The best enemies imaginable | Samizdata.net

21/10/2009 Comments off

Moderate Islamists? I think not!Found the following article over at Samizdata – seems to put the case pretty well!

The best enemies imaginable | Samizdata.net.

Categories: Politics

Immoral Equivalency

01/10/2009 3 comments

art_polanski_giThis is worth a read! Might also be a shoe-in for Pseuds Corner but that’s another mattter. Point may still be valid!

Matt’s Meditations, Rants and Reviews

Shared via AddThis

Categories: Humour, Politics

BNP appeals for cash to fight EHRC

01/10/2009 Comments off

An interesting story over at Politics.co.uk

BNP leader Nick Griffin is reported to have written to party activists appealing for money to save the party from financial ruin. According to The Times, Mr Griffin has urged supporters to make donations to “keep the wolves at bay”. A party spokesman was unable to confirm or deny the wording of the appeal by Mr Griffin as quoted in The Times, however, he told politics.co.uk that if an appeal was sent out it was probably to raise money “to fight the equalities commission”. The far-right party is currently facing a court case from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) regarding its membership policy.

Meanwhile, it was confirmed late last night that the BNP leader will face justice secretary Jack Straw on the BBC’s Question Time panel show. The decision to engage with the far-right party in a televised debate has divided opinion within the Labour party with some believing that sharing a platform with the group gives them dangerous credibility. Margaret Hodge, MP for Barking – an area where the BNP made large gains in the last election – welcomed the move. “I’m really pleased to hear that Jack has decided to go up against the BNP,” she said. However, Jon Cruddas, MP for Dagenham said: “It’s a high wire act. I don’t know what the precise solution to this is.”

The BNP will be represented for the first time on the BBC’s political debate show on October 22nd.

This raises some interesting issues.

  1. Firstly, is the BNP actually right wing, or is the nomenclature of “Far-Right” a way of saying “Authoritarian Left Wing” without embarrassing the lefties who consider themselves to be the very epitome of Liberal thinking?
  2. So a political party asks its members for funds… exactly how is that controversial? All political parties need funding. I suspect the one of the main reasons for the Government to be  shying away from baning private donations and forcing financial support fr tom the public purse is the nasty taste it would leave that parties such as the BNP would/could qualify for such funding.
  3. The BNP already has the credibility insofar as they have had a modicum of electoral success at Local level due to White Working Class disillusionment with failed immigration policies and at European level due largely to the mad way in which they elect MEPs. To refuse to engage with them is akin to sticking two fingers in your ears and singing “LA LA LA They don’t exist!” at the top of your voice.
  4. The precise solution is to engage with them and let them damn themselves with their own words. If they are so wrong, the British Public will see them for what they are and reject them. If they have a point, and the electoral support that that engenders, then the point needs to be addressed and dealt with. It is no good to say that you don’t agree with them so anyone who supports them has no right to a point of view!

Voltaire, my friends, Voltaire

Categories: Politics

Tatchell on the “New Green Deal”

30/09/2009 4 comments

Peter Tatchell, writing in the Grauniad today questions the efficacy of certain capital projects and whether a return to New Deal style policies would be of any benefit. Here is my response:

Love the maths here! The author is attempting to confuse with the £160 Billion figure as this “saving” is over 25 years. This equates to 6.4 Billion a year. Not chickenfeed, but neither is it quite as impressive as he makes it sound. We wouldn’t get it all at once as he implies later on in the piece!

I actually agree with him on one of his choices for the chop (ID Cards) but dismay at his attitude to the defence of the realm. Indeed, Defence of the Realm is one of the few things that a Government should actually be doing!

Tatchell does make a good point when he says:

The deficit is a serious problem. It is not right wing scaremongering to say that it needs to be cut. If ministers carry on borrowing, spending and drifting deeper into debt, they could eventually bankrupt the government.

Despite the knee-jerk protests of some trade unionists and left-wingers, efficiency savings and waste-cutting are possible and can help bring down public spending. The idea that all government expenditure is cost effective is nonsense. Every big bureaucracy breeds waste, including government departments, local councils, schools and hospitals.

I believe that has been the Tory point of view for a number of years, nay decades! He does, however, deviate slightly when he says:

Central and local government ought to offer financial rewards to employees who devise money-saving ideas that also maintain service delivery.

It’s called their Salary!!! They should, as a matter of course, be looking for ways of being more efficient and of saving the Taxpayer money.

He then gets on to the “Green” issue and states:

Currently, about 60% to 70% of energy is lost in conventional oil, gas and coal-fired power stations.

Well, let’s have more Nuclear Power please! It doesn’t blight the landscape and endanger birds or have such a large carbon foot print as Wind Turbines for instance. Oh, and it works when the wind isn’t blowing,

He also shows a total lack of understanding about engineering:

If the government cancelled defence contracts such as Trident and the Eurofighter, some of the engineering skills that would have been used to construct these weapons could be transferred, as part of the Green New Deal, to the construction of wind, tidal, wave, geothermal and hydro schemes to boost Britain’s renewable energy output.

At what point is any of the classified, secret information used in the design and construction of planes, missiles and the like going to have any relevance to building a wind turbine? Or actually be allowed to be used? How many of these brilliant engineers going to actually be available, given that non-UK weapons manufacturers will be fighting to get the expertise? Does he really think that an engineer who designs ground to air misslies – actually a rocket scientist would be as fulfilled, or indeed have the specific knowledge, to work on geothermal power generation?

At least he uses the word “could” when he says

Some of these alternative energy methods are not yet effective enough.

But assumes that they could be made so. He doesn’t tackle the problem of the wind nor blowing all the time…. actually Global Warming would solve that!

Finally, Mr T borders on the incredulous when he says:

This alternative economic strategy is mostly nothing new. It is essentially FDR 2.0. The New Deal worked in the 1930s. The Green New Deal can work in the 21st century. Over to you Gordon, David and Nick.

The article over at Wikipedia has an impartial take on whether it worked or not. As to “Over to Gordon, David or Nick” well.. it ain’t going to be Gordon or Nick is it!

 

Categories: Politics

ZanNu Labour wants a return to the Workhouse for Teen Mums

30/09/2009 Comments off

19th Centrury Magdalen assylum for unwed mothersEd Balls seem to have dropped one today as he appeared to be advocating a return to Victorian Workhouses for 16 year olds. It was reported here following the measure being announced in Gordon Brown’s speech to conference.

Asked if mothers would be legally obliged to go into supervised care, Mr Balls said:

“Definitely, and rightly so because the state has got an obligation to make sure 16 year olds get the support they need”.

What is most disturbing is that they don’t seem to take any account of what would happen if the unfortunate mother was  married or receiving of the full support of her family. What are New Labour’s goons going to do? March in and take them away to be hidden in some institutionalised hell hole?

Categories: Politics

Lib-Dems beating Labour into third place

30/09/2009 3 comments

A story over at politics.co.uk tells how deep Labour’s woes, and Gordon Brown’s in particular, actually are.

An Ipsos Mori poll has put Labour in third place for the first time since February 1982.

The poll, which was conducted last week during the Liberal Democrat conference, suggests that both the Tories and Labour have lost points to the party.

According to the poll results, which are based on those who say they are “certain” to vote at the next election, the Tories are on 36 per cent, the Lib Dems are on 25 per cent and Labour is on 24 per cent.

The same poll last month showed the Tories on 43 per cent, Labour on 26 per cent and the Lib Dems on just 17 per cent.

However, parties traditionally receive a boost in the polls during their party conference and it is believed that Labour will get a similar boost after their own conference this week.

However, there was less good news for the Liberal Democrats when voters were asked who would make the most capable prime minister, 41 per cent chose David Cameron, 24 per cent chose Gordon Brown and only 16 per cent chose Nick Clegg.

 Not sure that you can read in too much to this as Lib Dem conference was last week so they could expect a bounce but this poll in the middle of the Labour conference is a peach. It certainly won’t help Gordon on the Broonites’ mood!

Categories: Politics

The Mystery of the Obama Brown snubfest

30/09/2009 1 comment

Courtesy of times-onlineAn interesting question was raised by Colleen on another thread – for reasons of housekeeping I have transferred it all here:

Hello all!
Colleen from New York here.
Thought I might ask the feelings of the people of Great Britain as to how they feel about the anger of Sarkozy at Obama for not speaking of the second nuclear plant in Iran, while Obama was well aware of it at the summit. But yet Brown, slurping up to Obama, grinning away and pandering, with the hope of even getting a picture of himself with Obama at the summit. Why does he do this?
This was a betrayal to all and and a showing of the vast inexperience of Obama to even be on the world stage. It also was deceiving…am I wrong?

Categories: Politics