THE 'BRADFORD SPRING'

he city centre is filled with pound shops, pawn shops and payday loan shops,’ he said. ‘There is mass unemployment. Somebody coming from outside and offering a new start is an electoral plus.’ George-Galloway

THE BRADFORD SPRING HAS SPRUNG  George Galloway back into the limelight. His 10,000 majority in yesterday’s by-election in Bradford  was, to say the least, very impressive. The old political grifter has once more found his marker and was last night celebrating his successful harvesting of his Muslim constituents votes.

                As for last night’s biggest loser, Ed Milliband, the odds on him remaining Labour leader have shortened considerably. As with most inner-city areas, the Labour Party has long since taken them for granted, while fighting for the trust of the middle classes. Tony Blair it was who rebranded the party and took it on a journey into Middle England with considerable success, knowing that what was left of the working class would have voted for a chimpanzee if it wore a red rosette.

                Not only this, Blair also set about socially engineering a new constituency for Labour to beat the Tories. He flooded the country with immigrants, believing such people would be natural Labour supporters. When the Schengen Agreement was signed and  hundreds of thousands of east Europeans gained access from Romania and Poland, Tony Blair was in seventh heaven.

                I do not like and never have liked George Galloway. He represents the kind of politician that we are familiar with both here and across the pond – the political chancer. But I must say this, he has successfully robbed the Labour Party of the kind of constituency that Labour believed they owned; and is to be congratulated on his achievement. For not only had the Labour Party been arrogant regarding the loyalty of the immigrant population,  but arrogantly dismissive of the white working classes during the Blair and Brown years.

               

GEORGE MADE REFERENCE to the tweedle- de and tweedle- dum  politics of the other parties. This is an allusion to the three main party’s genetic  resemblance each to the other. All three parties have little out of common with each other. On the economy the relationship within the coalition speaks for itself and is easily understood by the electorate.  Even the Labour Party can no longer boast any ideological differences with the other parties; on the economy; the only ‘difference’ is over the speed at which the much needed cuts are to be made.

                On Europe, all the main party leaderships, believe in  the creation of a Federal Europe. But knowing that this is deeply unpopular in the country, their rhetoric must reflect this unpopularity. When 100,000 signatures were recently collected for a debate on an ‘in’ or ‘out’ referendum,  and the result of which had no significance regarding any implementation of  a referendum; the main parties still imposed a three line whip, to reflect the position of all the three main parties, which was of course was  against such a referendum.

                So George is  right when he says there is little difference between the main parties, and he should be acknowledged for the accuracy of his remark. He is right to point this out to the people of Bradford, and they were right to turn their backs on the three main parties.

IF I WERE A CITIZEN of this Bradford constituency, I would have also looked closely with a somewhat cynical eye at George Galloway with as much a suspicious eye as I would  have looked at the main parties’ contesting the constituency.

                For cynicism regarding Cameron, Clegg, Milliband, and Galloway, is actually a healthy  state of mind. What it does is make you immune to the advances of political rhetoric – that verbal serum which is delivered in order to tell you what you want to hear and infuses temporary adulation; only to later make you suffer a hangover; whose only valuable  quality is to invite you into becoming a political cynic.

                Galloway will showboat at every opportunity; and the media will give him every opportunity to do so. This Bradford by-election has been the curtain raiser for London and the mayoral race between Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson.

                If Ken wins, a gay wedding may be in prospect between these two recalcitrant  odd-balls of the Left. Each of them appealing to minorities – the Muslim variety in particular. Which is why Ken has just had apologise to the Jewish citizens of London for remarks he made about them being to wealthy to vote Labour. His remarks were made to win over London’s Muslim population

                George and Ken would make a lovely couple walking the isle of an Anglican church which is about to allow Gay marriages. Ken has, however, been outshone by his master in Bradford. George does not drink which earns him Nector points with his Muslims; while sadly Ken does like to take a tipple if reports are correct.

                Still, if Ken wins, the coming together will take place. Congratulatory telegrams will be sent out; and each will believe themselves men of destiny. Until, that is George has (or may have) ambitions for becoming London’s mayor; which of course depends upon Ken’s success and the nature of his victory regarding the demographics. If Ken is victorious, then George will be interested to identify the source of his victory. George, being an honorary Muslim, will study closely Ken’s constituent vote, to see amongst which minority his victory was made.

                The three parties have allowed these two reprobates to float once more to the surface of main stream politics. Although Ken has yet to accomplish such a floatation with a win in London – and I desperately hope that he does not; his success against Boris will hand power away from parties to individuals. – which is what, after all, mayoral politics are all about.

                You may say that Ken is the Labour Party candidate. But this means very little to him, for he will ignore the party whenever it is in his interests to do so as mayor of London. So he, like George Galloway in Bradford, care little for party discipline; but at least George had the courage to abandon the Labour Party and set out to create his own Left wing alternative.

                These two  have contributed far more than any kind of plague could ever have done, to the diminution of the Labour Party and its members in UK politics. After being expelled from the Labour Party in 2003 by Tony Blair; George Galloway  founded the Respect Party in 2005. He then won Bethnal Green and Bow in London’s East End , another constituency with a high Muslim population. He then became an entrant in the Big Brother House in 2006 – a wrong move!

                In the following General Election of 2010 he failed to win the seat  of Poplar and Limehouse. He then stood in Scotland in 2011 for the Scottish Parliament, but failed. Which of course led the old chancer to seize his opportunity in Bradford. Politics and whatever material gain can be harvested from such affaires, are in George’s blood.

                 

NO TO CAMERAS

THIS GOVERNMENT is to allow cameras into our law courts for the first time. Be it limited in nature, there is little doubt that within time the whole procedure will be turned into entertainment and, if popular enough , as with coverage of the Premiership,  will then be auctioned off and Sky will be the highest bidder.

                It is believed that it was Sky News’s special pleading (or so they like to think) that caused a change of heart in Downing Street. I like Sky; its news coverage is the best and outperforms  that of the BBC - which I find particularly pleasing.

                But the courtroom is no place for the cameras. It is, at its most serious, an environment where justice should not be seen to be done by the modern media. Both victim and the accused should have the right to a trial without potentially millions watching. It will become the modern equivalent of the public execution, where low motives will drive the viewer to watch. Motives which are salacious in nature and providing the main focus of  tittle-tattle the next day in the offices or on the factory floor.

                In  the case of a particularly despicable crime, like that of the Yorkshire Ripper, for instance. It would be sold like an electrifying  and nail-biting half- hour soap. Ex-judges will be on hand to explain the finer points of the law;  retired barristers will give their views on the performance of the both the defence and prosecution councils; and if there is a part of the procedures that the viewer finds particularly boring; then in order to stop them turning off or over; something original and entertaining  will be thought up to keep them watching, like, perhaps, a competition promising front row seats to the next ‘A’ feature trial with travel and hotel expenses being paid, for the full duration of the trial in whatever city it takes place.

                Of course, you may think me well off the mark and a candidate for the funny farm. But once you take the first controversial step, then, as we know, the road to Hell is always paved with good intentions, and various unintended consequences will quickly emerge.

I FIND IT REPELENT that the media should be allowed to turn the courtroom into a production. Showboating of all sorts from all parties within the courtroom will, over time, transcend the boundaries the politicians sought to impose at the beginning . Those accused and found not guilty, will no doubt find themselves invited on to the next ‘reality’ TV show.

                Even those found guilty by the court, but whose persona appealed to the public could find themselves becoming a celebrity. Of course this would only happen in cases not involving violence: but even witnesses with the right personality can find themselves on the celebrity merry- go-round.

                Very soon people we will be committing crimes in the hope that their trial will be televised, in order that they can perform before the public…a criminal X Factor could be born. Which means that all sorts of bizarre criminal acts will be committed by petty criminals in order to attract the attention of the Sky Trial – for this is what it will become.

               

SKY KNOWS THAT what they hoped for has been rejected, but they now have a foot in the door; or a camera in the court. From now on, the politicians have little excuse to deny them further infiltration into the court during a trial. It is only a matter of time before we not only become like America, but we will soon overtake America because we will demand new procedures that the politicians dare not inhibit for fear of offending the popular will.

                America is of course a much larger country; it is divided into states, some of which are larger than the UK.  We, on the other hand, have to take the popular will far more seriously. In America, Washington, is the centre of government, and leaves the everyday problems of each state to the different state legislatures.

                We in this country will, because of our celebrity mores, foster from whatever quarter it comes, further additions to the superstar  family which sadly the UK has become infatuated with; particularly among the women, but also, sadly, the men.

                We should never allow the TV cameras into the intimacy of the court room where justice is enacted. Where evidence is tested and the jury make their decision based solely upon such evidence.

                There must be one institution that remains free from the modern media, and our courts must be that institution. The modern media brings with it all sorts of ideas that will ultimately lead to the ruin of a fair trial if it is given the opportunity so to do.

                

The Falklands again

NOT THAT MANY  people have noticed, but there is a nuclear summit taking place in Seoul, South Korea. The summit is being attended by Argentina’s foreign minister Héctor Timerman, who has lashed out at us over our deployment of a nuclear powered submarine, which, we of course cannot confirm its existence or weaponry, one way or another for obvious security reasons.

                Héctor refers to the Treaty of Tlatelolco which was signed in 1967 and became effective in 1968. The treaty refers to the deployment of nuclear weapons within Latin America and the Caribbean. It does not apply to nuclear powered vessels only to weapons, and Héctor is trying to solicit from the British confirmation that any submarine we have, or may have, in the South Atlantic does not carry nuclear weapons.

                As Nick Glegg (who is representing the UK in Seoul) said, ‘I’m afraid I am duty bound to respond to the insinuations made by the Argentinean delegation of militarisation of the South Atlantic by the British government. These are unfounded, baseless insinuations’.  If we, as a nation sign a treaty, then we stick to the tenets of that treaty. My God! When it comes to our dealings with Europe, I sometimes think that we should ignore such obligations altogether. But we do not. Even our enemies cannot fault us when it comes to honouring any treaty we sign up to.

                Héctor can sleep well in his bed tonight. If the Treaty of Tlatelolco forbids nuclear weapons, then he will not find any in the South Atlantic.

                As for any charge of militarisation of the South Atlantic; we are about to celebrate the 30^th anniversary of the defeat of such a militarization begun by Argentina and brought to an end by Britain. One would have thought that the Argentinean foreign minister would  be joining us in our moment of celebration, if, that is, he truly believes in the non-militarisation of the South Atlantic.

ALSO IN SEOUL, a letter has turned up signed by no less than five Nobel Prize laureates including none other than that old icon of the Western liberal bleeding heart, Bishop Desmond Tutu. His and the letters other signatories , including someone who I would recognise if I were still a Guardian reader; an Argentinean  artist called Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, who campaigned against the military dictatorship under General Galtieri . Once again one would have thought that this artist would have been grateful to the British for ridding him and his fellow countrymen and women of the painful boil that had infused the body politic of Argentina.

                What the letter seeks to do is persuade both Britain and Argentina into talks over the Falklands. Of course they know that Argentina would be only too ready to agree and the UK all too ready not to agree.

                The UK’s position is as it has always been. The UK will only enter into negotiations with Argentina over the island’s sovereignty, if and only if, the citizens of the Falklands agree to such negotiations, which they do not.

                It is not a case of the UK wishing to hold on to a colony (the description of which is disputed anyway), but to play fare with our kith and kin who have a lineage on these islands going back to the re-establishment of British rule 179 years ago.

                Both Desmond Tutu and his co-signatories have to understand that our claim to these islands are indisputable. But even if this was not the case, after 179 years of ‘occupancy’ it would have left the people living on the Falklands with the right to remain on the islands and under the protection of whatever country they deemed would serve their interests.

                They choose to remain British, and we therefore must protect their interests. If they have a change of mind and come to the conclusion that they wish to seek a deal with the Argentineans that give the island’s over to them, then Britain would stand aside. But I must say, by invading them 30 years ago, the Argentineans do not exactly inspire confidence among the islanders.

                If Bishop Tutu or any of his co-signatories, wish to play the honest broker, then let them visit the Falklands and solicit the views of its citizens . So far all they have appeared to do is accept the Argentinean case, which makes them less than honest brokers.

                Negotiating the futures of the Falkland islanders over their heads, and without their consent to do so, is something I would have thought, considering his experiences in South Africa, Desmond Tutu would have been opposed to.

THE OTHER SIGNITORIES of the letter were Rigoberta  Menchu, a Mayan activist no less, from Guatemala, Mairead Maguire of  Ireland (need I say more), US national Jody Williams (?) and Iran’s  Shirin Ebadi (?).

                I am sure all of these good people believe in the self-determination of peoples, or why else would they be Nobel laureates . They must know in their idealistic souls, that no such negotiation between the UK and Argentina can ever take place unless the islanders themselves agree to it, or, which is not within the realms of impossibility, some future British government  betrays the islanders to the Argentineans.

                There are other great issues surrounding Argentina’s ambivalence to the ‘colonialist war-mongers’ in the UK, which comprises an up and coming election in Argentina where Cristina Kirchner, the current president of her country is seeking re-election - as well as the discovery of generous quantities of oil which no doubt, due to the present oil price, makes drilling a profitable enterprise in the South Atlantic.

                Whenever we, as a Western nation, choose to help a country like Libya, or Kuwait , that great fraternity of liberals accuse us of low and base acts. They say oil, is the one and only imperative for such actions, despite the fact that if this were indeed true, they overlook the fact that their lives rely upon this same substance as much as anyone else. But do they complain that Argentina’s motives for their attack upon their own country, may follow the same trajectory they accuse the West of following.

                Could it be that Argentina’s president is angling for a portion of the wealth that will flow from the bottom of the South Atlantic? I believe her first instinct, like all politicians, is to be re-elected. Cristina Kirchner has carried out an anti-British campaign in order to secure her presidency.

                Her useful idiots serving her ambition can count Adolfo Pérez Esquivel among them. The Falklands are non-negotiable unless the islanders themselves agree. It matters not how many Nobel laureates Ms Kirchner rallies to her cause, or however much she seeks to isolate the islands in her attempt to win votes. Like General Galtieri , she seeks the popularity that will give her a second term in office. She cannot replicate the late general’s military ambition without repeating his failure. So she seeks the solidarity of other South American countries in reproving the great colonial Satan – Great Britain.

                We must continue to support these islanders militarily; we must defend the Falklands with as much ambition and rigour as we would any county within the UK from the outside. We must protect the Falklands from the Argentineans. They have no sovereignty over these islands and rely purely upon the island’s geographical position next to their nation, to claim their right of ownership.

                If we fail the Falkland islanders we will have severed an arm from the UK’s body. If any government allowed the Falklands to become part of Argentina without the express whish of its people, then such a government deserves the fate of falling victim to revolution.

                 

               

                

CAP DONATIONS

WELL, THE SON of a Smithfield meat porter has dropped Cameron right in it. Peter Cruddas has been caught offering access for cash. The Sunday Times secretly filmed his spiel, where up to £250,000 was being charged for large slice of prime Cameron sirloin. Mr Cruddas’ performance left little doubt that influence was being purchased , and favours expected. For why else would even the staunchest of wealthy Tory supporters hand over such a generous amount? Merely to sit at the dinner table opposite Cameron… and making small talk? I think not.

                All political parties engage in such subterfuge in order to keep their parties solvent and fit for a lengthy and expensive election campaign. If the taxpayer refuses to (which they are right to do) subsidise the political parties, then they have to be creative in the way they gather their funds.

                The Labour Party rely on the unions, who then seek to influence party policy either through the block vote at conference, where they can combine with each other to vote down a particular motion for debate; or they can, as they did with Ed Milliband, crown the party leader.

                Apparently, after said leader was crowned; one of the union bosses who participated in his coronation, promptly wrote out a cheque for £700,000 - the  generosity that  only dinning well beforehand can conjure up on such occasions, is well recorded. I remember a similar diner in the 1970s. George Brown dined well at every opportunity, and ate so much that he had to be removed from the gutter and put into a taxi; after all, the London eateries are well blessed with happy feeders, and they count a client’s removal from the gutter as a triumph of their chef’s culinary art.

               

WE ALL REMEMBER the £1million donated by Bernie Ecclestone to Labour, which had to be returned: and is there not a onetime Lib Dem donor who is currently on the run from the police?

                I do not for one moment believe that the British people were shocked by Mr Cruddas’ performance – although his barrow boy accent and down to earth comments may have confused many who thought the Tories to be the party of toffs.

                Our politicians are held in very low esteem by the public. This latest example of their imprudence is like water of a duck’s back to the voter. They would not be surprised if one or all of the main parties organised a bank robbery to get their funds.

                Things have reached such a pretty pass with the people that they have become so cynical in their view of our politicians. Not since the 19^th century has such public contempt been registered toward our political class.

                I f they had done what the vast majority of the people wish they would do on issues fundamental to  their beliefs, such as a referendum on Europe, then the politicians may start to claw back the people’s trust. But this will not happen because the political class as a whole, wishes us to become a mere canton within a federal Europe.

                Then there is immigration, another issue that the politicians have singularly failed to tackle. They make the right noises when they need our vote, but fail to deliver once they have been given it.            The latest exponent of such cynicism is none other than Nickolas Sarkozy, who has suddenly pressed the immigration button to take votes away from Le Penn’s Party  now run by his daughter, who is gaining support at Sarkozy’s expense.

                How many pledges on Europe has David Cameron broken? He promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty for instance, provided that is, that it had not been enacted before he became prime minister, which he knew full well that it would be; which meant that his pledge was nothing of the sort, but a mere ploy aimed at a Eurosceptic electorate to garner votes. In the end the people saw through him and he never managed to gain a majority of the electorate and had to go into coalition with the Lib Dems.

                To hold the British people in such contempt, and then demand as many of them now do, that the people give their taxes in support of their parties – in order to serve some kind of greater moral purpose that will prevent further  subterfuge and dissolute behaviour of the past, is contemptible.

WHAT IS NEEDED is a cap on all contributions from whomsoever they come. Such donations must come, not out of taxes, but, as in America, through private contributions, but limited in the UK. Several amounts have been bandied about, the most popular cap being £50,000.

                The parties had better agree very soon to such a solution, before they fall foul of the people’s flirtation with political extremes, either from the Left or the Right. If the main parties believe themselves the only democratic option and therefore can dismiss the national cynicism to the way they practice their craft, then history  will sooner or later provide a wake-up call.

                It is time for the political establishment which of course encompasses all of the main parties, to smell the coffee. The politicians have only one option left to them regarding financial support, and it does not include people’s taxes.

                They must agree upon a cap on contributions. All parties, whether supported by business or the trade unions have to make do with whatever they can accumulate through such a cap. If it means that during an election campaign we are saved from party propaganda on our television screens – unless, that is, the TV companies agree to pay for the election broadcasts; then so much the better.

                The media always cover the daily press briefings during an election campaign that are seen on our televisions and heard on the radio as well as summarised by the press; and are paid for by the media; the media also gives the party leaders plenty of air time at no cost to the parties. We had at the last election, the leadership debates which all of the media fought amongst themselves to cover.      All of these outlets provide the main parties with ample exposure; we do not need to see those awful lorries paid for by the different parties parked in some by-pass  for a photo opportunity; each carrying a poster  depicting a slogan that disparages their opponents.

THE TRUTH IS, is that the people do not need the parties to waste millions on enticing them to vote. By the time of the general election, personal experience of the previous five years of any particular government is sufficient for the floating voter to decide whether they continue with their past loyalty, or change their previous devotions; and no pleading will change their mind. It is after all the floating voter who has the final say by the time a general election appears, and these voters will have the pivitol say which is usually decided well before election day.

                No amount of money spent by any of the main parties will change the mind of the floating voter. For, by definition, they hold no loyalty to any party. They analyse the different manifestos and vote accordingly, but if any pledge in a manifesto they support is retracted when the party they voted for comes to power; then that party will forgo their support when the next election comes.

                The days of class loyalty to any political party have thankfully ended. The core vote for the two main parties stands at around 25%, and the floating voter decides who governs the country; and such voters will find it very hard to accept that their taxes should be spent on keeping the parties in existence .

                               

                 

                

Ms Ashton is not fit for purpose

BARONESS ASHTON, the EU foreign minister, was never up to the job in first place. Her appointment was thought strange at the time. Now we have her putting her foot in it over comments made over the deaths of Jewish children in Toulouse, and seeming to draw parallels with Israel’s attacks on Gaza and the deaths of Palestinian children. She made her remarks during a speech in Brussels, and has caused her to be rebuked by the Israeli defence minister Ehud Barak .

            I do not think Ms Ashton meant to make such an analogy, but she did merit a rebuke. Her offending remark does mix Gaza up with terrorist acts such as in Toulouse; ‘When we remember [she opines] young people who have been killed in all sorts of terrible circumstances – the Belgian children having lost their lives in a terrible tragedy and when we think of what happened in Toulouse, when we remember what happened in Norway a year ago, when we know what is happening in Syria, when we see what is happening in Gaza and in different parts of the world – we remember young people and children who lose their lives.’  This was the offending paragraph of her speech that lead to incrimination.

                Gaza should never have been mentioned in the same breath as what occurred in Toulouse, Norway, and Syria. Only those on the extreme Left would regard such an analogy as in any way appropriate; and then only for propaganda purposes, because even then, after rational reflection on the different nature of each episode, they would have had to accept the inappropriateness of mixing the events that happened in Toulouse, Norway, and Syria, with the events in Gaza.

                On an almost daily basis Israeli towns and cities are targeted by Islamic terrorists (what the BBC would refer to as ‘militants’)in Gaza. Rockets in their thousands have poured into Israel. They are primitive weapons of terror without discretion, and designed to maximise the deaths of Israeli men, women, and children. If there is to be an analogy made between the events in Gaza and  those other outrages, then the analogy must be with the antics of Palestinian extremists and not with the Israelis’

                On most occasions Israel’s actions are reactive; and when they do have to defend themselves, they target only those launching the missiles or the leadership of the various terrorist groups including Hamas. If children are killed, then they were as much the victims of the same terrorist groups as the Israeli’s.

                What the Left conveniently ignore is the tactic of using children as human shields in order to keep an IAF pilot’s hand off the fire button  when targeting the missile launch sites . If Palestinian children are killed, then it is not because they are deliberately targeted, unlike the Toulouse murders where an eight-year-old girl was grabbed by her pony tail by her assailant, who then proceeded to shoot her through the head.

                In Norway, it was the same kind of callousness and indifference to human suffering when children were also deliberately targeted. As for Syria, the indiscriminate nature of the killings by Assad, only proves that if the Arab world were successful in capturing Israel militarily, then the Jews know what to expect. For if Assad is capable of doing what he is doing to his own people – what would he do to the Jews?

BARONESS ASHTON, I am sure, never meant to make such a wicked analogy. All this proves is that this lady is unfit for purpose. Her appointment was made by Gordon Brown, and God knows what was going through his tortured brain at the time.

                What it does prove is that women, like men, should only be selected for such high office on ability and nothing else, such as quotas. Ms Ashton has proven to everybody’s dissatisfaction that she was never up to the job she was given. Therefore I think she can be forgiven; but not Gordon Brown for appointing her in the first place…but this is another matter.

                What Ms Ashton has raised in her clumsy way of so doing, is using an analogy that will, in the coming days after the Toulouse killings, be made by the Left generally. They will seek in some way to equate what happened in Toulouse, with what has happened in the skies over Gaza.

                They will try to make comparisons which do not apply; but nevertheless convinces them of the correctness of the path they are on and salvage their consciences. They, like all of those on the Left, believe that their end of the political spectrum is scripted by the future and this they believe will eventually lead to the overcoming of the state of Israel . It is, they believe, the ‘progressive’ nature of their beliefs that will see them win the day.

THE LEFT BELIEVE they are a progressive force and as such the future is guaranteed them. They are pro-multicultural, pro-abortion, pro-Gay, pro-feminist, and pro-political correctness.

                They are anti-Israel, as well as anti all anti multicultural references; and they believe in green issues and windmills. While their Muslim bedfellows are  homophobic and support the subjection of women; providing such practices occur within a Muslim culture they are to be  tolerated. While  arranged marriages and honour killings, provided they occur within the Asian culture, are also acceptable to the ‘progressive’ Left…is not multiculturalism wonderful?

                The modern Left would never be recognised by the Left who fought in Spain during its civil war against the fascists. For that earlier Left later saw what happened to the Jews during the Holocaust. They would have stood full square behind the creation of a Jewish state.

                Today’s Left have nothing whatsoever in common with their earlier descendents. The ‘modern Left’  variant of what we could all support during the 1930s and 1940s would meet with the utmost censure regarding their attitude toward the state of Israel.

                The modern Left has transformed itself. It can no longer speak on behalf of the British working classes, because what is left of them would not support their modern agenda. George Orwell spoke up for the British working classes. He brought home to the British public what they were subjected to in their daily lives. This was what made him a socialist.

                What those who were  murdered at the school in Toulouse proves, is that the Jewish people are only truly safe within their own country, where they can at least fight back. The events in France are a microcosm of the way Jews have been treated throughout history within the European Diaspora; and the way they will be treated in the future if they lose their one true sanctuary – a nation of their own.   

               

               

               

 

TAXES; HANDED DOWN TO MOSES

WE HAVE HAD MPs fiddling their expenses; bankers being given what are considered to be ‘exorbitant’ bonuses, and now we have the celebrity tax avoidance scheme which robs the taxpayer of  £1 billion a year. Counted among the celebrities who have signed up tax avoidance are Mick Jagger, Ringo Starr, and Mr  Bob ‘feed the world’ Geldof himself.

            Of course, the millions of people on PAYE, have no flexibility in how much they pay to the Inland Revenue; and to this extent it is very unfair of the famous, or anyone else for that matter, who has access to an accountant to rub the ordinary people’s noses in it.

            As for taxes. We must get away from the ‘fact’ that taxes are the government’s by right…as the 11^th obligation, added as a footnote to the tablet of stone brought down by Moses.

            Our politicians are very careful with their own money; they spend wisely and save liberally. They are exemplary when it comes to managing their own household budgets; they are the epitome of self restraint…stashers every one. But when they are in a position to spend other peoples hard earned money they care little about any waste their spending incurs. Thus, for instance the wasted billions spent on procurement in the defence budget as just one example.

            Then there is the Quangocracy where politicians create extra mural departments of state manned by the great and the good – which do very little good and costs hundreds of millions more pounds of the people’s taxes.

            As a miniscule but politically important spending arrangement, that of subsidising the restaurants and bars at Westminster may amount to only a few million, but what is significant is the utter contempt those who represent us feel toward us in so enjoying such a people subsidised activity

            There are dozens of other examples of government squandering and frittering away the people’s taxes.            Almost on a daily basis some particular extravagance or waste is announced in the media, or by an opposition ever eager to score points against the government.

            Perhaps one of the best example of politicians wasting taxpayers’ money is the illustration offered up by Incapacity Benefit, and how in its earlier formation it was used to reduce the unemployment figures.

            It was Margaret Thatcher who began it all. What was then known as Invalidity Benefit, served as a costly (as we are finding today) but useful way of reducing the unemployment figures. This was because anyone transferred to Invalidity Benefit  from Unemployment Benefit would not count in the unemployment statistics. While Margaret Thatcher thought up the wheeze, this did not prevent Labour from keeping it.

            So this is another way in which politicians, from whatever party, were prepared to go to keep themselves in power, at the tax payers’ expense. Now Incapacity Benefit is being targeted because it is indeed being abused by thousands of people who are capable of working, but prefer the fortnightly payment.

            So politicians are now blaming those in receipt of a benefit, they themselves used as a means of diverting the country’s attention from away what would have been far greater unemployment figures, and there consequences. What would otherwise have been a precarious situation for the politicians was resolved by this additional waste of billions from the taxpayer.

TAXES ARE A COST TO be considered. They are not, and can never be written in stone. But it appears that this is what the modern politician believes. Taxation is part of the social contract between government and citizen; which means that it is being allowed by the people, and not being demanded from, as the modern politician seems to think.

            I can remember when Dennis Healy, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, promised to make the pips squeak, when taxing the rich. I can remember when, as a consequence of Mr Healy’s ambition, many were driven abroad; I can remember when taxes for the rich were not 50, but between 70 and even 80 per cent in the 1970s. One of the celebrities then, Michael Cain, went abroad at the invitation of Dennis Healy and  was attacked by myself, a Marxist at the time.

            Think of it this way; anyone working for his or her family wants to provide for them. When paying taxes at whatever the rate, whether 20, 25, or 50 per cent. These percentages represent the time that the individual is working, not for their employer or themselves, but the government: and the government sees such hours as theirs by right right to claim. Not as a voluntarily agreed principle and part of a social contract: but, to hear the way those on the Left speak today, one would think that the government has a duty to pick the citizens pockets.

            This is why I cannot bring myself to harangue the likes of  Jagger, Starr, and Geldof  for protecting their livelihoods, even if Geldof does proves himself an hypocrite.

            Jagger and Geldof are my least favourite celebrities. But when a government demands their portion that is in excess of the basic tax, then I feel myself on their side. I imagine myself, having through my own ability, managed to meet with success; I do not think that such success should be penalised by the state through such abnormal taxation.

           

TAXATION IS A NEED if we wish to have a NHS, Education, and a system of defence. These should be the three main procurers of public funding; and if they stopped at that we would not be subjected to the mess we are in today.

            But as we know, there are other calls upon the public purse. The Welfare State has grown disproportionately to what was intended by its founding fathers, costing billions through its expansion into areas never ever intended at the beginning.

            The once envisaged safety net has become a drag anchor upon the whole of society. Politicians have thought up ever more ways of spending people’s taxes and have drawn upon them as if they were akin to unlimited North Sea oil reserves.

            Politicians should show humility and not contempt for our tax dodging celebrities; and remember whose money they are salting away; it at no stage in its creation belonged to the state.  The state never earned it; and if it is to take it, it should do an equitable manner. There should be universal tax rate, while the low earners should be exempt. This is fair and would in all probability bring in extra revenues because of  its fairness.

           

           

           

           

           

             

TIME TO DEPART

AFTER 9/11 I supported Bush when he sent American forces into Afghanistan, and I also supported Tony Blair for sending British soldiers. After 9/11, not only America but the West generally could not allow al-Qaeda to have such a victory without any kind of retaliation. If the West had chosen not to respond, then imagine, if you can, the scale of the response in the Muslim World to Osama bin-Laden. He would never have had to face a recruitment drive again; Muslims, particularly the youth, would have swam to Afghanistan if need be, to become associated with al-Qaeda and court the martyrdom it offered them; and Osama would have become another Suleman ‘The Magnificent’, the great 16^th century Ottoman general who very nearly conquered Europe.

            Not only would the youth from Muslim nations have set forth; but as many again from the West would have either taken the same journey, or, as some of them did, stay at home and mount terrorist attacks in the countries where they lived.

            Something had to be done militarily, and if it were argued (as it was at the time) that such action would only provoke further attacks; then, if such as those who believed this, had had a mind’s eye to consider what no action would have brought about, then they would have very quickly seen what the lesser of the two evils was. But as such people had a history of anti-Americanism, their reflex at the time would have been to oppose anything America in general, and George Bush in particular, did on anything whatsoever.

            What I hoped to see was a military advance into Afghanistan in order to, if possible, eliminate al-Qaeda or at least remove them, as well as its foster parent, the Taliban from Afghanistan soil. This would be followed up by the removal of all ground forces, and relying upon the continued pursuance of these groups from the air.

            The technology the West now has would have kept the Taliban at bay over the Pakistan border.  Today, American drones have eliminated hundreds of high ranking Taliban officers. While ground forces, having as they are, to fight with one arm tied behind their backs, makes them of limited worth. On top of which, they are sitting targets for the Taliban with their improvised explosives.

           

WHAT HAPPENED I BELIEVE, is the following. George Bush and his advisers had planned for a limited police action described above. But somehow the president was persuaded by a very persuasive politician. So persuasive was this politician, that the British people elected him no fewer than three times to lead them.

            It was Tony Blair who either came up with this idea of ‘liberal interventionism’ or read about it somewhere; which included as a prerequisite, nation building. He had had a measure of success with this ‘philosophy’ in the Balkans and thought the formula eminently desirable for Afghanistan.

            Nation building would require (in the case of Afghanistan) many decades and billions of dollars. Afghan history as we all know is littered with such good intentions. The building of nations can only be accomplished by the people themselves, anything else is either empire building, or, colonialism; both of which are outdated concepts and are guaranteed sooner or later to drive the indigenous people into the very arms of the people you are trying to get rid of.

            Tony Blair, like many other Western leaders, believe that democracy is a one suit fits all system regardless of history, custom, and culture.

            The president of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai and his fellow ‘parliamentarians’ are a nest of thieves. They are corrupt and worship only one other faith outside of Islam… that of the large brown envelope. Sadly this trait extends throughout Afghanistan society where history has taught its people to accommodate all comers either through fear (like the Taliban) or through a venal streak that helps them survive as a people: and who can blame them.

            The important thing is as far as the West is concerned, is that we now depart these Afghan shores, leaving behind an air capability that has proved to be the most successful component in the allied presence in Afghanistan, as well as a limited ground force of special forces to oversee the air attacks and guide them where necessary .

TWO DAYS AGO, an American sergeant  unleashed his demented rage upon innocent civilians killing 16 including women and children. Hopefully, he will be brought to trial in America and face the maximum penalty. However Hamid Karzai is requesting that he should be brought to trial in the new ‘democratic’ Afghanistan where his fate will not be determined by evidence, but by the political needs of Karzai himself.

            I do not support president Obama (I am nowadays inclined toward the GOP), but he is right when he insists that Osama –bin Laden’s assassination brings to an end any American involvement on the ground. As the mastermind of 9/11, bin-Laden’s death draws a line under the West’s involvement on the ground in Afghanistan. But we still need to keep the Taliban at bay after we leave this country and we will still need a foot on the ground.        

            The numbers of such would amount to no more than a few thousand, but they must be exempt from Afghan law. This is the current sticking point between America and Hamid Karzai before the Americans are due to leave in 2014; and this renegade sergeants’ killings has made it even harder to come to an arrangement with the Afghan government over this essential issue.

            The Afghan people have smelt the Western coffee, but, it seems, prefer their own ancient way of life that existed for centuries before the Taliban and the West sought to ring their noses and lead them in their different directions.

LEAVE AFGHANISTAN TO its own devices and if the Taliban returns, Western intelligence can target their leaders and eliminate them from the air, requiring the bare minimum of American feet on the ground.

            If we, the West, had from the beginning been able to untie the hands of our fighting men and women, as they were allowed to do during the Second World War; then Afghanistan would have fallen into Tony Blair’s nation building hands. But it was not to be, for, unlike the Second World War, we were never prepared to be as ruthless as our enemies, for fear of becoming like them.

            If the West can never match the ruthlessness of its enemies because the  liberal establishment forbids it, then what hope is there when confronted by a medieval civilisation under the command of a ruthless and corrupt leader to whom we are obliged to take notice of. Better do you not think, that we withdraw from such a ramshackle society that has defeated the good intentions of all occupiers since Alexander the Great?

            We should only do what is needed to defend our own people in the West. This after all is what they expect us to do. We drove out of Afghanistan, the Taliban as well as al-Qaeda. But we remained afterwards to try and create a democratic state in compliance with Tony Blair’s liberal interventionism. This unworkable piece of fiction when applied to Afghanistan has led to countless of our own dead in the West. In the UK alone 400 of our young men have sacrificed their lives in the cause of ‘liberal interventionism’ as deemed an essential part of Blair’s  ascendency to the throne of world statesman.

The One Nation State ‘solution’ – a demographic time bomb primed to destroy the Jewish state

THE LEFT have a cunning plan; they have evolved a method by which the Palestinians can evict the Jews from Israel, and Israel from the Middle East. For some time now these people (many from academia) have sought to brand Israel an apartheid state comparable to South Africa, which of course it is not. But such a term is useful to you when seeking to vote Israel and its people out of existence.

            The One State, those on the Left refer to, comprises Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel itself. Now to the simple minded, this formula may be attractive; the best way in fact to bring both communities together under one roof living happily in one nation. Why (such people may say) did we not all think of this before? It is so simple, and so beneficial to both Arab and Jew alike, that it is criminal of the international community not have set the wheels in motion before now.

            The Middle East conundrum finally appears to have a solution that benefits those on both sides of the divide; and the Left have made the One Nation ‘solution’ a fashionable cause among pro-Palestinian students within the academic community, as well as liberals generally.

            Next month, Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government will host a conference advocating a ‘One State Solution’ for Israel and the Palestinians.

                Two weeks ago the University of Middlesex held a public debate to discuss the issue of Palestinian statehood at which  this ‘master plan’ from the unprejudiced Left became part of the discussion…but unfortunately passions were high. I would like to have said on both sides; but there was only one side on show; and one of its panellists, the Liberal Democrat Peer Jenny Tonge, has now been threatened with expulsion from her party for some appalling comments that, in the feverish atmosphere of the University of Middlesex, she allowed herself to spew forth.

            In order for the One State solution to seem credible, you have to believe in the Left’s description of Israel as an apartheid state. Its whole plausibility depends upon accepting this description, which of course, all of the Left readily does: and if they can spread this virus far enough into the community, and convince enough of  us to believe it, then the politicians will have to sit up and take note.

NOW WE COME to the madness itself[1]. The Jewish population of Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank are about 5.7 million in total. The Palestinians total 5 million, while those Palestinians living outside of what would be the ‘One State’ boarders, comprise a further 2.9 million[2], all of whom would have a right to return to the newly build castle in the air.

            As you will see, the Jews quickly become outnumbered if  half or less of those choose to return. This ‘solution’ quickly becomes nothing of the kind, which is why, in order to find such a situation supportable, the Left has to have us all believing that the present state of Israel practices apartheid and is comparable to apartheid South Africa: only by believing this does such an arrangement merit consideration,

             Once the demographic changes in favour of the Palestinians become reality; the theory goes that  a referendum disposing of the Israeli state would be introduced and it would be overwhelmingly adopted. The apartheid argument is the key the Left intends to use to open the door to a Palestinian State. The Left believe that once the Palestinians have become effectively their own masters, both the Palestinian and Jewish cultures will live in harmony with the other, but with Palestinians in control.

            Now this is the kind of naivety that only the Left are capable of. They believe that such cultural opposites can easily attract if given the opportunity to do so. What the Left wants is a Palestinian Nelson Mandela walking half blinded by the sunlight of liberty, to appear before assembled journalists after the Jewish apartheid state had been successfully dealt with, without bloodshed… thanks to the One State ‘solution’.

ISRAEL TODAY is flourishing. It has a democratic constitution comparable to any in the Western World. As such it has an elected government, and tolerates free speech and criticism of both itself as a nation, as well as the politicians who govern it. It has a free press. It does not persecute people according to some ‘accepted form of sexuality’; indeed many gay Palestinians have sought refuge in Israel and have been accepted.

            Since 1948, the Jewish State has transformed itself. It has turned many parts of Israel from desert sands into flourishing fertile soil. It took hard work and a long time to achieve, attacked as it was by the Arab nations at every yard of soil tilled: but the burgeoning agrarianism eventually became a  prosperous economy that fed the people and managed to sell its surplus produce abroad.

            At the same time, under threat as she was and still is, from her neighbours, she was pressed into devising technological solutions  to defend her state. Today Israel has an exemplary Hi-tech industry that is serving not only part of her own needs, but the needs of the world.

            The Jews are an argumentative lot, and the only way I can see the state of Israel succumbing to its loss as a nation, is if the various factions within the state of Israel turn on each other. Orthodox and non-orthodox, as well as the secular community. If they are not careful, their state will fall into the hands of their enemies. The Jewish state needs to survive. If it does not then the Diaspora will once again become the only occupancy left to the Jewish people; leaving them, as in the past, as the prey of ancient prejudices that are cultivated by different rulers in order to cling to power. Just as today our politicians use immigration to either secure their return to government, or to outbid their opponents chances for government.

THE PALESTINIANS have been brought up to hate the Jew. Palestinian schoolrooms in Gaza and the West Bank have been centres of anti-Jewish indoctrination since 1948 when the state of Israel came into being. All sorts of vilification of the Jews have been written on the blackboards of Palestinian schools over generations, and have been engraved upon the minds of generations of young Palestinians.            

            The Palestinian children have been indoctrinated into a hatred for the Jew. Young Palestinians have been taught that the Jewish state has tortured and killed millions of Palestinians since they ‘occupied’ Palestinian sand… for sand is all it was.

            After such an ‘education’, how does the Left believe that two such communities can live together under their One State ‘solution’? Of course they do not believe that such an accommodation could ever exist. All they want, after all, is a Palestinian state

            Israel and its people would suffer from the anti-Israeli indoctrination enjoyed by generations of  Palestinian children over the decades. They would once more be forced to return to the Diaspora, which is probably what the Left had intended all along. For Palestinians would seek vengeance upon those who their teachers had labelled monsters.

            Israel is hated throughout the Arab world. If, for instance, the Assad regime in Syria can butcher its own people and slit their children’s throats, then what would they do to the Israeli’s if given the chance; as they were once given in 1967 and the Yom Kippur War?

            Until now, the Palestinians have suffered more deaths from the Arab world than they have from Israel. In Lebanon and Jordan the Palestinians have been the cause of much bloodshed; either their own or their ‘hosts’.

            If the Palestinians have an entitlement to a homeland, then it exists, not within the boundaries of Israel, but within those of Jordan. Let us remember that the Palestinians once sought refuge within that kingdom, but proved to be so much trouble that they were forced to leave the kingdom’s boundaries at a cost of thousands of their lives. Deaths inflicted upon them not by Israel but by King Hussein, whose tolerance wore thin.

            In Lebanon they also sought  to find a home until they were strong enough to challenge Israel. But they once more brought trouble upon themselves by using, as Hezbollah does today, Lebanese soil to orchestrate attacks against Israel. The Palestinians have brought as much trouble upon their fellow Arabs as they sought to inflict upon Israel, and brought upon themselves.

            No, the only practical solution is either the Two State variety, or the fairest one, but sadly implausible, the Jordanian ‘motherland’ solution.

           

---

[1] Read Henry Kopel’s excellent piece in The Commentator.

[2] Kopel’s figures

THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY - IN MEMORIUM

DAVID CAMERON DOES NOT LEAD a Conservative Party. UKIP is the only such party in existence today; as one member of the conservative group of MEPs clearly demonstrated last week.

            There are two issues in the headlines today that demonstrate the counterfeit nature of Mr Cameron’s party. First of all we have what continues to describe itself as Conservative government trotting off to the European Court of Human Rights ( ECHR) to object to two Christian women who have been discriminated against by their employers for wearing a crucifix. This government is ready to argue that, because the crucifix is not a ‘requirement’ of the Christian faith, then employers can ban or sack employees for wearing one.

            For Christians this simple cross is an expression of their faith worn by many for its perceived protection, and as a symbol of the wearers fidelity to the Christian faith. The Canonicals are not a requirement of the Christian faith, but of the church. But the New Testament, as far as I know, does not make reference to the dress code of the clergy. Is the Burka required by the Islamic faith? Can an employer, using the same argument as the government are about to deploy in ECHR, forbid a Muslim from wearing his beard?

             These arguments are, however, secondary to the institution that is deploying them. It was once said that the Anglican church was the Tory Party at prayer. The Conservative party’s relationship with the Church of England was indeed one of conjoinment. These two institutions represented the cultural backbone of the country, going back over 300 years. If a Tory was not an Anglican, then he or she was a Catholic. Either way, the Conservative Party was tied by tradition to the Church of England; as is still is the monarchy.

            I am appalled that this government feels obliged to challenge these two ladies for wearing the symbol of their faith – an item which many in this country have worn around their necks for centuries. The crucifix is as much a part of our Englishness as, to use part of John Major’s reflection on Englishness, warm beer and cricket. It is only since our politicians seeded and harvested multiculturalism, that this simple icon has become offensive to …well, not me as an atheist: but to our multi-faith society, whose members, our  politicians believe, will be displeased by this crosses feeble presence in  the workplace.

            A true Conservative Party would have applauded these two women and wished them well, and not set about banning the very Christian symbol that has been the spiritual glue of the party and our society since its birth and evolution… this government is not a Conservative government.

THE OTHER ISSUE THAT has arisen, is that of the so-called ‘tycoon tax’ that has, admittedly, been brought forth by Nick Clegg as part of give and take for abandoning the 50% tax rate for high earners, which has met with much opposition.

            Firstly, I would like to make a general point about taxes. Taxes are what politicians remove from the people’s pay packets each month or year and spend with the passion and gusto of a chav lottery winner. Our politicians have come to believe that taxes are a law of nature and their entitlement to them, a law bequeathed by the Almighty, Himself.

            This was not always the case; especially within the Conservative Party. They once believed in small government, low taxes and tradition. Today the Tories (and they cannot use the coalition as an excuse), are as amenable to taxing the rich as the parties of the Left; which now includes Cameron’s Social Democrats…I could have said Christian Democrats, but it would have appeared disingenuous to use ‘Christian’ in any context after what I wrote above. But it does not matter because within modern Europe, Christian and Social Democrat, means sharing the same political agenda.

            The ‘tycoon tax’ would comprise a minimum of 20% on total earnings. This is a Liberal Democrat initiative, that has been criticised within Cleggs’ Party  by no less a figure than Lord Oakeshott, the former Lib Dem Treasury spokesman. While, on the other hand, the Liberal Democrat Party itself would prefer a so-called ‘mansion tax’ on properties valued at over £2 million.

            This however has sent many a wealthy a Left-wing liberal’s heart into fibrillation at the prospect of not being able to live in the comfort, they deem themselves having earned – and I agree with them.

            If someone manages to, through their ability, to get a first class education and goes on to create wealth by working hours surpassing those in the average trade union weekly calendar, and,  through success, employs more and more people, and make more and more profits, much of which would be reinvested to expand a successful enterprise which will employ more people; then why should such an entrepreneur  have to pay more than anyone else?

            I am 62 and can remember when the tax hike for the rich was almost 80% under Dennis Healy, who promised to squeeze the rich until the ‘ pips squeaked’. He drove thousands abroad in the name of class-warfare. If I had seen 80,70,50 or 40 per cent of my income taken by politicians who had little regard for its distribution, then, even if I were the staunchest of English patriots…I would have looked abroad to save me from such pilfering by the state.

            The Conservative Party has, historically, always seen the taking of an ever increasing part of a person’s hard earned income as cause for failure. But today, the state feels entitled to ask for more from someone who has earned more.

            Let us equate the proportion paid in taxes to the hours we work. So if the higher tax rate was 50%, then the person paying it would spend half his or working time, working for the government: and the same calculation can be made for every other percentage taken by taxes from all other wage earners or, if you prefer, salary earners.

THE CONSERVATIVE party once took taxes very seriously. They knew that there were limits to what they could ask the people to pay. But it was not only an understanding of what the wealthy were prepared to pay; but also an understanding that the lower the tax threshold, the more revenues would be forthcoming.

            What I would do would be to construct an experiment covering a period of 2-5 years. I would have a flat rate of tax of 20% for all except those on minimum wage and just above. I am convinced that, the lower the standard rate of taxation covering all rates of income, the more revenues the exchequer would be able to spend.

            This is what Conservatives used to believe in. Minimal taxation and the minimal state. David Cameron has usurped this holy grail of Conservatism and, in an attempt to remake the party from being the ‘nasty party’ they have become a centre Left party equitable in policy terms to social democracy.

           

I FEAR WE ARE WITTNESSING the demise of the traditional conservative party: and if tradition means anything, then its political expression has to be conservatism. But both issues of wearing the Christian cross and taxes, are not the only issues that represent the demise of  Conservatism. There are many other issues, but for now, these two aspects of conservative decline will have to do.

            The British Conservative Party once did what its title suggested; it conserved our culture. Whether it were political, religious, or all traditional elements that found meaning in every county of the UK. Every region had its own cultural practices and were encourage to continue them.

            Today, these, what I would call relics of our indigenous culture, have been replaced by a politically driven influx of other cultures to the determent of our native one, and over time will transplant them.

            I have just read a piece suggesting that more young people are turning toward UKIP and away from supporting the Conservative Party. How much this is wishful thinking or a warning from the writer of the piece I do not know; but given the recent defections from the party to UKIP, and the direction David Cameron is steering both his party and the ship of state on, many more will, over time find a truly Conservative home within UKIP.