are relatively trivial when you have a $14,400 billion debt to repay. For example, the 2011-2012 budget debates have started in earnest, but from what I can gather the difference between Democrat and Republican spending plans is $200 billion; i.e. Democrats (more accurately Obama) want $200 billion more, Republicans $200 billion less. $200 billion is a colossal amount to me and to the reader, but note - the US is borrowing $150 billion a MONTH adding to that already high overall figure previously mentioned-so $200 billion in this context is little ink blot in the sea of red which is the US government debt.

One final thought on this- even if the debt ceiling is increased , there will be a time when the bond market will simply not be able to buy the vast amounts of bonds which are being used to fund the US government or becomes convinced that there is simply no way that the US will ever, ever pay back what it has borrowed, because of the refusal of the political elite to grasp economic fundamentals- a failure to understand that even an economy as vast as the US cannot borrow $ + 1,000 billion a year forever. This hasn't been a problem so far because of the QE programme, but even that will not and can not be sustained for much longer.

Lunacy of the strikes

2011-06-30T13:28:00.000+01:00

Today many teachers and other public servants are striking. But this time it is not about wages or indeed redundancy threats, but about pensions. Personally I would have more sympathy if these strikes were about potential loss of jobs, but they are not. They are about pensions and about how the public sector wishes to maintain their own lucrative arrangements at a time when the private sector has had to agree to abandon such schemes- called final salary schemes- in favour of contributory only pensions.

Final salary schemes are not sustainable and will end up leading to state bankruptcy as the population is living longer- hence why the retirement age is being lifted for the state pension, but unfortunately such basic mathematics is beyond the comprehension people striking today. Furthermore, the new arrangement for the public sector (written by a former Labour Cabinet member) are actually still quite generous and still more generous that private sector offerings. I would also like to add that these strikers should be grateful that they still have a job given that there are many,many millions unemployed and who are desperate just to earn a basic living and will find the sight of well paid middle class teachers striking over not being able to retire in their 50s to be a bad joke. So public sector, stop moaning and get on with the job, go back and continue the negotiations with the government and be thankful that tomorrow you will still have a job to go to.

Greek Tragedy rumbles on

2011-06-29T16:24:00.000+01:00

So after all the hype and the terrible scenes of rioting on the streets of Athens , the Greek Parliament has decided 155-138 to pass the latest austerity package in order to be given more bailout money. This is not the end of the whole issue, though, and the vote merely delays what is to come for a few more months. I doubt that the package itself will work, for various reasons, but the obvious one is that much of the new measures involve privatization of state assets. But who, please tell me, is going to buy these state assets when it is entirely possible that Greece could leave the Euro at any stage, resulting in large looses on whoever is going to buy these state assets (which may or may not be of any real value anyway). It is far easier for any potential buyer of these assets to "wait and see" what happens and then make a potential killing if Greece devalued and went back to the drachma.

I therefore suspect that in a few months time we well all be writing and talking about bailout III, by which time I think we will either be writing about the creation of an EU treasury and common debt market or the abandonment of the Euro by the Greeks and then other club med states. This will happen sooner rather than later, so today is just a holding action, until one of these scenarios is played out. The key matter for British policymakers is not to wax lyrical about 'saving the euro' or whatever, but to plot out how Britain can gain maximum advantage in either event. Sounds harsh, but that is the job of the politicians we elect to represent us.

Also, given that the world is more interconnected than ever, we may also have the added problem of a US dollar -debt crisis, if a resolution on the sealing of US debt and budget agreements cannot be reached by the Congress/Executive. I would not be surprised if we saw another bout of "quantitative easing" (which will push up commodity prices and having little effect) given that fiscal policy is likely to be deadlocked (I could imagine Obama, in desperation to be re-elected, ordering Bernanke to start putting those printed dollars directly into citizen's checking accounts).

Troubled times ahead and one feels like putting cash to gold and having it put in a vault somewhere safe....

Back to the Greeks

2011-06-28T14:55:00.000+01:00

I cannot believe that that last time I put a post on here it was March. Well, I have be been on a little break and in my absence much news has passed under the bridge of the 24 hour news media - the wonderful Royal Wedding, followed by the welcome news of the death of terrorist Bin Laden (who was right 'bin bagged', whatever the liberal/left media might say about human rights), the welcome defeat of the AV referendum and the justly deserved punishment of the liberal democrats at the polls; the so-called 'Arab spring' and Libyian intervention. So having gone away for a few months and having returned there seems to have been much change in the political world, except of course one matter. That of the crisis in the Eurozone, a situation quite ironic given that this was the subject of my last post.

The subject of the Greek bailout and whether or not its government can push more austerity through their Parliament has been the subject of many a newspaper column in the past few days .Here we go again. The first bailout was cobbled together at the last minute and low and behold it hasn't worked so, we need a new bailout. This to me seems to be prolonging the agony, not just of the Greek people themselves, but also of the people of the other nations of Europe, perhaps the world. For the simple fact is that no matter how much the Greeks cut (or for that matter Ireland or Portugal) the Greek government simply cannot pay back what it origionally borrowed and is also having to borrow up to 10% of GDP every year, just to make up for the difference between recepits and expenditure this year.

This is not a good situation, but it is clear that the bailout II is not going to work either, for whilst many of the austerity measures might be simple pragmatisim (e.g. changing the retirement age from 50 or attempting to stop tax fraud or some measures of privitisation on state owned enterprises), these measures by themselves are not enough. In a usual situation the IMF would indeed press for the kind of package that the Greeks are having to implement , but with the key difference of a massive devaluation of the bailout nation's currency (by 20-30%), in order to boost exports and to take up the slack of the cuts imposed,something which the Greeks, under a currency better suited to Germany, cannot do. So the Greeks are having to implement cuts and the like, without this key element of recovery, whilst the rest of the Eurozone bickers about what to do, although it is clear that no-one involved in the Euro project wants the Greeks to seperate themselves from the Euro and adopt their own currency again.

The most logical course of action would be to allow for a devaluation of the Euro, to help the Greeks (and the rest of the "club med") governments, but this would and is opposed by Germany and the other wealthy north european states. The alternatives are therefore a return to the Drachma (the old Greek currency) or 'more of the same'.

This may be anathema to the Eurocracy in Brussels, who always want more Europe as a response to problems (Euro-treasury, Euro-treasury bonds) who will doubtless do everything they can to stop this ,with good reason, for the European Central Bank would go bust - and with it the Europhile dreams-if a Greek default happened given the billions they have lent to Greek banks, the security for which was, erm, Greek government debt.

'More of the same' is clearly not working and will only make the situation in Greece worse. Therefore, the only logical and fair option is for an orderly transition for the Greeks to go back to the Drachma and sort its own finances out in the usual IMF way. This may lead to another Lehmans or not. But it is better in the long term that such action is undertaken now. For the current bailout is only postponeing the day in which the Euro collapses, in an uncontrolled way, which would have dangerous consequences for the continent of Europe and the rest of the world.

Another Euro crisis

2011-03-23T10:47:00.000Z

This will be interesting, the Portuguese government is going to try today and get an austerity budget through their Parliament, although this is doubtful given that the current government is a minority one- the opposition is committed to opposing the cuts, thus triggering a general election and more widely another Euro crisis. But will the EU overlords and Germany take any notice or change, if the people of Portugal return a government opposed to the EU enforced cuts,which are really there to save German, British and other Northern European banks?.

Don't hold your breath...

What I'd like to see in the budget

2011-03-23T10:33:00.000Z

The budget has basically been splashed out in many of the papers today (before its even been presented), so one must wonder what the point is of the Chancellor of the Exchequer actually making his speech in front of Parliament today.

Putting that aside, we all have our wish list as to what we would do if in charge. I think I would like to see :

1. The abolition of the national insurance tax (given that there is no real national insurance fund and the whole thing is a giant fraud) and a simple tax on income at, say, 30% . Note -the income tax alone you pay is either 20%, 40% or 50%, add at least an extra 10-12% for national insurance onto each bracket and you see how much tax you pay. (this will help both working families and business- who will be free of having to pay national insurance contributions).

2. Threshold of income tax to be £15,000 (thus helping the people on lower wages).

3. Abolish tax on pensions (thus helping the poor pensioner).

4.Reduction in corporation taxes (thus stimulating business) .

5. A cut or at least freeze in the fuel duty (thus helping everyone).

You may ask me where are we going to get the money from to "pay" for these cuts? The simple answer is that they will pay for themselves, as it has been demonstrated before that the less the state taxes you, the more revenue the state actually picks up. In any case we need to get business to start employing people again and the best way of doing this is to reduce the costs - i.e. their national insurance contributions and the reduction in corporate taxes.

Quite simple really.

"Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities"

2011-03-22T18:05:00.000Z

I must admit that I thought that the leader of the free world was directing the Libyan war from some secret bunker underneath the White House or in the Cheyenne mountains or NORAD .

But in fact, he is directing it from a hotel in Brazil. Never fear, however, because the President is doing so in the comfort of a "Sensitive Compartmented Information Faciliy" or to everyone else a glorified "war tent" as the BBC is calling it, although this is a very special tent as it is apparently impregnable to hacking and eavesdropping, although if you want one of these yourself, it costs upwards of $5,000 per square foot...

£400 million a year for Libya intervention

2011-03-22T12:04:00.000Z

OK, I got this figure from watching SKY News, but this is apparently the latest estimate of the economic cost of our little brush war against said north African country. Yet again, I am asking myself, where are we getting the money from? And how? I thought we had to embrace the austerity measures because "there is no alternative" other than national bankruptcy.

When people are loosing their jobs, employment is difficult to find and the economy could go into a double dip, all our Prime Minister seems to care about is some military intervention, in which millions are being poured down the drain; he seems out of touch with reality and I can see why the British people did not totally endorse Cameron, even when faced with an opponent like Brown in the general election.

I had hoped that with a new government - especially one with the liberals in it- would be wary of going on any more campaigns and would have learned lessons from the divisions Iraq caused and would focus on domestic recovery.

If only....

Cameron's military adventure or general insanity

2011-03-18T22:31:00.000Z

OK, I admit I called it wrong when I previously suggested that no-one was listening to Cameron over the Libyan no-fly zone. He's got a UN resolution of sorts and this is now being touted as a British diplomatic victory and some bloggers are calling Cameron a 'statesman'. Yes, well, I beg to differ and I hope that Ghadaffi loses his nerve and the whole episode ends without us having to fire a shot. If, however, it does come to military conflict, I would just like to put down my reasons for opposing this silly military adventure, which may make me look like a left wing fruit cake, but I believe them to be thoroughly conservative and pragmatic in reasoning :

1. Cost- we are continually being told by the Tory high command that our country is near bankrupt, which is why we have had to cut the public finances to their greatest extent ever, including, strangely enough our Defence forces. Yet, how is it, when we are living through these spending cuts and the military cuts have meant we have ditched our harriers, nimrods, aircraft carriers and plan to reduce the army to under 100,000 people (even though were are already in one hot war), we can suddenly find the cash to pay for this Cameron -poll boosting attempt.

2. How and with What?- see point 1 above, given that UK military effectiveness is as about as great as Belgium (a country, without a government for nearly a year) thanks to our coalition cuts, please tell me how military intervention is going to succeed if it ends up as a ground invasion. I appreciate that the UK is not going to do this alone, and Cameron will doubtless throw as much of what is left of the military into this, but the whole bit about Cameroonian statesmanship is a bit laughable given that overall it will be the US 6th fleet's carriers who have the biggest bombs and planes and do most of the work; plus a bit of support from the French, who do have a slight advantage over us now, as they have 1 aircraft carrier(!).

3. Will it work? - Iraq was under the cosh of a no-fly zone for nearly a decade and yet it did not defeat Saddam (a ground war was needed for that) or stop him from brutalising his people.

4. Why Libya ? - A question I would really liked to be answered is that if this intervention is on "moral" grounds, because the leadership of Libya is attacking crushing their own people, then why is Cameron not wanting to strike at Bahrain, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast, the Republic of Congo, Somalia, North Korea and Sudan/Darfur? I could go on with this list, but you see the point I am making here?

5. Another Iraq- self explanatory really, but what happens if the west gets rid of Ghadaffi and the chaos as seen in Iraq ends in a greater bloodshed. What happens if those who have been misruled by the current regime turn on the west and begin a campaign against any military force in the country?

6. Where is the national interest ? - It was apparently in the UK national interest to release the Lockabie bomber. Now it is in the national interest to get rid of the same guy whom we did a deal with; I would understand if this were about a part of Britain, in the way the Falklands is, but it is not. Nothing of course to do with the oil contracts the UK was hoping to get by releasing the Lockabie bomber.

7. Blair is Back-Yep, the Blair doctrine of 'Liberal Imperialism' is back or as it is called in America the "Neo-Cons"; that is military intervention on apparent moral grounds, in which the UK, sometimes lead by or sometimes pleading with the US (and occasionally the French) go round the world getting rid of "the mad dictator regime" and attempt to replace it with democracy. Except of course, it only applies when the "mad dictator" is sitting on vast oil reserves or is in Europe (which to my mind explains point 4) .

Japan Thought Thread

2011-03-13T21:21:00.000Z

Having watched the terrible scenes and events from the safety of my own armchair, I feel that it would be wrong of me not to post about the recent tragic events in Japan. This is therefore an open post for people to put their own thoughts and prayers to the people of Japan during this terrible hour for Japan and her people.

The strange death of liberal democrat England

2011-03-11T19:29:00.000Z

For students of British political history you will already appreciate that I have taken the title of my post today, from George Dangerfield's "the strange death of liberal England", a book which attempts to explain why the liberal party became the third party after the First World War and is one of those texts which you have to read if you study the subject at degree level. It is clearly ironic that after almost a hundred years not being in government the successor to the liberal party, the liberal democrats, having finally achieved a place in government are now being totally smashed viz polling support,crashing to 9% in recent polls; the conservatives by contrast are at least holding steady at 30-35% or their core vote, labour benefiting very well from the current government troubles.

One of the big questions not being asked at present is not that this current government is unpopular (it would always be so) , but why has the liberal democrat vote imploded in such a short space of time. Remember this time last year "cleggmania" was giving the liberal democrats 30% plus in the polls. Now at 9%, they are doing about as well as the liberal party in the 1960s. Why is this so? Is it because the liberal democrats are really the party of protest and have thus been shrunk to their own core support, now that they have to make difficult choices? Is it because their support of the conservative party ? Or something else?

As an aside, why is it that the liberals are taking the brunt of the wave of unpopularity over the cuts? As Cameron might say "we're all in this together", except that the liberal seem to be taking more of "this" than the conservatives.

Answers on a postcard please...

Under the counter with the ciggies

2011-03-09T18:10:00.002Z

Right, the government's plans to force shop keepers to sell fags (cigarettes) under the counter is just taking state control too far and is not what a conservative/liberal government should be about. Three simple questions to the state is all powerful morons who run this country, if I may :

1. How is this going to stop anyone from quitting?

2. If smoking is so ~~evil~~ terrible, then why not just put it on parr with illegal drugs and given every smoker a month's supply of nicotine patches?(the answer will have nothing ,of course, to do with the massive tax revenue!).

3. Adult magazines are displayed on the shelves of most shops, yet cigs will be banned from view? Why can't we have the porn mags taken off the shelves and put "under the counter"?

As an aside I would say whatever the rights and wrongs of smoking tobacco, given that in the UK at least you have to be 18 to purchase cigs, then surely it is up to the discerning individual to decide whether he/she wants to smoke/purchases cigs and not have it decided for them by some patronising, incompetent government official?

As a second aside, under UK law, at 16 you can marry, join the army, have consensual intercourse- straight or gay, get a full time job, but you cannot drink or smoke. I would suggest all those things that I've mentioned are adult matters in some way, in the sense that they bring with them great responsibilities and require a certain maturity, a maturity which, personally I think is on the same personal choice or level as drinking alcohol responsibly or indeed smoking. It is strange that one can volunteer to potentially give one's life up at 16, but you cannot smoke 'em if you've got 'em or enjoy a well earned tipple after thrashing the Taliban until 2 years later. Very strange, perhaps this is something that we as a society need to revisit. Do raise the bar across the board to 18, or lower this to 16?

As for this latest government scheme, personally I cannot see how a socially liberal, but economically conservative government could possibly have come up with this plan, which in the end only gives greater power to the state and takes it away from the adult individual, who in the final analysis should be free to purchase cigarettes above the counter, not under it, as if what was being purchased is illegal and making a the purchaser feeling like they are bargaining on some black market stall.

BPM, Cameron and the Military

2011-03-07T09:13:00.001Z

Judging from many a newspaper headline last week, one would have thought that Britain was still the largest military power in the world, the great superpower who could send out the gunboats to enforce their will on the natives; in this particular instance Libya. The newspapers were of course referring to Cameron's plan for a no fly zone against Libya, whilst also calling for Gadaffi to go. The trouble with this plan is that the Americans did not approve and since they are actually the only country capable of enforcing a no-fly zone, the plan has disappeared without a trace. What is of concern, however, is that Cameron has quickly got the BPM (British Prime Ministers) illness and quite early on in his term of office.

The BPM, for those unfamiliar with the term, is the effects of the practical dictatorial powers a British Prime Minister has, to the extent you rapidly age during your term (e.g. Blair, Major,Brown) and more worryingly you become increasingly detached from reality when it comes to the actual real power that Britain has, the illness becomes even more pitiful because every British Prime Minister allows for cuts to their armed forces and then expects them to do the same, if not more, than before.

This first Cameron intervention with regards to an international crisis is all well and good, but when will he realise that Britain is quite incapable of playing an independent role in world affairs or even a supporting role, whilst he, like his predecessors are hastily slashing the cash allocated to the Navy, Army and Airforce. Or perhaps will this early onset, the gap between reality and illusion will get even worse?

I love this Bar...

2011-03-01T23:08:00.000Z

£1.40 per litre of petrol? Revolution all over the place, Gadaffi refusing to go, Obama in the White House.... All depressing stuff. But a least there's Toby Keith to keep up his Grace's spirits...

We got winners, we got losers

Chain smokers and boozers
And we got yuppies, we got bikers
We got thirsty hitchhikers
And the girls next door dress up like movie stars

Hmm, hmm, hmm I love this bar

We got cowboys, we got truckers
Broken-hearted fools and suckers
And we got hustlers, we got fighters
Early birds and all-nighters
And the veterans talk about their battle scars
Hmm, hmm, hmm I love this bar

Obama, Cameron,Sarkosy and Merkel get help appointing their Cabinets

2011-02-18T21:12:00.000Z

Every wondered how Eric "too many pizzas the Hut" Pickles, Hilary " staunch feminist, but only got appointed 'cause of her husband husband "Clinton, Ian Duncan "workhouse" Smith, Christine" you can't be French 'cause you speak perfect English" Lagarde and all the other larger than life politicians[ In Eric Pickles case, ~~100~~ 50 stone of literal larger than life] we in the west know via the BBC, CNN and **** [whatever the French/German equivalent is- note I cannot remember the German Defence Minister's name- but apparently he is the most popular politician in Germany- who is embroiled in a juicy scandal -well at least according to the Beeb] ???

Well the answer is simple : they have been getting lessons from Hedley Lamar !

Revolution, Revolution, Revolution....

2011-02-18T08:20:00.004Z

Revolution is in the air, or at least in the air of the middle east; from Tunisia to Egypt and Iran, Bahrain and Jordan, one gets a sense that the poor huddled masses of the citizens of this area are revolting against the mixture of secular Republics, Monarchies and the theocracy in Iran. Some commentators, especially in the Guardian and perhaps even on the neo-con right are rejoicing at this site of "people power" as the yoke of dictatorship is finally lifted. Excellent. I am all in favour of liberal democracy and freedom of association, the press and the rule of law. But what worries me is that from the starting point of popular revolution, you do not always see countries go down the path of democracy, or some form of representative government.Nor does it mean that the region will become any more peaceful.

Let's look at a few examples from history :

1. The French Revolution- 1789-deposing the ancien regime of the absolutist Kings of France, undertaken by what appeared to be the popular will of poor peasants and struggling merchants, the Kingdom of France was quickly taken over by a bloodthirsty regime (literally) as not only the King, aristocrats but eventually anyone who was considered to be an enemy of the regime lost their heads in the orgy of blood letting called the reign of terror. Along with internal strife, the new French Republic began a campaign of conquest outside of its borders, starting a conflict which would last over 20 years (on an off) , saw the rise of Napoleon and the famous battles of Trafalgar and Waterloo.

2. The Russian Revolution- 1917- again the ancien regime of the Tsars was brought down following popular fury against the colossal looses Russia had sustained during world war one. At first the Russian Revolution appeared to go in a democratic way, with liberals such as Kerensky in power, but shortly after the ship of state took a different direction, that of Communism. We know the rest; vast starvation of the peasant population, Stalin and his gulags, the cold war .

3.The Iranian Revolution - 1979- initially a popular uprising against the dictatorship of the Shah, soon any hope of democracy was swept away and the country became a theocracy, dominated by a thought process which decreed the US to be "the great Satan" (the UK of course, was relegated to the role of a minion as the "lesser Satan").

So let us be a little bit more circumspect about what happens next. Not all revolutions turn out in a positive way.

What is a Plethora ?

2011-02-09T22:59:00.001Z

OK, I'm continuing the Mexican theme here, as El Guapo, asks his minion "do I have a Plethora ?"

The other diplomatic row- Mexico verses Top Gear

2011-02-07T09:20:00.007Z

It shouldn't come to any surprise for seasoned viewers of the BBC's TV show 'Top Gear', whose presenters have once again managed to hit the diplomatic spotlight with a few choice remarks about Mexico (Top Gear is basically presented by 3 middle aged men, all non-PC, who review, drive and generally make laddish comments about, well cars or 'automobiles').

The row caused The Republic of Mexico's Ambassador to the UK, Eduardo Medina-Mora Icaza, to brand the show "xenophobic" and "racist" after Richard Hammond (one of the co-presenters) said the following , when they discussed a Mexican sports car, the Mastretta.

Hammond said: "Why would you want a Mexican car? Because cars reflect national characteristics don't they?Mexican cars are just going to be lazy, feckless, flatulent, overweight, leaning against a fence asleep looking at a cactus with a blanket with a hole in the middle on as a coat."

Jeremy Clarkson, the lead presenter, apparently further upset the Ambassador by referring to Mexican food as "refried sick" (I actually like chili con carne, but there you go) and later cracked a joke on the situation (after the complaint by the Ambassador) on the next show, by saying that there would be no further complaints because the Mexican Ambassador would "be sitting there with a remote control like this" (Clarkson pretends to slump in a chair snoring).

The Ambassador has now written to the BBC as thus:

"The presenters of the programme resorted to outrageous, vulgar and inexcusable insults to stir bigoted feelings against the Mexican people, their culture as well as their official representative in the United Kingdom...These offensive, xenophobic and humiliating remarks serve only to reinforce negative stereotypes and perpetuate prejudice against Mexico and its people."

The BBC did of course apologise and explained :

"Our own comedians make jokes about the British being terrible cooks and terrible romantics, and we in turn make jokes about the Italians being disorganised and over dramatic, the French being arrogant and the Germans being over-organised,"

Which I think is fair enough- I also wait for the complaint by the Italian Ambassador, The French Ambassador and the German Ambassador- the programme itself is supposed to have banter and is done within a humorous context. In any case explaining English humour, e.g. irony, is sometimes a laborious task . It is not that Mexicans have any racial prejudices of their own or any breakaway provinces which do not want to be part of Mexico...

The BBC's apology is not the end of the matter, apparently. A Mexican citizen based in Britain is planning to sue ,or has at least got some legal chaps doing some ground work, the BBC under the equality laws and if any litigation was successful it could mean a payout of £1,000,000 ($1,600,000) as a rough estimate. One would like to ask, given that offence was caused, apology and explanation has been given, why a 30 year old design student, by the name De La Torre (who clearly represents the other 100,000,000 Mexicans) would want to pursue this matter, not withstanding the potential payout if the action was successful. But please note, that I would suggest that this legal manoeuvring is has nothing to do with this sign, naturally :

Clearly this is all about the honour of one's country and defending it against these terrible British racists, who don't know the difference between a tacos and an enchiladas, not lots of $$$$$$$. I am sure if this litigation is successful, that any money would go to the poverty stricken and poor of Mexico, rather than as a self-enrichment exercise for one person, otherwise I'd be claiming Mexican citizenship and joining the equality rights bandwagon for all the cash I could get out of the Kingdom. It would be better than the day job.

Discuss.

Much to say, little to talk about!

2011-02-02T19:38:00.000Z

His Grace admits defeat. I have been wanting to talk about so many issues on the world and domestic stage, but have been unable to find the muse or mojo with which to write properly. Can any one given any inspiration?

Have you pot of gold, but don't expect another bailout

2011-01-21T09:15:00.001Z

What strikes me is how little attention is being given to the whole issue of banker's bonuses by our current coalition government- especially as one half of it was stepped in popular rhetoric before the general election. True, several conferences have apparently been arranged between the big banks and the government (not just the ones you and I own) in order to reduce or at least try and make the bonus pot look a little less like a free lunch.

Robert Peston has noted that, for example, the Sachs of Gold Partners (or GS) bonus pot is a mere £269,000 per employee this year (much less than the usual £400-500 k). Naturally during this period of hair shirts and austerity my heart bleeds for these poor people having to life on such 'rations' (as an MP once put it). And of course many of you may well say that the non-nationalised banks are private and can therefore do what they want; conversely the nationalised banks need to keep the bonus pot high in order to make the bank profitable for the taxpayer.

Well, whatever the merits of these arguments it is fair to point out that so much of the economic crisis began with the whole churning out of the CDOs and other bad ideas of these banks, that they hardly deserve anything let alone the continuation of this bonus gravy train- not at least when the poor ordinary taxpayer has had to shoulder the burden of bailing out the banking system as a whole. True HSBC and Barclays did not take government cash, they were certainly helped by taxpayers via the back door of the Bank of England's low interest rates, liquidity schemes and most recently Quantitative Easing.

Furthermore, whilst the banks mentioned above are not owned by the taxpayer, there is in effect a blanket guarantee or should I say an insurance policy in effect -without any premium being paid - that the government (indeed any western government) that should a further crisis hit, then the taxpayer will stand behind whatever financial institution is under threat and whatever the circumstances or bad decisions of this private company.

As for the banks which are owned by the taxpayer, I think much more has to be done to sell off assets, reduce debt and provide a time table in which we can expect our money back (i.e. a "exit strategy").The investment banks take a lot of risk and sometimes this pays off to a wave of mega profits- upside for them- but when it is mega bust it is still upside as the taxpayer is now their ultimate back stop. If these people want their bonuses fine, but let us not allow the taxpayer to be their unfunded insurer of the last resort.

Happy New Year (and a belated Merry Christmas !)

2010-12-31T21:22:00.000Z

I would just like to wish my readers a belated Merry Christmas and a happy New Year !

Best wishes to all of you ! Let us hope that 2011 is a better year for us all!

God bless LL !

The debt pass the parcel and the 1930s

2010-12-16T14:55:00.000Z

The one matter which global elites have been saying to anyone who will listen, to the point it has become a Litany, is that they do not want to push the world 'back to the 1930's', or at least the grim parts of it, namely mass unemployment and fascism etc, but also in the economic sense of not wanting to carry out 'beggar thy neighbour' economic policies- tariffs, devaluation of currency etc. But what is not really being discussed is that in the 1930s the world developed into various trading and currency blocs (Dollar, Franc, Sterling, Yen) or into attempt autarky (Soviet Union/Nazi Germany).

The development of several trading blocs being replaced by the current globalisation/free trade/dollar as the world's reserve currency system we have now. This is because each part of the globe which counts (US, Eurozone, China, Japan) in economic terms (relative and absolute) are each suffering in their own way with debt problems and with 3 of these areas also suffering from the decision to unleash cheap fiat money, either through the central banks literally printing it (US, Japan) or lending massive amounts to banks (China) further problems are being built into the current global economic order .

Until last week what was happening in the debt money markets was a kind of pass the parcel in terms of whose debts seems the most attractive (or not). Thus when the US first undertook Quantitative Easing, the Euro and Yen soared as investors switched currencies. Now the Eurozone is the bad boy and there is talk of bailouts and it breaking up or of countries like Germany being bankrupted by saving the whole pet project of the European elites. Further afield there is also rumblings from the East, where China has pumped so much cash into its banking system that inflation and asset prices are going through the roof, or Japan where the economy is stagnant and state debt breaches 100% of GDP.

What appears to be happening now is that this pass the parcel is ceasing, that investors are frightful of both sides of the Atlantic when it comes to parking cash. If they do invest it is into the economies of Brazil and other growing economies (which has produced its own set of problems for these countries) or into 'hard' assets such as silver, gold, oil (hence why it is now £1.25 a litre for petrol in the UK) etc . It will also dawn on investors that the Chinese economy is overheating and that Japan is simply stuck in the quicksand as it has been for the past 20 years. Many other countries outside of the big economic powers are imposing capital controls to stop the inward flow of dollars and liquidity which these economies simply cannot absorb without massive price inflation (inflation is as we know an effective tax on the poor, who are quite a large part of these countries populations).

The end result of this could be that the big economies simply cannot fund their debts except through the use of the printing presses such as in the US or in Europe the bankruptcy of a major nation such as Spain. The result is still the same though; the destruction of the currencies value (or given that all currencies are now fiat- paper- money- what we think they are worth). This scenario would, of course, deal to China a massive blow (40% of GDP is exports, chief partners EU and US) and to Japan (already struggling with mass debts of its own). If this were to happen the world could simply fold into itself as it did in the 1930s and we could well have several trading blocs, whose currencies are fixed (to what who knows) or ones which do not 'float', in which world trade generally collapses into regions or self sufficiency states, e.g. a Yuan bloc (China/South East Asia?), the Mark (Germany, West/Northern Europe?), the Dollar (the American continent?).

Reflecting

2010-12-15T22:55:00.000Z

As the news of another centre right blogger's decision to finish blogging (Iain Dale), I would just like to say I am still around and will continue to blog myself. I am simply in one of my reflective moods, hence my lack of posting since 19th November. It is not that there is little to say about this world and its political affairs, it is just that one has noticed the tendency for one to rant. Whilst ranting has its place in the grand scheme of things, I do not want this blog to become a sort of blog sphere Daily Mail, Telegraph etc (you can of course read these yourself), so I am taking some time to reflect upon the world and my own political writing style. Once I have found that and my muse, the tap shall doubtless flow with gallons of ink and thought.

Best LL.

Is Merkel the Marshall Blucher of the current Euro crisis?

2010-11-19T07:56:00.001Z

Let us consider how Ireland has suddenly had to change her mind about accepting a bailout, or rather how the current focus switched to Ireland. This did not happen by some unhappy random factor, but began when Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, began to talk about the needs to hair cuts on certain European states debt. Thus the bond market had a bit of a panic and Ireland was the next on the hit list after Greece, but will of course be followed by Portugal and Spain.

Now Merkel was apparently saying all of this because of domestic politics- not surprising because Germany, the rich "uncle" of Euro wonderland is expected to get her cheque book out and start writing out billions in bailout money to southern Europe. Or at least that is what the euro federalists want to see happen. Whatever her own personal view of the EU, Merkel is treading a fine line because there are those in Germany who have finally started to wake up to the nightmare that was created when the single currency came into being. The Germans were told, 'don't worry, the Euro will be as good as the Mark', whereas in reality the Mark was attached to the vast spending and inefficient ways of the peasantry of southern Europe(who are upset at such things as not being able to retire at 60) and in Ireland's case a massive housing boom. So it is not surprising that some Germans are not happy about the current state of affairs.

This makes me wonder, if Merkel could do for us Euro realists, what Blucher did for Wellington at Waterloo and thus saving us all from a tyrant, but in the 21st century instance by intentionally or not save us all from the dream of constant bailouts and support of moral hazard. In fact, Merkel might even be in the vanguard of the final collapse of the Euro- and if we are to believe President Van Roumpy - the end of the EU itself .

One can only hope.....

Where is the £7 billion bailout money coming from?

2010-11-18T17:18:00.001Z

I'm like a dog with a bone on this one...

It is interesting to note that the current figure of £7billion that the UK is expected to cough up as part of the Irish bailout is roughly the same as the cut in the defence budget or the cut in the social security budget. So to keep the EU overlords happy, our current government is prepared to forsake national defence or looking after the most vulnerable in society. If we have to cut these budgets by the same amount as the bailout to Ireland, will voters really believe we are in this together; but yes we are, that is the Euro elite are in this together and to fulfill their fundamentalist desires the Euro must be saved at all costs; sod anything else like defence of the realm or poor people.

We should not, with the current state of affairs be willing to lend Ireland or Portugal or Spain any further monies. Especially given the cuts the UK is now suffering from.

But perhaps you might think I am being harsh. No. As said before the bailout money goes to the Irish government, who give it to their banks, who pay other banks who foolishly lent them the money in the first place, thus sending a clear signal to anyone that no matter how crazily you lend or have lent, you will always get you money back.

Oh and by the way, before Merkel [German Chancellor] starts shooting her mouth off again, it might be worth noting that the banks with the biggest exposure to Ireland are German (and then British) banks. So much for the credit crunch being the sole fault of the nasty Anglo-Saxon system.

Moral hazard anyone?

Hail thee EU, salute those who are about to go bankrupt!

2010-11-18T07:54:00.000Z

Another EU commentary (sorry if this is boring) :

Well, what a difference a day or so makes. After repeatedly denying that Ireland requires a bailout, it now looks like Ireland's proud leaders have been persuaded ~~bullied~~ into accepting one by the rest of the EU and the EU Commission. Even the UK (outside of the Euro zone) is getting in on the act, by apparently being preparing to cough up £7 billion in support of Ireland ~~The Euro~~.

A team is apparently going to Dublin to try and solve this crisis. Well good luck. There are a whole load of problems here, but at the root is the stupidity of the Euro in the first place, which was the dreamworld of the Euro-Fundamentalists, who believed that a common currency would unite us 'europeans' in brotherly love forevermore or as we call it in Britain a pure fantasy and now we are unfortunately seeing the whole house of cards collapse around us; after Ireland the focus will be on Portugal and then (the big one) Spain.

There are several issues here :

1) The problem is with the Euro itself : As said before about Ireland is already passing massive austerity measures (on top of high unemployment), but without the help of a devaluation which can help export led growth or the stimulus of monetary policy. So if a rescue does occur, how can Ireland take any more punishment from a further austerity drive, without anything to stimulate the economy.This is madness.

2) The domino effect We are on a roll with this crisis and focus will soon turn to Portugal and then Spain, as these countries are in a similar position to Ireland- but Spain is of course much larger and therefore more of a problem to bailout (see below). So the crisis will not end in Dublin.

3)Does Northern Europe have the cash? In effect the EU and politicians are asking northern Europe (plus the UK) to bailout Southern Europe plus Ireland. You cannot see this at present as the EU is dealing with the crisis inherent in the one size fits all policy of Europe, piecemeal i.e. going from country to country or crisis to crisis rather than tackling this head on. But the end result will be the same; even if Northern Europe could persuade taxpayers/voters to stump up enough money the problem then arises as to how this states will cope with the extra debt levels this would impose. You would find that an ever decreasing amount of states, were bailing out an ever expanding amount of states.

5) This is another bailout of banks, not of countries. Yes in effect we are not bailing out countries, but as in the case of Ireland their banking system (which is overwhelming the Irish state). Note that this current problem arose because of bondholders worrying about taking cuts to the amount they were expecting to get back, even though countries have gone out of their way to shaft stockholders, the public (via budgets) and just about everyone else except the bondholders. Therefore any rescue will presumably mean that bondholders will get 100% of their money. Who are the bondholders? Banks of course! So yet again the taxpayer has to make good a set of crazy lending decisions, albeit this time to nation states.Note also another impetuous behind this bailout is the insurance contracts, the same type which bought down AIG. There is a lot of worry that should a default occur then banks and insurers will have to pay out, possibly causing another AIG. So for banks (who have insured themselves via this way) are in a win-win situation.

So in summary the Euro was a bad idea to begin with, we are now having to deal with the consequences and there are no easy fixes if you wish to keep the Euro alive. I think that we have to (as said before) grasp the nettle and (somehow) have a controlled bailout, ejection from the Euro of the weaker states, to allow them time to build up their economies. The Euro is causing more pain than it is worth. If European leaders could see this and plan accordingly then things would get better. But because all of them are wedded to the Euro-federalist nightmare they are prepared to expend massive amounts of public treasure to defend something which cannot be defended and will ultimately fall, one way or another.

The Monarchy is secured....

2010-11-17T20:32:00.000Z

Yesterdays wonderful news that the Royal couple, William and Kate are to be married next year has made his Lordship extremely happy - the British monarchy is one of the oldest surviving institutions on this planet and will continue to be so, thanks to its ability to adapt, without destroying the traditions behind it. And of course it was extremely good to see a young couple in love, who have chosen to be with each other no matter what. I pray that God will look after them, but I have no doubt that our future King and Queen will have many happy years together.

Three cheers ! Hip -hip hooray!

For the sake of stability the Euro-wonderland MUST stop now !

2010-11-13T17:49:00.001Z

The BBC is reporting that Ireland is informally approaching the Euro bailout fund given the large leap in the cost of Irish government debt. This is despite massive draconian cuts over several successive years, which has hitherto been praised by Brussels and has been foolishly used in the UK budget cut debate.

Now to deal with this first: it is stupid for either the right or left to use what is happening in Ireland as a model for the UK, for the simple reason that the UK controls her own currency and money supply, which can be used as a counterweight to any government cuts. Ireland, as a member of the Euro wonderland cannot use these tools to offset their increasing debt problems.

In fact I would suggest that being in the Euro was and is part of the problem in the first place, as the European Central Bank sets interest rates, not for the good of the Irish economy but for the good of the larger Northern European states or as it would say for the good of the whole Euro zone - if you believe that then you are very naive (OK, I'll be less diplomatic and say Germany primarily) .

The second problem is that throughout the financial crisis/credit crunch of the past 3 years, governments have gone out of their way to save bondholders (but not, note shareholders) which is why these debt holders are now getting worried about holding Irish, Greek, Spanish debt to name but a few.

The third problem is that whilst Greece was in denial about the scale of the government debt and therefore stringent (or lenient- depends on your view) terms could be applied to any bailout. This does not apply to Ireland, who as noted above have passed several austerity budgets, even though total debt each year is getting to 32% of her entire economy. My worry is that the Euro fools will attempt to impose on Ireland what they did with Greece- totally unfair to the people of Ireland, given that her people have suffered already to keep bondholders happy. Whilst the Irish have so far (unlike the Greeks) not gone to the barricades, I fear any further deep cuts at this present time and being in the Euro will crush the Irish economy to the point that people feel that they have no option and social /political stability will be affected.

So what are the solutions ? Let me not mince my words :

1) .I think that Ireland should immediately exit the Euro and adopt the Punt once again (not a crazy idea as most Irish exports still go to the UK, so a devalued currency will be a help in this instance).

2) . The bondholders need to wake up and smell the coffee and realise that they totally misjudged the Euro and the various governments in it and that they should be prepared to take a hefty 'haircut'.

3). An appropriate bailout loan from the IMF should be granted to help Ireland through the immediate short term crisis which 1 and 2 would create .

4) On a European level, the Euro needs to be got rid of or at least reformed to what it has now become, a de facto European German Mark. If this means having only the Nordic countries, Holland , Belgium, Germany and possibly France in it, so be it .

5) The whole Euro fantasy project must end. The elites of Europe must understand that I am still English, the Irish are Irish and the French will always be the French. Whilst all of our nations wish to live in peace and do not want to see the likes of the world wars again, this does not mean slavish adherence to the Euro mad project is the way to achieve it . If anything, the best solution for the people of Europe is to have a loose economic association in addition to the full support of NATO. We do not need European wide courts, Europeans directives and the like. The drive for a one European government must stop.

Right, now I have put one part of the world to rights, I'm off to put my jacket potatoes into the oven.

best LL

The Royal Navy (according to the Con-Dem government)

2010-11-10T20:51:00.000Z

HMS David J Cameron was commissioned today at a ribbon cutting ceremony.

The ship is the first of its kind in the Navy and a standing legacy to David Cameron for his "foresight in military budget cuts".

A brief overview as follows :

1. She is a 100 foot flat top, constructed entirely from recycled aluminum and completely solar powered.

2.Top speed is 2 knots.

3. She boasts an arsenal of one unarmed F14 tomcat which, although it cannot be launched, forms a menacing presence.As a standing order there are no firearms allowed onboard.

4.The 33 person crew is completely diversified, including all races, creeds, sex and sexual orientation or fighting ability.

5. Her crew, like the crew of HMS Nick Clegg, is specially trained to avoid conflicts and appease any and all enemies of Great Britain and her allies. An onboard type 2 universal translator can send out messages of apology in any language to anyone who may find Britain offensive. The number of apologies are limitless and though some may seem hollow and disingenuous, the Navy advises all apologies will sound very sincere.

6.Smoking is not permitted, although cigars (in deference to Bill Clinton) are welcome on national holidays.

7.The type of ensign being flown is French or European, depending on whose money we need .

8.The ship may be positioned near the Liberal Democrat or Conservative Party headquarters for photo ops.

You may be intelligent or you may be a Liberal Conservative or a Conservative Liberal,but you must admit that is some ship!!!!

Don't look to the Clinton era for what happens next

2010-11-05T17:34:00.001Z

What a week it has been. On Tuesday we had the humbling of the Obama Administration and the Democrats in the US mid-terms despite the left/liberal media across both sides of the Atlantic attempting to portray the 'tea party', which has put humph into the Republicans, as a bunch of religious/right wing nuts, who could not be trusted with power (clearly the voters did not agree) .

It is interesting that many a commentator, have suggested that the 'playbook' for Obama is to do what Bill Clinton did in the 1990s and move towards the centre ground and then try and behave moderately, whilst blaming all the ills of America on the Republican party (who will be portrayed in the left media as 'the nasty party').

There is one flaw (well several) in this idea, listed below in no particular order :

1. Control of Congress is split -The GOP does not control all of Congress, but one part of it, whereas in the 1990s both chambers of Congress were GOP controlled. This allowed Clinton to maneuver the GOP into a position of taking all of the blame, during the budget crisis which shut down the government. Therefore any attempt to portray the Congress as the obstacle to whatever it is that Obama now intends to do with fiscal -or any other- policy is deeply flawed. The blame game cannot be played if your party controls half of the legislative process. Ironically in not sweeping the Senate, this may actually help the GOP from a 'tactical' political viewpoint.

2. Charm- Clinton, whatever you thought of him did have the ability to be charming when he wanted to be. Yes he could give a good 'stump' speech, probably Obama is better than even this past master. However whilst Obama can give a speech to thousands, he appears to lack the 'common touch' approach or empathy with the individual.

3. Centre Ground -Clinton moved towards the centre, but the Democrats are far more centre left than they were 20 years ago, pace the interesting idea that American politics has become more 'Europeanised' than in the past (e.g. Southern Democrats were far more conservative, the New England Republicans, such as Rockefeller more paternalist/state interventionist than the rest of the GOP). How far can Obama move to the centre without risking a primary challenge in 2012, from a serious centre-left Democrat or Mrs Clinton?

4.The economy- Clinton was President during one of the largest booms in modern American history and managed to claim credit for economic management during his first term. Obama has to deal with a retracting economy, unemployment, a massive Federal debt and potentially lethal inflation (after the latest $600 billion QE2 programme). A further stimulus is politically impossible, therefore the only way in which the economy could recover by external (that is policy intervention) means is the QE2 of the Fed, but the outcome of this is unknown, hence why QE2 is already being called "The Bananke Put".

5.The Hockey Mom won't automatically get the GOP nomination- which is what the left hopes; in 1996, Clinton had Bob Dole as a candidate and predictably lost. I suggest that the GOP will be able to pick a serious candidate in 2012, but that this is not likely to be the former governor from Alaska.[This is of course complete conjecture on my part, but is nonetheless by 'gut' feeling].

So in all in all, matters are different to how they were in the '90s and the outcome of the 2012 elections is by no means certain.

The ginger rodent

2010-10-30T22:49:00.000+01:00

So Harriet Harman, Labour deputy leader and former Equalities Minister has had to apologise to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for calling him a 'ginger rodent' . From what I understand it is the ginger bit (he is indeed ginger) which she had to apologise for , as it was done in a mocking manner, but not apparently for calling him a rodent (I recall all the fuss when in Doctor Who, Matt Smith proclaimed the line "And I'm still not ginger", which led to the BBC having numerous complaints). This apology strikes me as being strange; surely the name calling of some-one as a 'rodent' (e.g. rat) is the more insulting bit? Or have I missed something here? Are ginger people amongst the list of minorities who need to be 'protected' via equality legislation/positive discrimination?

Never mind the EU budget, there is something even worse afoot

2010-10-29T10:22:00.000+01:00

I will be brief today.

Many bloggers on the centre right in the UK are writing about the Cameron 'betrayal' over the EU budget. One is tempted to ask 'what did you expect?' Cameron does not have the withal to simply stand up and say 'we are not paying', which would be the correct thing to do, given the austerity he is imposing upon the people of this island. Not that I oppose the deficit reduction plans, but if this 'pain' is to be shared out equally, then the EU budget should be cut by 20% in line with other UK spending commitments.

Of more worry is the desire by Germany for the commission to check member state's budgets, to prevent a repeat of the Greek crisis (not letting them into the Euro in the first place would have been a good thing). Now given that this is clearly a transfer of power to the EU and given that the EU Constitution Lisbon Treaty needs to be changed, can we please have our plebiscite ? I won't hold my breath....

By the way- just in case your reading this, in say, America and are thinking I am some form of 'little englander' with a lot of anger, imagine if the North American Free Trade agreement became the North American Community, which regulated trade and therefore began to develop a civil service of its own. Then it became the North American Union, with a flag and a common currency with the ability to make resolutions which by-passed the traditional parliamentary process and election.

You see this is how the EU started, as a free trade zone and nothing else. But in the past 30 or 40 years, the European elite, in order to circumvent democracy have actively created this behemoth, this attempt at a government. I only hope that the US/Canada/Mexico and Latin America don't go the same way.

Can some-one please tell Boris to shut up?

2010-10-28T18:49:00.002+01:00

Yesterday I posted about the housing benefit row- in which people claiming this benefit will be capped at £400 a week (for a 4 bedroom property) and a total of £21,000. This £21k is on top of other benefits as well. Labour accuse the coalition of 'cleansing' and now the Conservative Mayor of London is talking about a 'Kosovo' style scenario if the housing benefit 'reform' is put into place; what a load of crap.

I have to admit, I do ask myself how Boris Johnson, bumbling buffoon that he is ever got elected in the first- the man has had more gaffes than I have had breakfasts.... and yet he still manages to get away with saying the most ridiculous of things, this being a prime example.

I really do wish people would turn down the rhetoric on this one.What I really do not appreciate is the analogy that by cutting a benefit, which is supposed to be a temporary measure- not a permanent lifestyle choice-which the rest of us pay for Britain will suddenly turning into some time of dystopian fascist style regime. So we are going to become a Kosovo are we? Yes, so we are going to have the systematic slaughter of innocents are we? Where millions die, after being pillaged, raped and had their houses burned down? For no other reason than being different to everyone else?In short no, this is NOT going to happen.

How many people will be affected by this, well the BBC (which is hardly a craven nasty right wing forum) estimates 17,000. How many people live in London ? 10,000,000 plus perhaps? But the way people are talking is as if civilisation itself was coming to an end, because a benefit- which is supposed to help poor people whilst they are temporarily out of work- which some appear to think is a God given right is actually being capped. Not axed or abolished, but capped.

I would like £21,000 a year, I know a few people whose mortgage would be paid with this amount and still have some money left over, but are still working, still struggling and still just about paying because they are not "poor" enough. I don't personally see what is wrong with a cap of this amount of money (besides which, given London is such a dynamic place, I would suggest, perhaps employment is easier to come by than in other cities and wages reflect the cost of living, in fact what's wrong with commuting?).

Finally I would also like to point out that London is already a place of deep division, in terms of wealth, as it always has been :North London vs South London, East London and West London. So quite how this change will really effect the Great London area is,frankly, beyond me.

The fire brigades and strikes

2010-10-28T14:57:00.000+01:00

The London Fire Brigades Union has decided in its infinite wisdom to call a strike for the 5th November. Now for those of you who don't know this is the date of a very British celebration called 'bonfire night or guy Fawkes night', when we let fireworks off and well.... have bonfires, as this is the night in which we celebrate the foiling of a plot (way back in 1605) by Guy Fawkes to blow up Parliament and with it the ruling elite of England.

The proposed strike seems to be a tad bit insane, especially from a PR viewpoint, given the relationship between lighting fires and letting off fireworks and the statistical increase in house fires and the like, it has given David Cameron the opportunity to call the strike "irresponsible".

This led to me to ask myself, if this is irresponsible and there is a possible connection to the strike and public safety, 'should the Fire Brigades be even allowed to strike?' After all the Police are not permitted to have a Union or to go on strike; clearly the armed forces are not either (it will most likely be the overstretched army which will attempt to deal with emergency calls). I do appreciate that in a democracy there is the right to withdraw one's labour- but should this come at the cost of endangering the very people the public servant is supposed to be protecting?

Discuss.

Clegg vs Bryant on Housing benefits

2010-10-27T17:42:00.000+01:00

Yesterday there was an exchange of views in our House of Commons, between our Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Y front man Chris Bryant (former Anglican Vicar turned politician/gay rights chappie) in which labour man Bryant accuses the coalition government of "cleansing" in response to their proposed welfare reform. What have the left come to when they try and run this time of argument? The coalition is many things, I disagree with this government sometimes, but some kind of murderous terror regime it is not. But I did enjoy watching (for the first time ever perhaps) Clegg getting angry (well for him) and showing some kind of passion.

The link is here Clegg vs Bryant on Housing benefits

Gove as ......

2010-10-26T12:31:00.001+01:00

His ecclesiastical Eminence, Archbishop Cranmer, has a story today about education, which naturally features the Education Secretary Michael Gove... but has anyone noticed the similarities between Gove and the Stargate-SG1 Asgard Supreme Commander Thor? I sense a conspiracy theory coming on....

Cuts- not in the Euro wonderland where money grows on trees.......

2010-10-26T09:05:00.003+01:00

I have been out with a severe bout of flu for the past week, so I am sorry for not really writing about the various political news stories.

Last week we saw the full measure of the austerity that Britain now has to face in order to avoid bankruptcy, including the near destruction of our defence forces under the convenient title of a 'strategic defence review' (GREAT idea of building aircraft carriers which won't have ANY aircraft on them, in order to save money or the ironically named 'Astute Class' submarine which is so undetectable it ran aground in its trial- don't tell me, it didn't have an propeller?- is typical), the cutting of £7 billion off welfare, the retirement age at 66 (the French are currently destroying their capital on a proposal for it to be raised to 62!- my heart bleeds for them...) and cuts of 19% around all the other departments save the health service. Except the international development budget- we must keep the third world dictatorships going in the manner to which they are accustomed.

So we are in full austerity drive. Unless it is the EU. Naturally one of the huge problems with getting into bed with the power mad liberal democrats is that they are slavish EU fanatics, who would say 'how high' when the EU overlords say 'jump'. And lo, we have a 6% increase in the EU budget, of which we have to pay £9.2 billion. Call me insane, right wing or nationalist, but I think that if "we're all in this together", the first thing we should be cutting is this Baronial tithe to the EU.

Imagine what could be done with £9.2 billion, if it were not poured down the drain of the EU Behemoth- if your from the right this could mean a tax cut, deficit reduction, or a way of stopping the cuts to the defence budget, if your a labour supporter, this could mean a poverty initiative, extra stimulus or a way of not cutting so severely. This is why I can never understand why both the right and the left have a current love in with the EU, given the scale of the crisis at home and the amount of money which we give to the foreigners. But will Cameron and our coalition overlords challenge this? Of course not. We have a liberal conservative and a conservative liberal running the country.

This means that whenever anything to do with the EU- note the desire of the French and the Germans to enforce uncompetitive practices on British industry- the current government will do nothing other than cave in. Forget the "EU treaty lock" of Cameron make believe, the lib dims and the Cameroon loyalists will see to it that the EU interest, not the British, always comes first.

Is it really Tina?

2010-10-18T14:12:00.001+01:00

Taken from the BBC's political editor- Tina- stands for 'there is no alternative' to cutting the deficit. Clearly labour disagree, although whilst I am not their greatest supporter, I have to say I just cannot understand exactly what they would be doing if in government now.

The Labour party leadership seem to have repudiated the Darling cut plan and are of course in opposition going to be more obstructive to the coalitions cuts programme. No surprise, but it does appear to be a matter of degree, because you do not see labour suggesting more spending, but simply a debate about the pace of cuts.

Which makes me think that the whole cuts issues is politics as usual and the whole matter is being blown out of all proportion because of our adversarial party system. That is until the Trades Unions begin to strike- then we will see if labour is on the side of the law and democracy or the rule of the mob. Ed, will clearly have his work cut out then- as the unions basically gave him the job of leader of the labour party.

Finally is there an alternative Tina? Yes there is. It is called national bankruptcy.

Pupil premium- let's waste some more money

2010-10-15T10:45:00.000+01:00

The deputy PM, Nick Clegg, wishes to introduce a "pupil premium" which will mean spending £7 billion over 4 years of fresh taxpayer money. This comes when most government departments are expected to announce cuts of 25% (I believe in reality it will be higher) and the US Secretary of State expresses "concern" over the fate of the UK defence budget (yes, I'm concerned too as we won't have any defence capability left, yet we will still send in our lads to fight in Afghanistan without the proper equipment, but I digress as usual). So if we all need to tighten our belts and get the deficit down, even at the expense of defending the country,how come the government can find money for a pet project of the liberal democrats?

Secondly, we have had 13, yes 13 years of "progressive" government in the UK with the previous Labour government, who came up with all sorts of initiatives like this (as this premium is designed to 'target' the 'poorest' of our people) with the result of very little progress, if one actually believes that state cash can somehow magic away poverty and the apparent connect with this to crime (the left mantra). The crime and feral children of the inner city slums (let's not mince words) are still there. There is still poverty and yet the left, including the liberals seem to think that more spending will some-how solve this problem. Yet if we haven't after 13 years, after spending billions already, what makes Clegg think he will do it now over 5 years? What about letting the local community sort out this mess, rather than throwing more state cash at the situation?

I liked the quote from the Labour MP, Graham Allen, who is chairing a commission into early intervention with the 'poorest of children', who , in a moment of apparent bi-partisanship said this scheme would :

"repay itself to the taxpayer many times over provided the children learn social and emotional

capabilities which middle-class two-year-olds take for granted".

Call me old fashioned, but I always thought that children learn social and emotional capabilities not from school, but from the parent (s) who bring up the children?

I must live in a different world....

Why are the US mid-term elections important ?

2010-10-14T13:39:00.001+01:00

First let me be clear, this isn't an essay on the ins and outs of the current American political debate, but rather an attempt to underline why they are more important ,both to Americans themselves and to everyone else on the planet, than other mid terms elsewhere . I will give two examples (there are probably more but I want to be brief).

Primarily this is important because what the American people are going to elect actually has some power . Yep, that's right. Unlike in the UK or any other western democracy, the state elections for Governor and Legislature result in mini governments which actually have the ability to decide a whole variety of laws and raise/lower taxation. Contrast this to the local UK elections, in which the main power of a council is to do whatever the national government tells them and whose main funding is from the central government.

Furthermore, at the national level in America, their Congress, as a legislative body, is the one which makes national laws and is not just given a bill to pass, in the same fashion as a nodding donkey (like the UK Parliament, whose business and agenda is run by the government of the day). Even more interesting is that in the Senate, because of tradition, individual Senators can simply stand up and talk and talk, until they collapse, or are told to shut up by 60 of their colleagues, which given that there is only 100 members, is a good way of defeating legislation. So if your a British Prime Minister who wants an $800 billion stimulus package, you just click your fingers; in America this has to be actually decided by the Congress (which may or may not be led by your party).

As far as the world is concerned, well, given that it has actually power and that it is extremely likely Barrack Obama's party, the Democrats, will loose control of the Congress, you will see that Congress becomes a counter point of legislation in which the President's agenda is more or less ignored .This might read like it is domestically important: it is . But Congress, because it has power exclusive of the government, can also get in on foreign affairs and trade- be that in your view a good or a bad thing.

So whoever gets control of Congress it will effect both the US citizen and the rest of us living on the globe.

Various changes

2010-10-13T18:59:00.000+01:00

As you can see I have given this site a bit of a makeover, I trust that people will take some time to have a look around and enjoy it. I did say, that the blog would arise anew - and indeed it has !

English Home Rule - time for 'The Party of England' ?

2010-10-12T11:10:00.000+01:00

Today Lord Browne has unveiled his commissions report on university education- I agree with the basic thrust of what is being proposed. But then I noticed that this report was for England only. So yet again the UK government is going to legislate for English affairs.

Ah the joys of the unfair devolution settlement- whilst the other nations of the Union can do what they like, England is in effect governed as a colony.

Now I had once thought that a decent proposal to 'save the Union' would be to have an English Parliament, with a sort of federal Parliament in Westminster. But then I thought, why the hell do I want to save the Union in the first place ?

I appreciate there is a sort of sentiment we can all attach to this Union, but when one looks at it in purely economic terms, it is time to cut loose.

Why do I want to send ex amount of my hard earned money to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland so that they can have :

Free medical prescriptions
State funded care for the elderly
No university tuition fees

Yet if the English desire these things, we are told 'no' by our political masters ?

Well, fine. I suspect neither Scotland or Wales and certainly not Northern Ireland could really afford any of the above, if it were not for the vast flow of funds, from England to the rest of the UK, under the wonderfully inept 'Barnett quota ' (the mechanism which allows for a vast subsidy of the non English parts of the realm) .

So it is either England gets her own Parliament and be equal with the other countries of the UK, or we all go happily or amicably to the divorce courts.

Otherwise, it will be time to create an English version of Plaid or SNP - lets say English Nationalist Party or the Party of England. [Cue the left cries of 'facist', 'nationalist', 'racist', 'little Englander' - as the English are 'not allowed' to be patrotic because we are all horrible thugs as per left liberal london types and Mel Gibson] which will be dedicated to removing England from the UK (and also, as an aside from the EU).

Five key university reforms

2010-10-11T12:05:00.000+01:00

1. Freedom from government interference and revenue, which would end the social engineering of our great education system and allow for the best candidates to study, in effect privatise the universities into corporates which are run by a board of trustees (whose makeup would depend on the local circumstances). Allow for a massive tax break for donations/grants/ legacies to the university, to supplement the fees paid by students. In addition the university should be free to obtain commercial loans, overdrafts, sell bonds, raise capital and obtain finance from the private sector. Also allow new universities to be built, if there is the money to do so- if we can have 'faith' schools, why not have 'faith' universities?

2. Abolish tuition fees, the most erroneous phrased name for a fee ever devised as it makes out university is just like school- when you are spoon fed and can get away with writing essays using 1 general book and notes from the teacher's lesson . The tuition fee should be replaced by a general fee for the whole cost of the students time at university (library, gym, halls accommodation in the first year and the tiny part of the course which is the lecture theatre).

3. Freedom for the universities to set their own fee level, which would in reality be tempered by the market, as parents/students looked for the best deal for themselves.

4. Payment Freedoms - various. Grants, either public or private plus old fashioned scholarships, sponsorships, or patrons. Then there is loans, which should be flexible, for example interest only, capital and interest, fixed or floating, investment or even bonds.

5. Freedom to set their own student levels -self explanatory really, but allow universities to decide how many students they wish to have come through the gates.

End of the middle class welfare state- University education

2010-10-11T11:06:00.000+01:00

There is news today that the coalition intends to either raise the cap on university tuition or make students pay 'market' rates on the loans. All well and good- not that there should have been a cap in the first place and if we are going to have commercial rates on student loans, why not allow 'the market' to compete in this , rather than the state monopoly of the student loans company (which the same government wants to give to the private sector- so look, now we have a private monopoly!).

As I said in my previous post, the current coalition is continuing the gradual retirement of the sections of the welfare state for the middle classes, as started by Labour. I mentioned that a great part of this welfare regime was the university education system (if I can call it a system). As many labour politicians (neglecting their own Oxbridge and private schooling roots, which was in the 1960s paid by the poorer parents of the very same poor people they supposedly defend!!) have said "why should the dustbin man - or refuse collection operative in the PC vernacular- pay for middle class bods to go to university?" (as the dustbin man will never earn as much as the career graduate). Of course this rhetorical question also leaves out the socialist agenda of the past 13 years, of equality of outcome for everyone ,leaving the whole degree devalued as a result, but let's leave that out of the argument for now.

The reply to the socialist question is of course, why should the graduate, contributing far more overtime in taxation than the degree cost in the first place, be paying for the NHS and the other social services that the dustbin man uses? Thus this gets back to the universalism inbred in the welfare state- once one benefit for one part of the community is ditched, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify the vast array of taxes required to support this massive state regime.

True, there isn't enough money in the state pot to pay for all of the current undergraduates (who have grown and grown, thanks to the social engineering policies of the socialists), some of whom do study stupid, stupid subjects, which are not really fitting the title of Bachelor of Arts/Science. So what should be done ? I will write these down, on the next post.

Fairness and Child Benefit cuts : the end of the welfare state (?)

2010-10-09T09:57:00.000+01:00

So, the government wants to child benefits for those earning over £44,000 a year. Cue hostility not from the left, but from the right. This is nothing of course to do with the fact that most of the London media are on that sort of wage- nay they consider it to be 'average', but because of the unfairness that the cut brings- i.e. those couples who potentially earn £43,999 each, will still get the benefit.

It is also true that this highlights the possible difficulties for the upper middle and lower middle classes, when the country is ruled by two multi millionaires, for whom the cuts will mean nothing as they will always have the money to do whatever they like. From the left, there has been much gloating about how the Tory media has gone into overdrive when the cuts attack their constituency and to be fair if it had been a proposal to get the so-called 'benefit cheats' benefits cut then the left would be rioting by now and the right would be gloating.

But let us look at these in a different way. The left has more to loose by the government action, than the right. This may sound strange, but the basis of my argument is to suggest that the welfare state , its capstone if you will, is that the few pay for the many. It is not hordes of poor people who pay into the welfare pot, like some giant co-operative, but in reality it is the middle earners who pay most into the pot (the super rich have good accountants who help them avoid this burden).

Thus as the state deprives these middling earners benefits, the less and less reason they will have to support the welfare state, which is and always was, a redistributive mechanism of wealth, albeit via stealth. This system has survived because successive governments have used the universality of the benefit system to keep the middle classes buying into it. Once that is gone, well, the middle classes would being to wonder what advantage the welfare approach has for them . Let us not forget that it is in the middle class suburbs were elections are won or lost and not in the rust belts of the northern towns or the Tory dominated shire counties.

But they are only child benefit cuts I hear you say. Well, this is just one example, but the process of disengaging the middle classes from the welfare state was already started by the last government, perhaps unwittingly, when it introduced tuition fees for university education. Note, my argument here is not about the merits of this policy, but the fact that university education (labour's social engineering aside) is by and large the preserve of the middle classes, but that this benefit was paid from the universal pot of the welfare state. That's gone now. So will child benefits. Next will it be access to the NHS?

The ironic thing is that, the left seems to think these are good ideas and thinks it is all perfectly 'fair' as 'fairness' seems to be the current political watchword. This might be the case, but by banging the drum of fairness, the left is going to find itself in difficulty when people start to ask about the 'fairness' of paying such a vast amount of their hard earned money to the government, when they see almost no return from that.

So strangely perhaps this might be the beginning of the end of the welfare state. And when that happens, it won't be the middle classes who will have the greatest shock of their lives, but the left and their supporters. So please Guardian readers, keep saying this cut is 'fair' , as every time this occurs, you are driving a nail into the welfare coffin.

THE RETURN OF LORD LAVENDON- THIS TIME FOR GOOD!

2010-10-08T17:32:00.002+01:00

I have finally come out of hibernation, my great sleep is ended. This blog will rise anew.

Friends welcome back !

Left wing agitators, atheists, liberals and socialists : be free to post here, but be warned I have returned revitalised.....

And you ain't seen nothin' yet!

Hands Off Hauge

2010-09-02T11:47:00.001+01:00

As the village postmistress said to me this morning 'haven't seen you around much' and this is true of my blog as well. Well I gave blood yesterday (in only 4 minutes 56 seconds) and have been around and about attending to other matters.

But one bit of politics which I felt a need to write about is this stuff about Hague (UK Foreign Secretary) and his 'special adviser', in which a few individuals are trying to make mischief of, suggesting that because they shared a twin hotel room together during the election campaign, this automatically means that they are in some sort of homosexual relationship (why, does this imply that men cannot have Platonic relationships with either sex then?) and that Hague's marriage is breaking up. I think that this sort of story is nothing short of disgusting and as usual British politics is getting nearer and nearer to the cesspit.

I appreciate that this is the silly season (as noted before), but there are still many important political issues which should surely matter more than our foreign secretary sharing a room with a male colleague. I half suspect that those currently shouting off about this part of the story would be the first to complain about expense scandals if they had had two separate rooms (clearly no of these chaps has ever served in the armed forces either, where it is usual for men to share barracks together, both men and women, yet no-one suggests that anything inappropriate is happening).

Then Hague had to issue a statement regarding all of this, following the hounding out of Hague's adviser, and had to tell us about his and his wife's unfortunate set of miscarriages, so some people are now suggesting this is a smokescreen to divert attention. But attention from what exactly? People suggest that Hague's adviser should not have been an adviser because he used to be a driver and got a lower second class degree. Well this is perhaps the worst sort of class bias I have read in a long time. Clearly then, the Foreign Secretary who helped to create NATO in 1952, was unqualified because he had happened to have been a working class miner.

In a nutshell this whole story is nothing short of gutter press, people need to lay off Hague and hopefully this will be the end of the story. It also leads me to conclude that I need to delete the Paul Staines blog off my roll, as I am sick to death of the smut that comes from the comments and his wit of late has dropped quicker than a Richard Branson balloon. I am also surprised that the telegraph and the mail ran with this, but i can only conclude they are desperate for sales.

So hands off Hague.

UFO China- the real explanation

2010-08-26T20:05:00.021+01:00

By some strange coincidence, I have received a rather sheepish letter from my good friend Supreme Commander of the allied forces, General Solomon, a Lagomorph from Parsleyious VII, which explains the recent spate of UFOs around China (see picture opposite, this is the last picture I have of him, when he was captured by the evil Thebans, a fascist style raptor/reptile race from Galvan VIII, who formed an alliance with the Nazis during WWII-see picture right, if it hadn't been for Winston C********, and later on Charles De G***** and Franklin D R****** humanity would have been destroyed for ever ).

Note: some bits have been redacted due to 'national security'.

My Dear Lord *****,

"First may I apologise for not popping into see you during my ships recent visit to Sod [Earth] , but I felt that any further temporal interference would destabilise the whole space-time vortex, so as previously advised you will have to wait for a further 2 earth years before we can come and pick you up, although I must report that you have become something of a hero back on Byzantium, especially your argument that the strong must defend the weak, the wealthy should help the poor, but especially your constant interference in the affairs of Sod [Earth] both before and after your exile is now gaining support amongst revisionist historians .

I am also pleased to write that your eldest daughter, Hannah, is progressing well under my 'wing' and I sense that she will be of great importance in respect to the future of galactic affairs. I am also happy to say that the Curia has finally ratified the Churchill/Byzantine mutual defence treaty; in fact following an investigation by the Central Investigation Agency [CIA] and numerous petitions to the Curia that our most technologically advanced programme of [Space] Battleships shall be classified as the Churchill and Robert E Lee Class, because those two Earthlings saved the Galaxy and most importantly the Byzantine Empire on several occasions, whatever their merits in respect of Earthlander history; this delighted the current government of the UK , but upset the current government of the United States that their President told his security detail to fire upon me- hmm!- all I had to say was 'bullet proof fur looser!'; his security chaps were not so lucky; flesh verses diamond polished sword is not much of a contest .

But I digress .....

Now before you start worrying, the whole UFO 'incident' in China was nothing more than a stupid error- an error on my part, alas. You see, I had decided to finish off my tour of the various important governments of Sod [Earth] by making a friendly visit to my old pal P*** from Ru****. As usual Vladimir was on 'vacation' in Siberia so it was only a short hop from the Champs De Elysee (Sar****, but more importantly his wife is such a laugh) to there, so I though not real harm. As usual Vlad couldn't beat me at a good old sword fight- not bad for a 26,030 year old- although he was better at swimming the ****** than me.

Unfortunately that is when the trouble started, as the Ministry of Defence had insisted that we bring along some celebrities and you know what these types are like, especially the Curry's [Grey Aliens]. As usual they wanted to boss everyone else around (as if they are not making enough money on this planet, as everyone seems to think that is what non-humans look like), so when I left Vlad nursing a broken ****, the bloody bounders wanted to "stop off for a Chinese", despite the fact that we are not due to go to China until later this year (I am pleased to say that the last gift from that people, now what are they called giant Pandas, are quite happy in their new home).

Anyway these bloody celebs get they own way and we stop off and get some Chicken Chop Suey, Egg Fried Rice, Prawn Crackers, Sweet and Sour Hong Kong Style and 20 other dishes- the rice was quite nice but couldn't touch the meet because as you know us Lagomorphs are veggies, albeit not by choice but by biology, but then some people, mentioning no names, happen to spill chasuenuts all over the Vortex controls.

Then we were off, stuck over the middle of China, whilst practical chaos erupts. Thankfully, we were able to switch to the back-up controls and get away before anyone could really investigate. So the lesson of this story is not to allow celebs to come with you on important diplomatic meetings. Those two buffoons, who despite their popularity on such shows as 'I'm a Human get me out of here' and 'Byzantine's got talent', really need a good talking to.....

....anyway enough of my moaning, I shall write to you a letter shortly on how the recent UK coalition government took to the news that "aliens" exist (If I have to share another room with that Norman B**er and his chum Nick C****, I will go mad, although the new Prime Minister is infuriatingly charming ) as well as my various encounters in this latest visit (which also included a close encounter with the leaders of USA, France and Germany).

..... until then, I remain yours, General Lord Solomon, Supreme Commander of allied forces, keeper of the Carrots, defender of the Byzantine Systems, General of Her Majesty's Marine Corps and Lord Privy Seal ."

WARNING :for the eyes of the secretary of state for defence, the principal private secretary, the chief of the defence staff, his secretary and the secretary to the principal private secretary, her secretary, the tea boy at the Cabinet Office, Head MI7, MI5, MI6, Special Branch, The Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's secretary, the Cabinet Secretary and his Secretary, the Committee of the Privy Council for defence of the realm, COBRA Chair and various other secretaries of state as deemed necessary, their principal private secretaries and the various personal private secretaries and under secretaries of state, the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, unless he or she is a danger to national security - liberal democrats, left liberals, Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalists, dangerously left wing socialists and right wing supremacists, tree huggers, EU lovers and Methodists, who have been cleared to read this file as per the following acts of Parliament and Orders in Council 1940, 1964, 1979, 1997, 2001, 2005 and 2010 only.

New Site coming soon....

2010-08-26T13:25:00.000+01:00

Don't worry, I will still post on this site, but I feel that I need to rationalise the subject matters. Thus this blog will continue with the political, religious and philosophical discussion, whereas the new site will be dedicated to my other interests, such as fiction, history, conspiracy theories, humorous articles etc. This is to allow for a better flow of material and will hopefully make this blog more lucid.

UFO's in China, Nick Clegg takes over as PM and the silly season

2010-08-26T09:57:00.000+01:00

The 'silly season' is well and truly in full swing, as the headline above indicates. For those of you who are unaware of what the 'silly season' is, it is the period of our glorious British summertime (!) in which there is little or no news of value and therefore the newspapers have to grab at anything which will make news (which would never really get printed at other times of the year) no matter how boring or obscure. For example Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat, who is acting as De Facto Prime Minister, warbling on about defending his government's cuts or recent reports of a giant 'UFO' in China.

That's got all the conspiracy people talking..... but for the uneducated, the conspiracy theories on the whole go like this (note quite a few of these chaps have made a good living out of peddling this sort of stuff as there are quite a lot of people out there who believe it, although to my mind the fact that these people quite happliy sell lots and lots of books on this subject and present them as facts is a conspiracy theory in itself ):

the aliens are now in some sort of conspiracy with China, the US, the UK, possibly the KGB, M15, the CIA , other world governments , which some-how fits in with the 'fact' that the whole world is secretly being run by a secret cabal of global elites, who are shape shifting reptile aliens from Alpha Draconian (especially us aristocrats, the Queen, George Bush, but let me be straight with you I am not a reptile shape shifting alien and I don't come from Alpha Draconia) who are at the same time in league with the 'grey aliens' (the little ones who are grey with big black eyes and funny shaped heads, a sort of alien William Hague- wait he could be one!) who are responsible for many abduction, these are the same aliens that the US government (who else?) found at Roswell, New Mexico in the 1940s and ever since there had been a massive cover up of all of this , whilst the US has been experimenting on flying saucers and letting the alien foe kidnap people at random for their own evil ends. Right, did you get all of that?

So far, so conspiratal, but what if there is a totally different explanation? Hmmm, I wonder what that could be?

Not much to talk about ....

2010-07-29T10:48:00.002+01:00

Just going through a dry patch in the old thought processes and in any case I am supposed to be on annual leave. So please feel free to use this post as a general one of anything you would like to discuss.

best LL

Stress testing Germany

2010-07-23T18:20:00.000+01:00

Europe is waiting for the release of 'stress tests' on the major banks of the EU. So the people of Europe are going to be once again paying out cash to the banks.This is because in the post -Lehman world almost every major government has given any large sized bank a blank cheque to survive, thus if in our country Lloyd's bank or RBS suddenly wanted an extra £100 billion then the coalition would give it freely. There are no 'tough choices' for banks. Now that we have bailed them out the first time, well it is now an unlimited liability; there is almost no way any private sector cash raising would be successful if a slew of banks across the continent had to raise fresh capital. So we have passed on all the toxic waste and obligations of private banks onto the public sector balance sheet -or to put it another way onto you and me the taxpayer.

Putting aside the point that some countries simply will not be able to provide the backstop of extra cash, as they cannot get any themselves except through Germany and the IMF, let's look at the situation in those who could bailout their banks (again) and the great irony here. It is well known that the German banks have extremely small capital ratios and have done little to raise capital during the sudden burst of stock market activity (unlike in Britain where the Treasury told banks to have enough cash to withstand a 1920s/1980s style recession and a house price dip of 20%) so could be the banks which need to do the most fundraising. I have to say that despite all the rubbish about the gloating French/Germans about the 'evils of Anglo-Saxon' capitalism it was German banks who were the real leaders of this type of capitalism, they were the ones who did put their hands in the sweet jar of US sub-prime and the property boom of Spain and Greek debt and eastern European debt.

The really funny thing is that Germany might end up paying twice, first to bailout Greece, so that Greece can repay the debt owed to German (and French and British) banks and again when the stress test tells them to find the cash just in case of a default in these Greek bonds (and Spanish/British bonds) and a haircut of say, 20%, occurs. In addition the EU might bully Germany into providing further funds to those countries (as said above) who would not have the cash to bailout their banks. I would not want to be a German taxpayer right now. But don't worry, Britain will have her turn, in that by 2012 UK banks need to find £390 billion ($780billion) in order to refinance their debts.

Check please?

Cameron's gaffe

2010-07-22T16:18:00.000+01:00

Ah, about time Cameron gave us his first gaffe. So according to our PM, the UK was the 'juniour partner' in the second world war in 1940 with the US. One tiny fact that our PM forgot to note is the the US did not enter the war until 1941.....

And the inconvenient fact that both Churchill and Roosevelt often had furious disagreements about the course of the war, but it was not a case of one dictating to the other, it was a genuine equal partnership. Also he forgets to mention the Soviet Union's involvement in WWII, given the huge military and civilian casualties the Russians absorbed, it could be argued that we were all Junior partners to the Russians. One might also point out that of the 7 man military team who planned the 'D-Day' landings 4 were British and 3 were American; . I could go on, but I trust my point has been made that it is quite untrue to talk about 'juniour partnerships' and more sensible to talk about partnerships but our own head of government is now rubbishing our country for reasons unknown.

Although we should not really be surprised with Cameron's attempt at talking down Great Britain, after all his deputy would quite happily give the country lock, stock and barrel to the EU without any qualms and in so doing defeating the very purpose of the world wars - Clegg like most liberal democrats lives in a make believe world in which the UN is only legitimate body (full as it is of theocracies, dictatorships and socialists states) that the Human Rights Act is sacred and that Islamic fundamentalist fanatics, dictators and even terrorists are fundamentally decent chaps who play with a straight bat and who we must appease (for reasons which are not even clear to the liberals themselves) at any cost.

Poor old Britain....

Pub Quiz

2010-07-21T23:00:00.000+01:00

I shall give zero prizes out for this , but I will be impressed if any reader can spot which statements below are true :

1. The German national anthem at one time used the tune of God save the Queen

2. The Austrian -Hungarian Empire used as its tune the current national anthem of Germany

3. Winston Churchill, the hero of the British Empire drank a bottle of Whiskey a day and when the President of the USA interrupted his bath (in the White House), Churchill stood up starkers and said to the President "as you can see, Mr President I have nothing to hide".

So which one (s) are correct?

Important elections coming soon....

2010-07-21T22:52:00.000+01:00

OK, I suppose I better give readers some meat, rather than publishing my children's/Teens /mad adult books.

So, here we go.

Now, in the next couple of months we are going to watch some of the most important elections, since the general election in May. Now what am I talking about? The elections to the US House and Senate? No of course not, the more interesting election will of course be that of the Church of England General Synod (OK so my nose has grown 10 inches since I have written this) .

I have a link here from the Archbishop's Council on why the General Synod is important. Now at least I know where my Parish share goes,but I do find a few things quite funny in this otherwise slick (for the Church) video :

1. They say that because the Synod uses PR that this some-how makes it more democratic- let's put aside the issue of how democratic any Church can be and note that the electors are Deanery Synod members and not the whole of the Church membership. Hardly a model of democracy. One vote, 20 Synods sort of thing. Even the Labour party has got rid of this kind of election.

2. I like the bit towards the end of the film- "we welcome candidates from ethnic minority backgrounds". Good our own Rector (hailing from Bayern) should stand then. But seriously, I thought the Bible suggested that there was no slave, Greek or Jew -or something like that- in Christ?

Anyway I will as usual leave it to readers to make their own minds up. Perhaps Mr Anabaptist should stand? Shake up the Church a bit? Or what about our friend Mr D.Singh from the Cranmer blog? That would put the Evangelical amongst the Liberal pigeons.

Just a thought.....

One of those weeks......

2010-07-16T22:41:00.000+01:00

My apologises for not really posting anything of merit this week, it has been a stressful few days. Have you ever been in a situation like this ? Well that is how it has felt all week.

So give my superiors a harrumph,as the per the Gov in Blazing Saddles ! Or you might be next to go out the door.... the banks are basically screwing the globe.... Makes one think about flirting with ~~socialism .~~

Also- I will respond to each and every comment on the previous post with luck tomorrow. My readership is always important to me .

best regards All

Lavendon

Reality TV show to decide next Archbishop of Canterbury

2010-07-13T11:42:00.000+01:00

OK, so the above headline might not be true. But according to the BBC, in Malaysia, there is going to be a reality TV show about choosing an Inman for a local mosque. Now isn't the world going crazy? Perhaps we could try this in the Church of England?

But who would the contestants be ?

My (ironic) suggestions are :

1. Tony Blair (as a Catholic this would be a good move for the equal opportunities drive)

2. Diane Abbott (the labour party does not want her and she'll be the only woman on the the list)

3. Barrack Obama (just another feather in his cap of various accolades)

4. Iain Paisley (time on his hands)

5. Archbishop Cranmer (the blogger- well ,as he is not blogging anymore....)

6. Michael Gove (just for a laugh)

Can anyone else think of candidates - serious or not?

We do after all have the elections of the General Synod to think about this year (more on that later).

Woo Hoo! I got me a tax rise!

2010-07-08T18:12:00.001+01:00

I have not forgotten the budget, even though it was held several weeks ago. As we knew beforehand, there was going to be another round of tax rises and cuts , in order to solve the problem of labour's policy of spending far too much on the nation's credit card. So Insurance premium tax -up! Government spending -including defence cut! and most of all VAT up! (to 20%, a 12% increase). And all this from a 'conservative' government. Now as we know this is really a CINO (Conservative in name only) government, whereas the real levers of power are in the hands of the liberals- in short this government is nothing more than a fig leaf for these liberals to do what all liberals do- cause havoc to the nation, destroying our constitution because it requires 'modernisation' (we have had 13 years of that thanks very much and the result was the most corrupt Parliament ever seen) whilst smugly blaming everyone else under the sun.

Now, the liberals said they were not going to increase VAT if they ever came to power- and look what happened, at the first sniff of power they go ahead and agree a VAT rise. At least the socialists you see what you get. Even the tories hinted on the possibility of raising VAT. The liberals are the worst party in British politics for cunning and deceit (and of course for showing ultra treachery by wishing to make the UK nothing less than a plaything of the EU).

I have long argued to cuts to be made to the bloated government state in order to sort out the fiscal mess. But to cut and to increase taxes at the same time is a receipe for disaster , especially a tax such as VAT , which being a tax on consumption hits the poorest sections of society more than others. I would have preferred to have seen the greater cuts in the state spending bills, I would have ignored the silly (and unfair) pledge of ringfencing the NHS and international development and assessed what the nation required, not what it thinks it wants. Above all, we should have included tax cuts, in order to stimulate recovery, as well as directing monetary policy away from the banking sector directly to business and the people.

But the tories seem to be too enchanted by the liberals and their own liberal conservatism to think otherwise.

Archbishop Cranmer- Any ideas?

2010-07-08T17:52:00.000+01:00

As a few chaps have noted in a previous thread, the Archbishop Cranmer (he of the blog) has not published anything for over 3 weeks and has not allowed any new comments for at least 1 week, since when comment moderation has been put on (something which his Grace, to my knowledge has never done before). The last post on the blog is a ghastly picture of some-one being burned . Even more strangely there was a tweet from his Grace 3 days ago which simply read *cough*.

A few questions do spring to mind :

1) Not quite sure what is happening over there, but is this something to do with the situation which he has being trying to get money from us for the past year ?(disclaimer- I never contributed because I like to know what I am contributing to, I do not really go in for cryptic codes).

2) is it simply that his Grace is tired of writing (unlikely but you never know)?

3) is his Grace being sued because of the blog (hence the comment mod)?

4) is this 'it' for the Cranmer blog or will he publish again soon?

5) what are we going to do without it? (although was it me or did the arguments from commentators become a bit stale after a while -believers/atheists, there is only so long you can keep saying the same thing to one another).

Anyway, whatever the answers, if his Grace is unwell, let us wish him a swift recovery from whatever troubles him.

The liberal democrats : the Mumm Ra's of British politics

2010-07-07T21:56:00.000+01:00

I have at present been musing and going down a trip on and through memory lane. As a thirty something, I was brought up in the 1980s and thus reared on such classics as Dr Who, Postman Pat, He-Man (and She-Ra), Transformers, Defenders of the Earth and of course 'Thunder Cats'.

Whilst I would now quiver at the sight of a Dalek, when I was growing up nothing filled me with terror more than the Thunder Cats arch villain of Mumm Ra. And of course one can see the similarities between this villain and the liberals- whilst they look like decaying has beens from a by-gone age they can suddenly transform themselves into what can seem like relevance; and then take power whatever the price of their principals. So the Lib dims, the Mumm Ra's of British politics.

Scary or what .

God Bless America, but Democrats get stuffed !

2010-06-16T19:16:00.000+01:00

Mr Old South, said that he had received word from "the one", regarding the BP issue. I would like to ask if he could ask "the one" on the following : (apologises, but it is a bit of a rant - by British standards anyway!):

Dear Mr Obama,

Usually I would let this one go, but I am so incensed by the latest proclamation of the President of the USA, that I feel compelled to say it, i.e. the leader of our greatest ally has now compared BP and the disaster in the gulf of Mexico as being a new "9/11". Thanks a bloody lot Mr President, so BP is now on the same level as the terrorists , suicide bombers and general threats to the USA, the civilised world and the whole of Christendom as well know it? Please, Mr President, get a bally grip. BP (which is half American anyway) has admitted responsibility for the cleanup and is going out of its way to rectify the oil flood which is playing out in American waters. But, I would hope that you understand that whereas this oil spill was an accident and that BP will pay out and rebuild what has been destroyed, the 9/11 terrorist scum leashed destruction on the USA, by choice, not accident. Furthermore, you cannot sue the terrorists nor are they an ally of yours. If, as some of your colleagues are saying, that BP should be nationalised and asset stripped to pay for this terrible occurrence, will you not agree with me, that the UK should nationalise the UK subsidiaries of JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and the other "vampire squids" which have borne the UK economy to her knees? Seems wrong, illogical and wrong doesn't it ? But what is good for the goose..

Also, I think that you can have the DVDs back, which you gave our former PM (not that he could watch them anyway) , in the same way that you returned the bust of Britain's greatest -yes greatest- Prime Minister Churchill. Churchill was a bally hero to us Brits, who bought us through Britain's darkest hour- yes our darkest hour- when the forces of national socialism had conquered all of Europe, it was only Britain and her Dominions who stood between the light and the dark, until the Japs made sure your entry on the right side. How would you feel if we had a bust of George Washington or Lincoln and gave it back? Clearly you need a lesson in manners, honour and decency.

Whilst I am ranting, I would just like to let you know that, with regret, many of my patriots are becoming increasingly anti- American. Those of us , who argue for strong Anglo-American ties, are becoming a minority. Your actions are quickly adding fuel to the fire of those who wish the UK to become a province of the Euro-Super state; a state which would be nothing more than a pro-French, anti- American front.

Finally, I would like to pay tribute to the people of your great nation- tribute for putting up with you for so long. If you had been in Britain, you would be in the tower by now. I only hope that your great nation will vote against you and your ~~socialist~~ Democrat party, to restore one of the great nations of this earth, to restore the liberties and freedoms of America, which are are light and a treasure to the rest of the world. We in the UK had to put up with 13 years of failed socialist government- we are bust and a beggar to the world. I pray that such a state will not happen in your country.

God Bless America, God bless the Anglo-American special relationship!

Yours Lavendon

P.S- when the next financial crisis hits us, can you please have sacked that bloody irritating 'Barney Frank', who looks like he belongs in an Al Capone movie?

P.P.S- also can you please retire Nancy Pelosi, as I fear than any further Botox, will send her over the edge.....

Does Obama realise how not so British BP actually is?

2010-06-14T14:29:00.001+01:00

I have not really commented upon this row, because I feel that a full investigation is required before full blame is to put onto any party. What I would say is that the current President of the USA and his cronies in Congress should pipe down on the anti-British rhetoric and realise, that whilst this company is listed on the London Stock Exchange and does invest heavily in the UK, a few facts:

1. BP is called BP and not 'British Petroleum'.

2. 39% of BP is owned by American investors (YES, that's YOUR pensions too, my friends) as opposed to 44% British. So BP is more of an 'Anglo-American' company than just a British one.

3. When the Pipa Alpha disaster struck in the 1980s, I do not recall Mrs Thatcher going on an anti-American witch-hunt.

And a few questions:

1. BP is only one of the companies involved in this disaster- can the President please also bash the other (US) firms with equal venom, please?

2. As the greatest capitalist nation on earth, why are you trying to stop BP paying a dividend?

3. Does the UK have to become anti-American, before you take any notice of your ally, in the same way as you do with Russia and China?

Answers on a postcard please....

What has the Mother of All Parliaments given to the world?

2010-06-04T14:16:00.000+01:00

Whilst our last Parliament became a laughing stock around the world, with erroneous MP's expenses and the erosion of Parliamentary sovereignty, I thought I would cheer myself up by sifting through the Internet for some great Parliamentary moments. I thought, I would compile a few from countries in which our own Parliament was the blue print for others -hence why the British Parliament is grandiosely called 'the Mother of All Parliaments' (click the description to see the debate):

1.The Wit of the Irish

2.Card Board PM Down Under

3.Parliamentary Order in Congress

And of course the last debate from Mrs T here in the UK (and I cannot help but feel, if we had another Mrs T the Conservatives would be in with a big majority).

4. Lessons from the Iron Lady

Enjoy!

Hymn of the week- Holy , Holy Lord God Almighty (Trinity Sunday Special)

2010-05-31T21:27:00.001+01:00

Yesterday was Trinity Sunday, so what better hymn to post than this one :

Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty!
Early in the morning our song shall rise to thee.
Holy, holy, holy!
Merciful and mighty,
God in three persons, blessed Trinity!

Holy, holy, holy!
All the saints adore thee,casting down their golden crowns
around the glassy sea;cherubim and seraphim falling down
before thee,which wert, and art, and evermore shalt be.

Holy, holy, holy!
Though the darkness hide thee,
though the eye of sinful man thy glory may not see,
only thou art holy; there is none beside
thee,perfect in power, in love and purity.

Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty!
All thy works shall praise thy name, in earth
and sky and sea.

Holy, holy, holy!
Merciful and mighty,God in three persons, blessed Trinity.

Laws and Laws

2010-05-29T17:19:00.004+01:00

The David Laws /Lib Dem scandal.

Basically this chap has been using mine and your money to pay rent to his gay lover. As usual people are moving quickly to use the gay issue as a smokescreen to cover up the rank hypocrisy of the liberals. Ashdown calls it a "personal tragedy" and blogger Charlotte Gore says "Gay or not, Laws was entitled to claim the costs of living in London."

So being caught doing something questionable, if not wrong is indeed a personal tragedy, but that does not absolve you of your wrongdoing. Ms Gore, please strike the word gay and replace it with Rich. Would the lib dems be able to defend him on those grounds, really? Why bring in the whole gay bit? Basically if he were a hetro, what he was doing was still wrong.

Laws was a merchant banker before going into politics. Now, as we all know these city boys earn a fortune and Laws is reported to be a wealthy individual (and thus the perfect person to cut public services and tax the middle classes ). A Merchant banker does rake in a good salary, even with our anti-bonus Vince at the head. So the chap could probably have bought 2 houses in London and still had a bit of pocket (£1,000,000) money left. So why take this money from the taxman? Private ownership and purchase of property is, well, private. This would have kept his privacy and meant that he did not have to claim a single penny from me or you.

Perhaps the real problem is that the lib dem holier than thou image has finally been exposed for what it is ; a load of old balls .

UPDATE @21.26 : So Laws has resigned. Good. At least the chap did the right thing, when caught doing wrong, I suspect he will make a decent backbench sage when he rehabilitates himself.

UPDATE @21.50: So a new Chief Secretary has been appointed and his position (Secretary for Scotland) is being filled by a Mr Michael Moore ?! This coalition is even more left wing than I thought.....

Yes, we can have cuts and growth

2010-05-28T15:40:00.000+01:00

The labour party is inevitably moaning about the proposed cuts to the deficit, which the coalition government is planning, which to my mind does not go far enough. £6 billion out of £156 billion is a tiny drop in the ocean, the labour party was committed to deficit reduction anyway, so I am not quite sure about the hee-haw, except to think that now the party is in opposition, they will revert to an ultra left wing stance, become the mouthpiece of public sector unions and become an ineffective opposition (an effective opposition is as vital in our democracy as a functioning government, but that is a post for another time). Some conservatives are also aghast at the coalitions suggestion of raising capital gains tax, not to reduce the deficit, but to increase the rate by which people pay income tax to £10,000.

Now, the argument against cutting is that this will take £6 billion ‘out’ of the economy and lead to a ‘double dip’ recession. The argument for cutting the deficit now is to look at Greece, Spain, Ireland and Portugal and to suggest that if we do not take action now, we will have to do the same, but it will only be worse, the cuts would be more savage and we really would have a double dip recession.

The broad consensus amongst world policy makers during our troubled times has been a warming to Keynes and his view of how to tackle recessions (as opposed to a monetarist view, which suggests by controlling the supply of money and therefore credit in the economy, you can alleviate recessions). Put in simplistic terms Keynes advocated the use of the public purse to create jobs in a recession, thus allowing otherwise unemployed people to send in the real economy and allow for growth. The problem is that Keynes also said that when the economy was booming, government should keep a surplus of cash for the bad times (which would be used to create the extra state jobs). Now unfortunately no government has ever really adhered to this little understood caveat in Keynes theory. Thus our previous government was borrowing on a phenomenal scale even when the UK economy and the world economy were growing. Thus the pickle we are in now, the structural deficit (what’s left behind when we are fully recovered) is massive and does require more serious choices than a small £6 billion haircut or what the labour party seems to want now, which is to have no cuts (until no-one wants to lend to us!).

My own personal view is that we need to cut more radically during this year and next, but that this should be cushioned with a massive bout of monetary policy. The bank of England should keep rates low, but also begin to pump slightly more money into the economy than the cuts applied, but that this should not be given to banks directly. A far more satisfactory way of doing this would be to literally give every individual within the country ex amount of cash. To be sure there is a danger than this extra cash will be used to pay of debts, trigger and inflation death spiral or just sit under the mattress (or a bank). Although I think paying off debts would be healthy, there is perhaps less appetite for people to spend like they did before, so I am unconvinced of this threat. As for people saving money, again this is a further good as it will give banks a firmer footing re lending (and not having to borrow from money markets). A further reform would be to abolishing (not increase) capital gains tax, reduce income tax to a one rate 10%, with a threshold of £12,500 and more importantly to reduce corporation taxes to as close as zero as possible; simply saying we need to export more is not enough, especially when other deficit countries will need to do so, we must also create the right atmosphere for investments, entrepreneurs and job creation. These suggestions combined, would hopefully be enough to galvanise the economy:

1. The deficit is reduced, thus freeing up investment capital to private enterprise, thus meaning that more jobs will be created.

2. Small tax burden will bring more money to this country overall and allow for greater reduction in the overall tax burden for those at the bottom of the heap.

3. The monetary blitz, even if a third is actually spent will give a big boost to our service sector economy, stimulate the stock market and more importantly allow for job creation.

4. We will see an end to the Soviet style economies of Ulster, Wales, Scotland and Northern England.

5. Get the nation back on her feet, with some self-respect, rather than replying on the state for jobs and economic growth.

Why did the Tories loose this election?

2010-05-21T11:01:00.000+01:00

A strange thing for me to ask, given that the conservative party leader is now Prime Minister. But think about it this way, Cameron was within 16,000 votes of a overall majority of seats, although the 36% share of the vote is pathetic compared to the shares of the vote in elections of 1979, 1983,1987 and 1992. My own personal belief was that the theme was wrong and did not really chime in with the national mood; big society and all that is all well and good when you do not have a serious economic crisis. But we do and I think that the Tories should have focused more on economic policy- what they were going to do to help Britain recover and also attack Labour's spendthrift ways and also immigration and Europe would have been natural conservative themes- this was not the 2005 election. But we got the theme from the Notting Hill trendies running the show and this is presumably their reality, as they are so wealthy and out of touch with the rest of the country, this liberal conservatism, means nothing. Bread and butter issues should have done it for the Tories, but they frankly lost the plot.

The result is now a coalition government, which in my mind is the Tories passing the liberal democrat manifesto. All well and good, but Cameron is quite frankly in the wrong party. I am too, which is why I have decided to become non-affiliated and to speak my mind about anything I want to. Sometimes I will doubtless support this government, other times not. There are after all plenty of other blogs which follow party lines. From now on, I won't be doing so.

Ladies, Gentlemen a toast if you will......

2010-05-17T21:41:00.000+01:00

....To the two great nations of our world, The United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

It was pleasing that the first visit of our new Foreign Secretary was to Washington and not to Brussels, a sign that the new government is intent upon building bridges to the world's greatest democracy. It has alarmed many of us pro-Americans that in the past , the Democrats held the UK in disdain, with the US President preferring to cosy up to dictatorships in China, to the oligarchy of Russia and the madman of the leader of the 5th French Republic (who threatened the German Chancellor with a French exist to the Euro??!). I do pray that this signals a new effort and rapprochement with America which will benefit our two great countries. Now, I appreciate that calamity Clegg and the liberals are seen as no friend to America. But I would remind the Lib Dims, as I reminded left/liberal student friends of mine a decade ago, that the USA is the only country to have ever defeated the British in battle -TWICE! Remember that Britain has been at war over the past 500 years with the massive Spanish Empire, France, Germany and a cold war with the USSR. Does not this tell you something ?

Anyway, I digress. There are many good reasons to support a strong Anglo-American special relationship. But I will choose one, that of the Islamic terror threat. Britain, should, as Tony Blair once said 'stand shoulder to shoulder' with the US during her darkest hour. The war against terror must be fought or civilisation itself will cease to exist.

And think of the men and women who have commanded our armies over the centuries, the gentleman military genius of Robert E Lee, the dashing heroism of Nelson, untied in a common bond, we can and should defeat this dastardly enemy .

So here is to the flag of liberty, to the colours that will never run

Here's to the proud rose of England,

The place of the mother of all Parliaments and the place of the Mother of all constitutions,

To the rule of law, to live liberty and Pursuit of happiness,

To democracy and representation,

Against terrorism and with a common bond,

Our countries will never surrender and never retreat ,

As brothers in arms we are right,

As neighbours we shall fight,

To the Union Jack and Uncle Sam,

We shall prevail ,

Allies once again

The Changing face of Euro Realism?

2010-05-17T09:37:00.000+01:00

I joked on the socialist Bryony Vicki King's site the other day regarding a possible UKIP/Labour party coalition one day. Whilst this was an attempt at humour, there may well be more than meets the eye on this little jest. I say this because of the large budget cuts which are being implemented across Europe and indeed are going to happen to the UK. The one thing which has kept labour in this country in a pro-Europe position has been the trade off between European style welfare directives and national sovereignty. Now that chickens are coming home to roost, the axe is coming down across Europe on high state spending, in order to cut deficits. The result is a left wing backlash (being led by Trade Unions) against these cuts, imposed by both the EU and the free market ; look at Spain and Greece. Soon our Unions in the UK will be doing the same.

Now, given that we have a pro- EU coalition in the UK now, I guess we could yet see the EU plan for commissioners to approve national budgets as becoming a reality, in this scenario what happens if the EU wants cuts quicker than even the coalition in the UK want to do, thus opening up the old antipathy of the left to the EU. Let us not forget that in the 1970s and 1980s the EU was opposed by the left and labour, to the extent that they wanted to withdrawal Britain from the EU. With the possible withdrawal of EU support for left wing pet projects, the requirement for all EU governments to cut state spending, over and above the wishes of national governments, perhaps labour will swing back to this position. It is well known that parties in opposition tend to abandon the centre in favour of core ideas.

Given that the UK labour party is almost bankrupt and practically dependent upon Trade Union finance we might yet see a return to a euro-realist left, as a result of EU imposed cuts in the public sector. And if PR is introduced (real PR, as a result of the unpopularity of this new government, perhaps this is the price to be paid, in order for Cameron to keep the liberals on board?) we will see a rise in smaller parties. Hail a UKIP/Labour coalition in 2015? A deal between a left of centre socialist party and a right of centre party, made up of ex-Tories? That would really get into the history books. But stranger things have happened over the past week, as to make me think this is not such a lunatic crack pot suggestion. Or is it?

13 years of socialism are at an end....

2010-05-12T06:16:00.000+01:00

Another reason for conservatives to oppose the "Con- Dem" coalition

2010-05-09T13:15:00.000+01:00

Whilst the media in this country is focusing on the prospect of a lib/con coalition government and the inch by inch negotiations, more significant ones are taking place which will have more impact upon who leads the ~~Parish Council~~ British government. That is a meeting of the EU to discuss a "stabilisation fund", in order to bail out other Eurozone states which are feeling the wrath of the market. All well and good if it were the 16 members of the EU who were using the single currency (as this idea, thought up by the FRENCH no less, is the reason behind it).

Unfortunately, it is the WHOLE EU which is now on the hock for this, so British taxpayer's money is going to be squandered to prop up a foreign currency, which we all can see is doomed anyway. If the French want a bail out fund (I thought we had the IMF?) then they can fund 100% of it, but keep John Bull out of this foreign mess; in any case the £60 billion is a drop in the ocean given the crisis. The logical solution is for the ECB to buy up Trillions of EU bonds in order to stabilise the Euro. Alas Germany has a veto, but we do not (as we are not important to the EU slave master) .

Because the decision is the usual stitch up between France and Germany. Because we now have the ~~EU Constitution~~ Treaty of Lisbon, the vote is taken by majority. Thus the 16 Eurozone members can simply vote this one through. Here in the UK, we have the government of the unelected, still making decisions, with the other parties merely being consulted. Even if the conservatives said no, it is likely that their soon to be coalition partners, the lib dems will agree to it. The liberals are after all the most slavish pro-EU party and would probably insist on doubling the billions, to show that they are "good Europeans".

So, if the liberals want PR, Conservatives should ask for an in or out referendum on the EU. That would be fair, no?

Where is a Churchill when you need him?

2010-05-08T17:10:00.000+01:00

We are now in the typical backroom deal situation which hung parliaments produce and the potential for chronic instability and riots/strikes that will make Greece look like a bunch of school boys out on a scrumping spree.

On the one hand we could have a spineless Cameron government supported by a reluctant left-leaning liberal rabble (does anyone really think Cable will make a good Chancellor?) who will flood the country with immigrants and dependents, whilst we adopt the Euro and go the way of Rome or on the other some form of ludicrous "progressive alliance" of labour, Liberal, SNP, Plaid,SDLP and oh, the DUP. All of which will divide our Union between England and everyone else.

How have we got to this situation?

And does anyone realise the massive tsunami that is about to hit us re the deficit? Does anyone realise that WHATEVER coalition or agreement is cobbled together, the markets have had their fill with Greece and now its our, Spain and Portugal's turn?

And how can any of these groups really deal with the consequences? People balked at £6 billion of cuts, what is going to happen when it is £150 billion plus a large devaluation and IMF treatment?

Is it another civil war? Where is the new Churchill to unite the nation during these troubled times?

Good Lord preserve us and give us true national leadership at this time of crisis.

Conservatives trust the people, so should the Socialists

2010-05-07T19:20:00.001+01:00

Well what an election night. I have to say it was a disgrace about the voters turned away from being able to vote (because there was so many of them and they had to wait beyond the deadline for the close of polling). This is typical socialism.

Another thought is that clearly Brown has lost the confidence of the British people, yet in typical manner has decided not to go with dignity, but insists of clinging on to the bitter end. I was struck by the arrogance of labour officials who, straight after polling closed, were attempting to spin the liberals into an 'anti-conservative' alliance. So with 29% of the vote, one of their worst ever outcomes, labour still will not admit defeat and insist on squatting in downing street until they are forcibly removed. They are hiding behind "the Constitution", forgetting perhaps that this is merely convention and not law. Personally I think the Queen should appoint a temporary government from the privy council (say the Archbishops, senior hereditary peers) whilst the parties negotiate with each other. But Brown should not be able to be able to be prime ministerial and act in the best interests of the labour party at the same time.

I remember a phrase from Stanley Baldwin, who was conservative leader for much of the 1920s and 1930s. In fact it was Baldwin who allowed the first minority labour government to be formed (unlike brown who is now digging in his heals). Baldwin's message to such a radical step was the conservatives 'trust the people'. Yes, the conservatives do trust the people. It is a pity that socialists do not, that they will not accept the verdict of the country. True conservatives did not win enough seats outright, I blame Cameron for this, for attempting to turn the conservatives into a mini socialist party. However the conservatives won by far the most votes over labour, the largest percentage and the most seats (a greater percent of the vote than Blair commanded in 2005, when he won a 60 seat majority). For the good of the country, Brown should step down now, a caretaker government should be appointed by the Queen.

I appreciate that most conservative people are worried about the liberals dictating to Cameron over PR and their lunatic drive towards EU integration, soft touch on crime and dislike of our armed forces; it is indeed an irony that the Clegg bandwagon has been rejected by the British people, but that he now has more power than ever. I agree. Clegg should go to hell and the liberals with him. Cameron should form a minority government and call fresh elections later. To give the liberals any power is lunacy of the first order. I would rather see a lab/lib alliance than a lib/Tory one.

But whatever happens, Brown should be out by now. But did any of us except this man to have any dignity or honour at all ?

No I thought not.

Go out and vote!

2010-05-06T11:46:00.002+01:00

I am not endorsing any particular party this time round at our election, but I would beg readers to go out and do your duty- to vote. I will not offer any other suggestions than that.

Also, a few predictions/Hopes/Fears etc :

1. Ed Balls looses his seat as will Kerry McCarthy in Bristol
2. UKIP win in Buckingham and get rid of Bercow the Tory ~~labour stooge~~ speaker
3.Conservatives to win a small majority or be the biggest party in the Commons. Either way, Cameron will be PM this time tomorrow (Seats : Con 270,Lab 265,Lib Dim 80, Others: 35, vote share Con 35%, lab 25%, Lib Dim 35%). Socialists to be in denial that socialism in one country ends tonight
4.A bigger turnout than in the last few elections (hopefully at least 70% ish)
5.I will watch ITV or SKY election coverage as I have gone off the BBC
6. I will try and stay up till at least 1 o Clock
7. I will try and not to discuss politics at Compline tonight
8. The Lib Dims will win about 80 seats
9. Richard Shepherd, a proper Conservative,will hold Aldridge -Brownhills (and hopefully be the next Speaker)
10.Labour will go bankrupt and elect a far left socialist
11. The Greens, UKIP and the BNP could all win a seat each
12. There will be another election in 2011

Leader's debate caption competition- bigot round

2010-04-30T15:41:00.000+01:00

Do people really think bailing out the UK will be easier than those in the Euro?

2010-04-29T16:42:00.000+01:00

As many readers will know I am inherently worried that the next target of market unrest will be the UK. I suspect that this will happen sooner if Greece gets more bailout money from the EU Germany and the IMF.

We are the next logical target, if the market thinks bailouts will also be given to Spain and Portugal.

Now true, we are not in the Euro, so we can devalue and we can inflate our way out of the debt. In the short term. But in the longer term, we cannot continue to devalue and we cannot continue to use inflation to pay our way out of the mess of labour's spend thrift ways. Unless we want the country to go bankrupt, in the same way that the Wiemar Republic did in the 1920s. Critics may respond by suggesting that I have overlooked the IMF and the fact that it can bail us out alongside a devaluation (which Greece et al cannot do). Some might also point out that we are in fact out of recession, but 0.2% growth, 3.5% inflation is pretty poor after record low interest rates and £220 billion of fresh money have been put into the economy.

The problem with this solution (which I half suspect our politicians are relying upon the IMF to force through the cuts, rather than them risk their own necks suggesting it) is :

1) This is a world wide recession, so every country will be devaluing or attempting an export push and besides which we have already reduced the value of the £ by a THIRD since 2007.

2) Does the IMF even have the resources for a full bail-out of our debt ridden economy and which member state of the IMF will willingly give us that much money with zero strings attached?

3) Will any govt be able to implement such large cuts, even when they blame the IMF (see what Greece's pols have been up to) ?

So we are in for a rough ride.

It is time to say Gute Nacht to the Euro

2010-04-29T12:32:00.000+01:00

To reassure readers, I have not forgotten the Greek debt crisis, which one commentator is now calling "Ebola", as the crisis spreads from Greece, to Portugal, to Spain, Italy and sooner or later the UK. Germany's Angela Merkel is being lambasted as the protagonist of this crisis, given that it is Germany and only Germany who might (at the risk of destroying themselves) be able to come up with the fiscal firepower to salvage the Euro and the various members of the Eurozone in trouble; in return these countries agree to austerity for the next 100 years, thus making their people even more impoverished. But of course, Germans are not stupid and do not want to transfer their hard earned money to reckless borrowers, who have used the good times to build up massive debts. So the Germans are being the vile hun of old. Or if you are Greek, there is a wiff of the third Reich in the air.

This is the Euro fanatic line, which is untrue and quite spiteful, I would suggest that there are other options :

1. The Euro is dismantled and we go back to the old fashioned currencies before the euro was invented.

2. The ECB, buys up massive amounts of debt from Greece, Spain etc

3. Spain, Greece etc convert their Euro debts into Sterling and join a Sterling Union. (The UK is in deeper trouble, but our "get out" clause is devaluation and inflation- something which the politicians will not admit to).

Now, I cannot see that number 2 will be approved by Germany or any of the north European states, pride will stop number 3, so number 1 is the realist option. Yes, this would create great turmoil, but the whole Euro currency should never have been set up in the first place. It may be a shock to Euro fanatics, but the Euro must die, the people of Europe must be free from the commission and we may yet see the continent prosper.

Are we all bigots now?

2010-04-28T19:23:00.000+01:00

So the first gaffe of the campaign. Brown smiles to a voter's face and then secretly says they are a 'bigot'. Why couldn't he just say that to her face, if that is what he thought? And why is it, whenever anyone wants to talk about immigration, race or religion you are a 'bigot' if you do not adhere to the standard socialist PC brigade line?

I hope, really hope, that the anti-socialist forces win next week.

And I also hope that the monster raving loony party out polls labour. We must get the socialists out, forever, before the country goes deeper into the abyss.

Happy Saint George's Day

2010-04-23T10:04:00.000+01:00

To all my readers.

Of course this should be a holiday in England. Not sure why our Scottish dominated Union government never made it so.......

Boring, boring, boring, even to a political hack like me

2010-04-16T08:17:00.001+01:00

First leadership debate.

Know where they all stand ?

Good debate?

Was it really a debate given we had so many rules -

1. No heckling, clapping or words from the audience

2. No follow up question allowed from the people asking the questions

3. No questions asked of the candidates by the chair.

My initial reaction was to switch the TV off after 30 minutes as, I felt like saying "I've seen it all before". I can see why Clegg came out on top- no-one really pays him much attention normally, but why have him on there in the first place, after all realistically the liberals had no more chance of forming a government than the SNP does, even though the SNP was excluded from the debate.

The other bug-bear I had was that this was a leaders debate of the whole UK, yet many questions, did not apply to the whole UK, only England, which is a result of the botched devolution attempts of this labour government. I only hope that next time (in 5 years) we have an English Parliament, to sort out this mess. It is fairer that way and if it good enough for Scotland, Wales and Ulster, why not England.

So the scores on the doors:

debate itself (format, questions, chair etc) 1/10

Clegg 5/10

Cameron 4/10

Brown 4/10

Blessed are the Peacemakers… but whom will the liberals choose to make peace with?

2010-04-13T09:03:00.000+01:00

Let us today consider not the election campaign itself, but rather what will happen after the results are known. Now, whatever your beliefs and desire for you party to win, one must now think pragmatically about the likely outcome. All of the polls point to a hung Parliament, a tactical, but not strategic victory for labour. In the event of a hung parliament (as is currently being mapped out), both main parties would be within inches of each other in terms of seats, but miles apart when it comes to the actual votes cast (38% to 30%).

Now let us look at the problems facing our would be Peacemaker, the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg:

1. He has appeared to imply that he would opt to negotiate with the party with the biggest ‘mandate’ from the British people. His dilemma will come when he actually decides what this means, i.e. is it seats won or votes cast and depending upon which is chosen, he would be choosing either labour or conservative.

2. His party has been calling for cuts to the deficit, but do not agree with the conservative proposals. In fact Clegg went so far as to say that you would have civil strife in Sheffield if the Tories one, because no-one votes Tory in Sheffield (an illogical argument, which I am sure the liberal readers can see with the liberal intelligence). No one quite knows how the liberals are going to cut the deficit, but this is important, given the likelihood of a hung parliament.

3. The Liberal Democrats are a coalition party, in the same way in which the Tories and Labour are. In essence the party is the continuation of the old classical 19th Century Liberal party (Gladstone, Asquith, Lloyd George) which emphasises social and economic freedoms, whose competitors are the conservatives and whose seats are in conservative areas and a social democratic party formed from the merger of the Social Democrat Party with the liberals in the 1980s, who are more authoritarian and left wing. The dilemma for any liberal leader is that they risk splitting their party in two whoever they support. In some ways the old Liberal party, would find common ground with many right centre conservatives, whereas the social democrat party would find common ground with labour (that is after all, where most of these supporters came from).

What then is the liberal democrat choice? Three options:

1. They form a coalition with the labour party, which could potentially split the party.

2. They form a coalition with the conservative party, which would split the party.

3. They go for an easier option politically, which is to allow the party with the most seats to form a government and then vote on bills on a bill by bill basis, thus holding an effective veto on the government’s legislation.

So what would you do if you were Nick Clegg?

Musings on the election campaign so far.....

2010-04-12T08:20:00.000+01:00

OK, my apologises to everyone who reads this blog for not posting much over the past month and a half. I have been engaged in various projects, which have been taking, up my time and I have also lacked motivation to post. This time has now past and I am now willing to enter the fray once more.

So, given that we in the UK are having the 5 yearly fun of a general election, what shall I be commenting upon? Now this is difficult because like any campaign, the situation is extremely fluid. I doubt if the BBC can take up all the information that is flowing out of the various political parties, so your humble Duke is probably even less likely to be able to do so. My ‘coverage’ of this election will therefore focus on a few little nuggets, which I trust will interest the reader.

The campaign has been going on for a week and we have had a flurry of policies from all the main parties, some of which one might think (especially of the labour party) if the proposals were that good, why have you not implemented them before or are just downright paradoxical. And it is getting quite bitter, given that everything points to a hung parliament.

As I am in an evenhanded mood let’s look at a few of these:

1. Labour: the latest pronouncement of ‘forcing the foreigner to speak English’ in the public services. Two points, first if the Tories or any right wing party had announced this it would be denounced as racist etc by the left. Second, I would have thought that if you were a public servant you would necessarily have to speak English, given that by and large English is the language of the country and therefore the language of government. If one were in Germany and a civil servant, would I be allowed to conduct state business in English? I doubt it. This proposal is so bloody obvious it insults ones intelligence.

2. Conservatives: Marriage tax breaks. Good in principle, but as ever they mess thinks up with the implementation of this proposal. A good start, which is then ruined by hints that the Conservatives agree wholeheartedly with ‘gay marriage’, regardless of Church opinion.

3. Liberal Democrats: I have absolutely no idea what their policies are, even though they could be the key to who forms the next government. I watch some Liberal apparatchik the other day bemoaning the Conservative stance on the deficit, talking about cuts in public services and how bad this was. OK, but given that you have trail-blazed areas in which you, the liberal democrats, will cut public finances, you are being a tad disingenuous to say the least. Also because the spokesperson spent most of the interview dishing the Tories, there was zero discussion on the liberal stance on these issues (e.g. their slight of hand), which is worrying given their current potential power after the election.

Another thought is that how have labour done this, that is, bring the country to economic ruin, being led by a bully, who has never been elected in a fresh election (for two years), which has also brought about an attempted destruction of those with faith, whilst also surrendering the keys of power to a foreign over lordship of the EU? Now I do not have a full answer to this, but I think two matters stand out. First, the labour party is holding on to its solid ‘core vote’, which is usually between 28% and 33% (the results between the low of 1983 and 1992, the last time the Tories won), more so than the Tories.

The second thought is that labour have, for 20 years, been able to manipulate boundaries of the constituencies to their favour. The BBC has a more in depth election calculator. If elections from 1979 to 2005, had been fought on the existing boundaries, Thatcher would have one a small majority in 1979 and the Tories would have lost the 1992 election (even though the Tories polled 43% verses labour 33%!!). Gerrymandering and the ability of labour to shore up its own key vote goes a long way to explain why were are in this situation.

And of course, the Conservative party has been all at sea for over 20 years…

Is this the real mood of the country? Discuss below.....

2010-04-11T20:53:00.000+01:00

Here follows the political bit

2010-04-07T06:27:00.000+01:00

Finally Gordon 'bottler, not elected by anyone but abolished the hereditary peers because they were unelected' Brown has visited the Queen and has been granted a dissolution of the current Parliament. And we are off, like greyhounds released from our traps (that is, if greyhound racing is still allowed?).

Here in Lavendon, I have discovered to my horror, that we have been put into a newly created division called 'Milton Keynes North', which contains almost no part of Milton Keynes, except for the city centre portion, the rest being made up of rural towns and villages, after successful gerrymandering, is now a labour held marginal (at least according to the BBC). I suppose at least our vote will count.

Which puts me in the horns of a dilemma; if I vote for any one other that the Tories, the socialists will win the seat. So much for me voting on principal eh?

The How is as important as the Who

2010-03-25T09:50:00.000Z

Whilst I am going to do a budget post in the next few days, if time permits, I want to focus today on one important issue which will probably not be discussed in the forthcoming general election. This issue is how this country is to be governed and not by whom.

If this seems a little strange, I believe that much of the forthcoming contest will revolve around personality; especially after the so-called leaders 'debates', which I believe are un-British and are not going to help the electorate understand the political discourse of this country. The real issue should be how this country is governed, not whether it is a labour, Tory or liberal who is to become Prime Minister.

The question we must ask ourselves is: are we content with how this country is governed? I believe that the answer would be 'no'. Let us look at how the current government (and I will say that the Tories would be no better here) has messed around with our ancient constitution:
1. Devolution without an English Parliament- thus creating resentment from England towards the other countries of the Union and possibly one day allowing our Union to be broken.

2.Subordination of our Parliament to that of the European Union constitution. We can no longer make our own laws; our Parliament is nothing more than a fig leaf. I suspect this is why so many MP's have been on the fiddle, because they do not have a real job to do, except to find out how they can maximise their own personal return.

3.The erosion of our liberties and freedoms, which have developed over centuries and have caused civil wars in earlier eras. In 13 years, this current government has managed to trash as much of these, our country is no longer the bastion of Imperial democracy that it once was.

4. The ending of the right of hereditary peers to sit in the house of lords, has allowed cronies to take over this once magnificent institution. Whereas in days gone by the knowledge and experience of those who had governed the country for the good of all, passed down from father to son, father to daughter, contributed to the welfare and good legislation of this country, we are now considered to be 'undemocratic' and an 'anachronism'. Thus one great check on the power of the executive has been removed, in a way that Cromwell's generals never could, new labour have done so.

5. The election of a Speaker on partisan lines. A Speaker who has such a pro-labour bias, there is talk of the Tories removing him if the electors of Buckingham fail to do so. Such a situation would have been unthinkable even 10 years ago, yet labour have poisoned even what is supposed to be a non-partisan role.

No of the three major politician parties will do anything about the above, if fact the Tories and the liberals will probably make things worse, for nothing more than the ambition of politician power- a dangerous situation, even if the desire is a noble one. In fact for all the talk of constitutional reform, we must look backward if we are to succeed in restoring trust and confidence in our 'mother of parliaments'. If we had a government who would restore the Magna Carta liberties of our forefathers, restore the hereditary peers and abolish the crony life peers, who removed Britain from the EU and guaranteed an English Parliament we may yet live as free men and women under the UK Union flag.

The Harlots of British Politics

2010-03-22T11:43:00.000Z

Readers will have noticed my lack of blogging recently; I have been taking some time off to meditate upon the Gospels during this time of lent. However one political story has compelled me to get back to the typewriter. That is the latest of scandals involving money and our elected representatives. As if the various claims by our Members of Parliament (officially "honourable") and members of the House of Lords (note, the crony appointees of the political parties and not those entitled by birthright) were not enough; property empires, law mowing, duck houses, bell towers etc, we now have the scene of four former Ministers being caught by an undercover operation, demanding cash for access to government departments and to influence government legislation.

The odious toad Stephen Byers (third from the left in the picture above) apparently says he is 'a cab for hire' and worth £3,000 a day (a sort of parliamentary high class rent boy); Geoff Hoon (first from the left)wanted to make some 'real money' (the expenses he claimed were not enough?) and Margaret Moran(women in stupid hat) has a 'girl gang' of female ministers (feminism in action). Given that all of these people were implicated in the Parliamentary expenses scandal, one has to wonder how much further their greed could go. Quite a long way apparently. All of these people are not standing for re-election, so the electorate is denied a chance to punish these wretches and they still get to walk away with an extra £40,000 of cash as a resettlement grant, on top of the £60,000 they get for MPs (and let us not forget the extra they would have got as Ministers). And the swine that are in Parliament at present whinge that they are poorly paid (!). Doubtless we will hear the usual 'it was within the rules' comment.

Whatever the legal rights and wrongs of this, it is morally wrong, but until politicians realise this and understand that they are not in Westminster to feather their own nests, but to serve the country and to pass just and proper laws, not to seek personal gain from their service, we will not see the nation governed properly. We can but pray…..

'Read my lips, no new taxes'

2010-03-12T07:44:00.001Z

This quote is taken from George Bush Snr, when he won the nomination for Republican candidate in the US elections way back in 1988. Yesterday, a Brown minion, suggested a similar line by saying that despite a record deficit of £178 billion plus a year, no further tax increases were necessary (as they have found a vast £19billion of extra taxes per year). So this may appear to be good politics, because this moves the debate back towards cutting public expenditure, a line which Brown and many labour people feel more comfortable with. Thus the conservatives are heartless if they appear to back large public sector cuts.

Good politics, but back economic policy. For a start, a new labour government (ANY government) is going to have to cut a lot more than is being said at present, if we are to avoid a massive collapse of sterling and or a government bond strike. For a second, I actually think that there is an element of denial with many people as to how bad our economic situation is; we cannot just rely on devaluation after devaluation to sort ourselves out(every G7country is saying 'export more', forgetting that this cannot be done by all of them at once and succeed; the winners will be those who have good quality products to sell).Thus the politics might be sound, but as Bush Snr discovered to his cost, if you go back on a promise, voters are less forgiving than if your are honest with them.....

can you save chancellor darling from the forces of hell?

2010-02-27T22:17:00.000Z

Brilliant computer game on the web HERE . Can you save Chancellor Darling? Or will you roast in the everlasting pit?

BTW- Novel is coming on well- action, adventure, love story, swashbuckling heroism, good verses evil, moral etc . Will post an extract later on in the week.

Also-I am waiting for the Tory version of the above to come out. Any suggestions??

Who will rid us of these banks?

2010-02-26T19:59:00.000Z

Apologises for not posting before now, busy day. Been putting up Ikea furniture (weapons of mass marriage destruction) in the servant quaters.

Anyway, will post about the upward revision of UK growth to a fantastic 0.3% at a later date. Today I want to catch up about the nationalised banks. Now Royal Bank of Scotland posted about £6billion losses and Lloyds posted about the same today. And we own 84% of one and 43% of the other.

In many respects the RBS figures do not suprise me, we knew it had been a badly managed bank before the nationalisation and this is the chickens coming home to roost (the 'slow fuse' of recession induced losses). But the Lloyds figures show what an utter 'cock up', the whole Brown negociated takeover of HBOS by Lloyds TSB was. This is where all the losses stem from. If Lloyds TSB had stayed clear of HBOS, it would be doing reasonably well. But greed has been its own undoing, not helped by an irresponsible Prime Minister. If I were a Lloyds shareholder I would be fuming.

Personally I think it is time for the UK tax payer to get the money back from these banks, split them up and re- privatise these components. We can obtain the money for an asset swap deal for the money owed from their good assets and then sell what is left (RBS has assets of £2.5 trillion and the total amount we have put into the banks in equity purchases is about £120 billion, so not impossible) parts of each of these banks- e.g. RBS own a massive insurance outlet which includes well known brands such as Churchill and Direct Line. Lloyd's owns life assurer Scottish Widows and 4 different banks. Time to split these mega banks up and make a bit of money.

Then we will have little reason to moan about bankers bonuses- unless you are a diehard socialist.

The Greek Basil Fawlty

2010-02-25T07:37:00.000Z

As I said to readers, I am still keeping a close eye on the Greek crisis. Things do not seem to be getting any better. The Euro is sliding against major currencies, the EU has decided to strip Greece of her voting powers within the EU and the Greeks themselves are not helping themselves; the Greek Deputy Prime Minister (bottom picture) has turned himself into a Greek version of Basil Fawlty, picture on the right, but without the British subtly, but not only mentioning “the war”, but also (echoed by recent Parliamentary debates) having a good dig as Deutschland, by in effect calling Germans Nazis; quite how this is going to persuade Germany to even contemplate a bailout of Greece is beyond me.

And as I am sure readers will agree is a completely ridiculous insult upon the people of Germany, which is a large and prosperous democracy, whose people have a great dislike of warfare and instead focus on creating one of the best economic machines in the whole world. To compare today’s Germany with the Third Reich is just plainly incorrect. Perhaps these Greek Parliamentarians are doing this for domestic reasons? If so then they are playing with fire.

Now regarding the EU/German ‘plan’ for this crisis. It is basically not a plan to bail out Greece at all. The plan is to make sure Greece gets back to fiscal sanity by cutting and cutting; the only bailout that will occur is if there is a big run on the Euro (which fits in with recent EU statements). Right now the Euro is overvalued and can tumble a bit further, without the ECB, Euro zone or the Germans intervening; in actual fact the current devaluations will boast German exports.

Perhaps this is why the Greeks are now getting agitated? Perhaps they are thinking there will be no bailout and are determined to go down (as they would see it) fighting, whilst at the same time bringing the rest of the Euro zone down with them. Perhaps. Or perhaps not. I rather fear that a game of bluff is occurring. Who will blink first?

Everything Is Meaningless

2010-02-24T18:13:00.001Z

Just to keep everyone upbeat, I have found this from the Bible, which best sums up my mood at present :

Ecclesiastes 1
The words of the Teacher, [a] son of David, king in Jerusalem:
"Meaningless! Meaningless!"
says the Teacher.
Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless."

What does man gain from all his labor
at which he toils under the sun?
Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.

The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.

The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.

All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again.

All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

Is there anything of which one can say,
"Look! This is something new"?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.

There is no remembrance of men of old,
and even those who are yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow.

Tactical errors& no strategy

2010-02-23T09:06:00.000Z

Both political parties have undertaken strategic errors in the past 48 hours. The conservatives should have just let the Brown allegations run, whilst launching a big policy of their own and they could have got Cameron to issue some pious statement (a la Blair) about political ideas, time for a change. Instead we have calls for an inquiry. This would get us practically nowhere and could make life diffcult for Cameron should he ever get to Downing Street (what happens if similar things are alledged of him in the future?).

Labour should have not added fuel to the story, perhaps Brown should also have been seen moving on from his Saturday re-launch with further ideas. But to put the belligerent tank that is Prescott on the offensive and for some to start to suggested that the bullying charity is some how part of a grand Tory conspiracy, whilst it is theory to fit facts, it is nothing more than theory, is a tactical error. It also does not help Labour's image for attacking people who get in the way; the very fact that the director talked about private information is enough without labour high command to do anything else or to suggest she is a tory puppet. To try and then link this with a Tory conspiracy, may confirm in some people's mind of the allegation that Brown is paranoid .

I would conclude by suggesting that this is the problem with both political parties; they act tactically and get this wrong. As for strategy. They have none. It is quite depressing that we have reached this level.

Duchess starts her own weblog

2010-02-22T21:47:00.002Z

The Duchess has decided to start her own blog, in which she will be talking about faith. Link is here.

I do give up sometimes.......

2010-02-22T11:44:00.000Z

I am now in a fully fed up mood. That is with regards to our politics. Rather than discussing labour or Tory policies (the election is a few months away), we now get back to a theme, which has been running for the past 3 years. Namely that of Gordon Brown's way of managing people and accusations of bullying (mobile phone throwing, temper tantrums, assaulting staff etc). Then we had the director of a bullying charity suggesting that several Downing Street officials had contacted her agency.

The allegations raised against Brown are just that, they have not been proven. If we do take them at face value, I would look beyond Brown's character and suggest that it is the institution of Prime Minister, which is at fault. Let us remember that a Prime Minister is more or less a Monarch in his/her own right, in that the old powers of the Monarchy are invested in the Prime Minister. Unlike the days of old in which a Monarch would have to get their views through the Privy Council and Parliament, the current set-up allows for almost unlimited unaccountability and power. Because of this seeming power, Prime Ministers can become frustrated when matters do not go their own way (as one once said "events dear boy").

Now let me be perfectly clear on one point, the head of the national bullying help line should not have come forward to say that they have received calls from officials in government regarding Brown's behaviour. It is simply wrong to have uttered these words; it is a confidential matter between the people concerned and if matters were take further between the employee and employer. It should have not have waded into this political debate. And as if to demonstrate, the current head of that service is now being given the spin-doctors treatment. I would also like to say that I detest bullying in any way shape or form. It is always the actions of a weaker man, that of a bully; furthermore Brown has not exactly covered himself in glory before- see the Damian McBride scandal. I have to say that one thing I really cannot take is the talk of a 'moral compass'. So I can see why many people are licking their lips on this one; some form of pay back for all those times journalists were corralled into writing the correct spin.

I would conclude by saying that the nation has far too many important and pressing issues to discuss than the one currently taking over the headlines. The opposition should resist getting involved in this affair. Play the ball and not the man. Socialism is what is wrong here and these policies would continue whether or not Brown was around. That is what should be tackled. Not people's personalities.

Guest post from the duchess

2010-02-21T21:16:00.002Z

"The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise" (Psalm 51, v 17).

No sooner have we packed away the Christmas decorations, than Easter is almost upon us, or so the shops would have us believe! But let us not get wrapped up in the chocolate bunnies and colourful foil. Let us not forget the truly amazing gift that God has given us in Jesus Christ: A gift that will last longer than a chocolate egg and won't leave you with a sickly feeling if you over indulge. In fact, the promise that we have in Jesus lasts longer than our lifetime. It lasts forever!

We are now in the season of Lent, when Christians traditionally think about their own mortality. Depressing, you might think. But those who have faith in God know of His wonderful promise: That through Jesus' death on the cross, anyone who comes to God to ask for forgiveness can have the gift of eternal life through Him in paradise. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3, v. 16). Now isn't that amazing?

Going back to my opening quote- last year, I attended the Good Friday service in the next village. Not anything unusual, I attend church most Sunday and usually try to go to a service on Good Friday. But on this particular occasion, I attended a church that I had not been to before. At the end of an inspiring and thought provoking service, the priest silently went up to the cross, which had been displayed at the front of the church for the duration of the service, picked up a nail and a hammer, and banged the nail into the cross before leaving the church. Slowly, one by one, members of the congregation did the same. When it got to my turn, I found myself completely overwhelmed with emotion. I felt the full weight and magnitude of my own sins, the sins that put Jesus there on the cross. I came away from that service with a strong sense that God had touched my heart that day. I believe this experience has changed me and I am sure it will never leave me. I have always been a Christian. Sometimes it is all too easy to become complacent and familiar with the stories we hear year after year. But let us never forget the magnitude of the love and grace that God showed us with the cross. That truly is amazing.

Yours in Christ, The Duchess

Hymn of the week - Soldiers of the Cross, arise!

2010-02-21T20:24:00.001Z

A truly insparational hymn. Our Rector was on top form today, she gave a very good sermon on temptation and lent. And I have accepted a request to become PCC Secretary. I pray that I may be of service to the Church of Christ.....

"Soldiers of the cross, arise!
Gird you with your armor bright!
Mighty are your enemies,
hard the battle ye must fight.

O'er a faithless fallen world,
raise your banner in the sky!
Let it float there wide unfurled!
Bear it onward! lift it high!

Mid the homes of want and woe,
strangers to the living Word,
let the Savior's herald go!
Let the voice of hope be heard!

Where the shadows deepest lie,
carry truth's unsullied ray!
Where are crimes of blackest dye,
there the saving sign display!

To the weary and the worn
tell of realms where sorrows cease!
To the outcast and forlorn
speak of mercy and of peace!

Guard the helpless! seek the strayed!
Comfort troubles! banish grief!
In the might of God arrayed,
scatter sin and unbelief!

Be the banner still unfurled,
still unsheathed the Spirit's sword,
till the kingdoms of the world
are the kingdom of the Lord!"

Words: William How, 1863. Music: William Gilchrist, 1895.

Argentina wants talks over oil row....

2010-02-20T09:59:00.000Z

So the Argentines want to now start talks with the UK over a crisis of their own making. Fine, but what do the two countries really have to talk about? As said before the oil drilling is taking place within UK waters. Why should we give over any of this to another country because they demand it? There may be a deal we could make to satisfy Argentinean pride, but not at the expense of conceding territory. And in any case as we all know, the last time we sat down for talks was at the very moment the Argentines invaded.

I wonder what will happen next? Within wanting to sound like I am writing a Tom Clancy novel, all Argentina has to do is to use a submarine to sink the massive oil rig which has been tugged all the way from Scotland and we have a full blown crisis. Would they do this or is this fantasy? It has not been unknown for unpopular leaders to start a war to bolster popularity at home. And the current Argentine government (and the UK government) are both deeply unpopular. Let us hope that it does not come to this and cooler heads will prevail. Perhaps to satisfy the Argentines, because we are an honourable and peaceful nation, we could talk about a massive refinery-building programme on the Argentine coast? Or if they refuse why not about Chile or Uruguay?

Another reason why the Tories have lost all common sense and their principals

2010-02-20T09:36:00.000Z

Right, another reason why this election is going to be close. The conservatives latest plans for the tax system are not only anti-conservative, but will not win any votes. They plan to abolish the PAYE ( pay as you earn) system for paying income tax and resort instead to taking the tax directly from people's bank accounts. Apparently this will save money, but my objections are :

1. This is a huge leap in the power of the state. Bank accounts are private matters between individuals and their banks. We already live in a big brother state and we do not want more state intrusion into people's private affairs.

2. If the NHS waste of space computerised database is anything to go by, this plan will not save money, but become another white elephant part of spending.

3. If you want to increase revenue, you can start by making the tax system itself more simple. For example the complicated system of tax credits. Or the various rates of National Insurance. Or the different income tax bands. Isn't low tax, not high government spending supposed to be a key part of Conservative thinking?

Am I the only traditional conservative, who thinks the Tories under Cameron are simply in politics to gain power at any cost and in reality have no plan whatsover for government? Am I the only one who thinks they will win via default, because labour are unpopular?

More than ever I am tempted to go for an alternative (not Liberal or Labour or BNP). That leaves the libetarians or UKIP. Or an indepdent . As I live in a Lab/Con marginal (our area is solid tory , so I expect zero visists from the main parties) my vote actually counts. So I am going to be a floating voter at this election. Yes I am fed up with labour, but cannot see the tories being any better.