Let this be the end of the license fee

ACCORDING TO AN ICM/Telegraph poll, 70 per cent of licence fee payers believe the licence tax should be either done away with or it should be reduced - 49 per cent said it should be abandoned, while 21 per cent said they wanted it reduced.

            

            The poll also suggested wide support for developing alternative sources of income for the corporation such as advertising, while a mere one in 10 voters supported an increase in line with inflation in 2016, when the BBC Charter is next rewritten by ministers.

            

            The poll's findings could of course represent the public's febrile mood in the age of austerity, after the increases in utility bills. But the BBC should not be allowed to continue taxing the public: and I think austerity has caused a major rethink among the licence payers…I certainly hope so; for such a rethink is much needed.

            

            Of course the recent scandals have not helped the BBC's image; but some of those scandals can be attributed to the culture within all such state funded institution like the BBC. The BBC has a guaranteed income (even if it is presently frozen) of £3.5 billion. It does not have to compete in the market place like every other broadcaster - it just sits and waits for the incessant kerr-chinging that brings them the guaranteed riches to overpay their so-called stars; and reward managers who have failed with generous six and seven figure golden handshakes.

            

           If this poll's findings truly represent the views of the people, then this antiquated, and almost socialistic institution (both in its finance and bias) may have to compete in the future for viewers- and why not? Why should the British people have to cough up £145 per year in order merely to own a television set?

            

            For too long has the modern BBC paraded the sentimental 'Auntie' card before the licence payer. It has long regarded itself as a much loved institution; and the British people bought into the BBC's  claim to be the greatest and most respected broadcaster in the world; but this myth has never been challenged by the market place.

            

            The BBC would never countenance putting such a boast to the test. They have and will fight tooth- and- nail to hang on to the public's yearly pot of gold. They fear the market place: they fear that their arrogant boasts will come to nothing in the competitive world, of which the BBC is not a part.

THE ICM POLL has been a tonic. Yet I fear that, despite the will of the people, there are powerful competitive forces in the media world that would oppose the BBC's introduction into the real world of competition - including many of the so-called 'Tories'. The BBC has as many friends among its competitive enemies as it does among the Right-wing Tories.

            

             ITV, and Channel Four [1], who depend (along with countless lesser channels) on advertising, would not welcome such a strong competitor  into the private sector and would therefore support the status quo. Sky television, on the other hand welcomes market competition. When Rupert Murdock created the Sky channel, many liberals dammed him. He would dumb down television. The liberals believed Mr Murdock to be a reactionary Right-wing business man seeking only profit, and playing to the lowest common denominator.

            

             But not for the first time; the liberal hegemony were proved wrong. Sky television surpasses the BBC in (unbiased) news; and is unrivalled by the BBC in sport and drama. In seeking a profit, Murdock will accommodate all tastes and needs. Just look at the available Sky channels which caters for all needs. Sky Arts, drama, and sport are among countless other Sky channels which are currently superior to anything the BBC can muster on £3.5 billion a year. Sky would welcome any commercial challenge from the BBC: but the BBC are set in their ways and prefer their own myths about themselves rather than face the realities of competition.

THE BBC will no doubt dismiss the ICM poll with all the arrogance and manner of an 18^th century fop who believes in the in the Divine Right of Kings to rule - for the BBC truly believes it should share the same institutional omnipotence enjoyed by this islands kings in earlier centuries.

           

             I would like to say that the licence fee's days are numbered, but the BBC is part of the liberal establishment, and the liberal establishment will ignore all such poll findings and fight tooth and nail to keep the licence fee; and however strong the democratic will is that opposes them, the greater their conceit will be in opposing the people.

            

            As was Pravda the mouthpiece of the Soviet communist party; the BBC provides the same function for the liberal establishment. This dinosaur of an institution should have been reformed decades ago. Its founder John Reith was refreshingly open about the aims of the BBC; it was to be a servant of the establishment (at least the public, or those who could afford a television set shared Reith's enthusiasm). The establishment then was thoroughly conservative (if only small 'c'); but these were the formative years, and its traditional values would have carried a resonance with the vast majority of the British people.

            

            Reith was Director General of the  BBC for 11 years between 1927 and 1938. Today the liberals would argue that he imposed his conservative values on the BBC. Which was true; but the majority of the British people shared those values at the time[2], which no doubt added to the BBC's popularity - unlike today where its liberal ethos is at odds with the ordinary licence fee payer, if this poll is to be believed; which it should be.

            

            Sooner or later (preferably sooner) the BBC will go the way of Concord if it does not adapt. It will become another failed folly of the state like nationalisation. I am afraid the BBC has a drug addicts need for tax payer's money, but unlike the drug addict, there is no help available to them. In fact the opposite is the case; their addiction is being intravenously supplied by the taxpayer via the politicians.  

           

             Free the BBC from the incessant criticism from politicians whenever they feel themselves ill-treated. The BBC must be put beyond the reach of politicians and enter a new dawn without political interference.

              

             

           

           

---

[1] Although in the case of Channel Four the opposition is more ideological than commercial; for they also cling to the public tit.

[2] And those values, among which was a sense of patriotism, helped the country unite in the coming war against Nazism.

They still don't get it!

THERE ARE 600,000 unemployed citizens from the European Union currently receiving welfare benefits and accessing the NHS, schools and housing. A study by the European commissioner overseeing employment and welfare, confirms what many eurosceptics through the application of commonsense have always known. If you increase a nations population artificially as Tony Blair did; then once the floodgates were lifted, it was bound to have a social impact on the UK population.

            

            The report suggests that the impact that such a deluge of humanity has had on the NHS has cost £1.5 billion. The health service cannot afford such an escalation for very long and will either have to accept intervention from the private sector; pour further billions into the NHS[1], or introduce a system of private insurance. There is no other alternative except withdrawal from the European Union, to stop the influx if nothing else.

            

            Because of immigration (whether from the EU or from outside) we are faced with a housing shortage. One 'solution' is the dreaded so-called 'bedroom tax'; whereby those living in council or other forms of social housing are expected to let a total stranger into their home or pay a fee out of their benefits for refusing.

            

            No politician would let a total stranger come to live with them; so why should they expect those living in social housing and on welfare to take strangers in? This policy is similar in many ways, to the way the Soviets after the revolution behaved when they decreed how many people should be housed in a room; usually in properties taken from the rich, but also within the general population.

            

             In education. Our schools are facing over-subscription  also due in part to immigration. Once more, we have allowed an artificial increase in our population without considering the need to build more schools as well as houses. In some schools some 50 different tongues are spoken. None of  all this came about because of the unintended consequences of a policy of free movement of populations within Europe.

            

           This migration explosion by the last Labour government, now sitting on the backbenches, was deliberately and wilfully orchestrated. This great migration, not only from Europe, but from all parts of the compass, was a deliberate policy; and Red Ed conspired in it. So for the Labour Party to create the name 'bedroom tax' is duplicity. Red Ed's two- faced behaviour on the issue of the wretched 'bedroom tax' is typical of his nefarious way of doing things, as we witnessed in the way he treated his brother at the time the Labour leadership election.

ALL THE MAIN parties are to blame for the current plight of our nation, including immigration. The leadership of each of the main parties believes in a United States of Europe - which is the inevitable direction in which the continent is travelling.

            

           The government are happy to tackle illegal migration from outside of Europe; but this is not where the damage to our social structure is coming from. Theresa May likes to be macho with illegal immigrants from outside the EU. But the Tory rank and file understands where the real problem lies. May is distracting her party's supporters from the real concern over immigration. To Theresa May, there is no such thing as all immigration; but only the illegal immigration from outside the EU. This is the Tory's response to Ukip on the subject; hoping that Conservatives will be impressed by the Home Secretary's response to her party's 'gravest' concern.

            

I STAND ON THE SIDE OF the indigenous population who visit hospitals and surgeries every day, who witness at first hand the impact of immigration. Our politicians and the whole political class in London, who believe in immigration and Multiculturalism; never seem to bump into it in their post code areas - and if they do they welcome such affluence; for affluent such immigrants are if they live among them. For wealth can travel anywhere, and escape when needs must.

            

            Every day there are millions of white indigenous people who are confronted by alien tongues who are told to 'suck it up' by the Multicultural believing elite. This elite controls our law making; but who  no longer depend upon what in America is known as the 'native population' - in our case the white British

            

            Our political class live in Olympian isolation from the vast majority of the indigenous population. They can, in the main, afford mortgages, private schooling, and private healthcare. One such euro enthusiast who has been in the forefront of pressing for the UK's further integration into Europe is Richard Branson, who  has chosen to sell up hear and retreat to his very own private island.

            

            Well good luck to him - perhaps if we all had his options then immigration would not be a problem to us either. But we have no options; all we can do either is vote Ukip, or learn to live with the vileness that, over the past 40 years, our liberal political elites have woven into  this country's cultural fabric.

           

           

           

---

[1] Which can only be done at the expense of other spending departments; as further  taxation is now out of the question. As Ed Miliband has said and I paraphrase; 'It's the cost of living stupid'.

Red Ed is over enthusiastic

BEAMING WITH childish enthusiasm for the support he received from the public over his joust with the Daily Mail, Red Ed believes that the support he was shown for the defence of his Marxist father can be interpreted as support for his father's Marxism. So, along with his promised freeze on utility increases, he now dons (quixotic-like) his armour, to take on the water companies; and when asked whether he would intervene in other markets his response sounded keen, eager and passionate; as if in fact he believed himself to be the people's zeitgeist - he mistakes sympathy for support[1].

            

            But now Red Ed is prepared to go even further to see his socialist dream realised. Asked whether he was prepared to take action in other markets, his response was enthusiastic. He told BBC Radio Five live, "Part of it [tackling the cost of living crisis] it is about dealing with this issue of overcharging and rip-offs. Banking is another example where we’ve said we want to see more competition."

            

            He no doubt believes that every move he takes in his political life is in recognition of his father and his beliefs. The Daily Mail is not far off the point when it seeks to warn the British public of the Miliband legacy. The vast majority of people do not want to see the shroud of socialism lowered over this country - not even the Labour Party leaders of the 1960s and 1970s ever wanted this[2]; for they witnessed its impact during the years of union and student militancy that almost brought this country to its knees during the 1970s.

            

            That was an age of, in industrial terms, medievalism. The unions were briefly in control of the nation, and they held it to ransom; and would have continued to their desired end, if it were not for the election of Margaret Thatcher - that most hated of politicians by the Left, including those within her own party which succeeded in destroying her.   

EDWARD MILIBAND is his father's disciple. He believes in the socialist dystopia as did his father. He was no doubt closer to him than his brother who enjoyed an air of scepticism about the whole Marxist enterprise. Having no doubt learned of its cruelty and brutality free from his father's influence at Oxford.

           

            Ed Miliband, from his response to Levy's piece in the Daily Mail, appears far closer to his father's views than his brother, despite sharing the same education as his brother. David, from what I have read was never a believer in Marxism and tried to turn the Labour Party away from socialism and drive it into the arms of social democracy; a much watered down version of socialism. So watered down that even  European Conservatives would feel at home within its compass; a compass which David Cameron takes directions from.

A LABOUR GOVERNMENT  led by Ed Miliband would seek to orchestrate capitalism; allowing only those practices that met with his approval on strict socialist principles; as he is suggesting today in his interview with Radio Five Live -  I hope this interview was partly due to the intoxication of a victory won over the Daily Mail; but I fear not.

            

           Capitalism can be at times unfair, as I openly admit. But it is the greatest force for human progress that has ever been proffered up. A socialist system, on the other hand, has introduced nothing but stagnation, brutality and death to the tune of countless of millions of lives throughout the Marxist world.

            

            Ed Miliband must realise that socialism runs contrarily to human nature. If he wins the next election he will seek to impose restrictions on the capitalist system. By doing so, he will only confirm the Daily Mail's view of his father instead of those of the British public, prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

           

---

[1] What I found curious throughout Ed Miliband's exchanges with the Daily Mail over his father, is that nothing was heard from his brother across the pond. Not a whisper from David Miliband - he, apparently was not as outraged as Ed was about the treatment of their father by the Daily Mail; for in this social media world, David could not remain ignorant of what was unfolding in London.

[2] At the time the Cold War was in progress, and served as a warning.

Bits and Pieces 3

WE ARE supposed to feel sorry for those Greenpeace activists arrested by the Russians after trying to board the Gazprom oil platform. The Russian authorities are now set to lay charges of piracy against the activists.

           

            The international executive director of the group, Kumi Naidoo complained that charges of piracy were "extreme and disproportionate". He continued with the usual sufferer for a cause, and sacrificial victim comment, "A charge of piracy is being laid against men and women whose only crime is to be possessed of a conscience. This is an outrage and represents nothing less than an assault on the very principle of peaceful protest,". Mr Naidoo and his multinational warriors of Greenpeace knew full well what they would fall foul of if they overstepped the mark with Russia and the Putin government.

           

            Talk of being "extreme and disproportionate" in such circumstances is raw and adolescent. I cannot believe Greenpeace's naivety in attempting such an act. My first impulse was to say "serve them right": my second was to say, "serve them right". How infantile are these people. They, through sincerely held (be them romantic) views, showed little awareness of the Putin government and what it was capable of.

            Greenpeace will have to take whatever happens to their activists on the chin. It is no good appealing to support from the West. They must have known what they were getting into. Talk of being "possessed of a conscience" matters little, if whatever law is deemed to be broken from whatever nation outside of the countries they emerge from in order to become be part of Greenpeace. When in Rome, as the saying goes, you obey whatever law you find yourself up against.

            The trouble is that Greenpeace, along with many other protest groups that emerge from the West, are either naive or believe that the West will rescue them through the usual diplomatic pavane, that, admittedly, all of the world's foreign ministries enjoy partaking in.

                                    *                      *                      *                      *

WHAT HAS FORCING female teachers into wearing veils and forcing girls to sit at the back of the class to do with health and safety? But, apparently, it has, according to the school's head Stuart Wilson at the al-Madinah school in Derby, which has been forced to close, 'temporarily'. There have been claims that female teachers have been forced to sign contracts that incorporated the wearing of the niqab veil at all times.

            The school has been rightly closed by Ofsted, and I hope that when, or if, it reopens Stuart Wilson is no longer its headmaster. The al-Madinah was a government free school and its improprieties were quickly discovered and it has been closed. Compare this arrangement with the comprehensive system, where a single bad teacher is as hard to sack, as a recalcitrant Lord who has served a prison sentence from expiration of the second chamber.

           

             Al-Madinah, says it has a ‘strong Muslim ethos’. According to the school's web; ‘At the centre of our school is a community of pupils, able to enjoy learning in a caring Islamic environment which promotes a culture of high expectations and outstanding performance,’. What rot is this?

            This is Multiculturalism at work and at its worst. Head teachers like Stuart Wilson should be relieved of their responsibility for the education of our youth. How Wilson managed to be elevated to a position of responsibility as the headmaster of a school, should result in an investigation. He has bought into the Multicultural experiment and has been enthused by it to such an extent that he seeks to replicate as much of the Muslim culture into his school as he can - what an idiot. How did he ever rise to such an august status within our educational system?

           

                                    *                      *                      *                      *

THE DAILY MAIL CAN HANDLE ITSELF without my support; but I offer it anyway. It seems that the paper has the whole of the liberal establishment out to settle a few scores with the paper's editor Lord Dacre. Unconvincing and  self-serving attacks have been made on the noble Lord and his organ…and why, one must ask?

            Is it because they were really disgusted at the way Red Ed 's father was treated? Is it because the Mail on Sunday sent a journalist to a memorial service for Ed's uncle? Were they really outraged that a man (whose son insists he loved his country) and whose sole desire was to create a Marxist state and all that that has signified historically, was attacked by the  Mail?

            I think not. Those who have jumped to Ed's defence, like Michal Heseltine, have a history of being assailed by the Rothermere titles, especially when Heseltine's arch enemy Margaret Thatcher was so well supported by the Daily Mail, and usually at his and other Tory Left-wingers (Wets) expense.

            The Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, also professes outrage at the way the communist academic was treated; but like Heseltine and Miliband, none of them condemned the way the Left treated Margaret Thatcher when she died. Ed Miliband even allowed himself to be photographed with an idiot wearing a black tee-shirt with the following inscription, written over what is portrayed as Margaret Thatcher's grave. 'Thatcher, a generation of trade unionists will dance on her grave'…and there stands Ed beaming at the recalcitrant's side.

  So let us have none of this phoney disgust by the liberal establishment.  It is revenge pure and simple. The revenge of super egos, criticised, and perhaps feeling humiliated by the way the editor of the Daily Mail has treated them in the past.

           

            

The brothers Miliband

'whether you are restating a case that has been traduced in theory or practice, or whether you are advancing a new case. I think that the book reads like the former . . .' David Miliband on his father's last book, Socialism For A Sceptical Age

GEOFFREY LEVY is the man of the moment. He has written an attack on Ralph Miliband the intellectual Marxist academic and father of Ed and David Miliband. Levy's piece must have caused ructions within the Miliband household; indeed, it is reported that Ed was spitting blood when he read the piece in the Daily Mail[1]. What David thought of it we do not know; but from what we know of his Blairite New Labour ideology; he would probably, out of loyalty to his family, condemn Levy for his composition; but would have sympathised with much that he had written?

            

            As Levy wrote, Ralph and his father came to Britain from Belgium in 1940 to escape the Nazis, whose attitude to all Jews has been rightly pronounced as evil and brutal. So Ralph landed on our shore and shortly after joined the Royal Navy. After the war he remained in what was now his adopted country and in the years that followed tried to turn this aged democracy into a Marxist state: and as inconsiderate as this process was, considering the way in which the UK welcomed him, Ralph no doubt thought we would all be better off  living within a Marxist socialist state[2]…but it was never his to call to make.

            

            Levy quotes the 17-year-old Ralph writing; ''The Englishman is a rabid nationalist. They are perhaps the most nationalist people in the world . . . you sometimes want them almost to lose (the war) to show them how things are. They have the greatest contempt for the Continent . . . To lose their empire would be the worst possible humiliation.' This is more than a youthful indiscretion, as the Left will no doubt portray it. Once Ralph Miliband formulated an opinion or prejudice he kept to it throughout his life. But as much as he despised the British elites; he nevertheless availed himself of a fine education in his adopted country.

            

            He also sent is children to Oxford University - or should it be, he allowed them to be sent? Like all socialists who despise capitalism, Ralph ignored the hypocrisy attached to such an arrangement when it came to his own family, and thereafter continued condemning British elitism whether represented by the monarchy, Oxbridge, or the traditional pantomime villain of Marxism, the bourgeoisie.

           

            Ralph despised Stalinism in Russia - then why did he not try to fight it? After all, unlike Soviet Russia, British colonialism never killed 30 million of its colonists. The Marxist Stalin was arguably more evil than the Nazi Hitler. Yet Ralph's hatred for the British Empire seems to have surpassed his loathing of Stalin's evil works in the name of Marxism.

            

            The so-called New Left that Ralph Miliband would have considered himself to have been at the forefront of in the 1970s decried Stalinism and sought to redefine Soviet socialism as something called 'state capitalism'. Thus shifting the blame of Marxism's 'failure' onto the shoulders of their class enemies in the West.

            The simple truth is, that Lenin shared the same revolutionary purging instincts as Stalin; and if it was not for his premature death, Lenin would have proven himself worthy of Stalin's baseness. The same applies to Trotsky. In being a victim of Stalin it allowed Marxists in the West such as the Socialist Workers Party to reinvent Marxism for the benefit of the student youth. The great Marxist apologist writer, Isaac Deutscher, wrote a three volume life of Trotsky which was meant to save Marxism from Stalin's grasp. But it never did. Marxism means the control of man's souls by the state; and no deviation will be allowed; whether it was Lenin, Stalin, or Trotsky, who governed the Soviet Union.

RALPH MILIBAND was wrong and his stature as an intellectual academic means very little in such circumstance. He, like his fellow Marxist academics E. P. Thompson and Eric Hobsbawm were all proven wrong by history. Socialism, in all of its many manifestations, has proven to be anathema to human nature - which is why it seeks to suppress mankind's natural impulses.

            

            What I fear; and admittedly this is mere speculation from someone who  knows very little about psychiatry; is that Ed Miliband has a long held (childhood?) wish to please his father and make him proud of him, as Geoffrey Levi insinuates in his article. Ed's wish to please his father could account for his betrayal of his brother in the leadership election to the Labour Party. He cares only for his father's respect, and he believes that the first stage of earning that respect is to lead the Labour Party.

            

             The last stage is to govern the country. Ed Miliband is no worthy suitor for the premiership of this country. He has issues that need counselling to resolve. His father had a far greater impact on him than he had on his elder brother David. As the quote at the top of this piece suggests, David Miliband understood all too well the fate of socialism.

            

              David Miliband was the right choice for Labour after Brown's defeat in 2010. The Labour Party wanted him as their leader, and he deserved to become its leader and would have proven successful as such. He had the support of the Party membership and the MPs - but, because of that wretched anachronism called the 'block vote', David's sibling emerged to lead the party.

ED MILIBAND (or so he believes) is his father's protégée and it is to him and only him, that Ed Miliband answers. The future of the country, or so it appears, comes down to electing a physiologically impaired leader[3] of this country's main party of government.

            

            The Daily Mail has given Ed a right of reply to their analysis of his father; and no doubt there will be those on Left who control many of our cultural institutions who will jump to his support and profess disgust at the way the Daily Mail has dragged a politicians relative into the sewer that is politics. The Guardian, Channel Four, and the BBC, will jump to Ralph's aid, as many who work within these institutions are the sons and daughters of Ralph's influence over them, an influence passed down through the generations.

            

            Ralph Miliband hated this country, as all home-grown, as well as foreign Marxists do to this day; and Geoffrey Levi will no doubt find it hard to find work after writing his piece, thanks to the new Left-wing establishment that still dreams Ralph's dream.

             

           

           

           

           

           

           

---

[1] The Daily Mail has given Ed the right of reply in tomorrow's edition.

[2] I myself, in my youth, believed the same. But I was no interloper, but born British; so at least it was entitled to seek a change to society.

[3] Only the second after Gordon Brown

Labour - one step forward, two steps back

WRITING IN THE New Statesman (NS) under the heading 'While Labour supports working people, the Tories prioritise the privileged few', Chris Leslie, shadow financial secretary to the Treasury castigates the 'Tory toffs' for,' giving 13,000 millionaires an average tax cut of £100,000' while 'Bonuses soared by 82% in April as bankers deferred their payments to take advantage of the tax cut'. He continues in this tabloid style until he comes to his 'Great Leader' who promised in Brighton last week to squeeze the power companies until the pips squeak.

                        I am not a Tory voter, but had been a Labour one from the day I turned 18 up to the last election. I am 63 years-old, and, unlike many Labour MPs and party members, I can remember living through the 1970s, and supporting the likes of Arthur Scargill, Tony Benn, 'Red' Robbo (God forgive me); and reading Ralph Miliband's[1] pieces in the New Left Review.

                        My mother owned a small grocery business (and when the nation's lights went out as they often did during that decade) she remained loyal to the Labour Party despite the ill-afforded loss of frozen food products that needed electricity to remain edible.

                        I have written the above two paragraphs because I do not want to be thought one of Mr Leslie's 'Tory toffs' and therefore be dismissed as such after what I am about write.

            THE SHADOW  secretary to the Treasury, in his piece for the NS only reinforces the Tory charge that Ed Miliband is returning the Labour Party to the socialism of the 1970s. Any treasury spokesman, from whatever party, should be simpatico with the free market in a capitalist society, and accept the profit motive for what it is - a truly progressive force for scientific, technological and economic advancement.

                        Socialism never did and never could match capitalism in such an arena; simply because under such a system there are no incentives to individuals to encourage them to invent and help to advance society's economic and social progress. The word 'progressive' has been hijacked by the Left; but socialism is no such thing. It stifles enterprise, ambition, and sees the profit motive as a disease - with socialism being its only 'cure'.

                        It was the likes of Bill Gates who delivered Soviet Communism up to capitalism and democracy. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was left looking like a puzzled and innumerate child when the age of the computer arrived in people's homes, followed by the internet and social media. Socialism could never compete; and it did not. Even today the citizens of Cuba are driving around in 1950s vehicles while their leaders work out a face-saving blueprint for bringing their country into the modern world.

TALK OF privilege, as Chris Leslie does in his NS piece, inspires in me only contempt; for it does not make reference to any other organisation than the Tory Party. The New/Old Labour Party still thinks that privilege belongs to either the monarchy or the Tory Party; and conveniently neglects the appurtenance that their own party enjoys as a member of the political class overseeing the less privileged which covers the UK outside of London.

                        Labour is a party of  privilege; while it debases wealth creation, many of its MPs send their offspring to private schools, or privileged state schools, and still have the impertinence to condemn private education.  

                        Privilege no longer applies to one party, but to the whole of the political class. In making his case against the Tories, Chris Leslie attacks the coalition tax cuts to '13,000 millionaires'. What New/Old Labour has retreated back into is the politics of envy that Blair sought to steer them away from - yet another sign of a return back to the 1970s.

                        People who create wealth, and in doing so employ people who have to support their families, deserve the money they earn from the product they produce. Why on earth should they have to pay more than the ordinary taxpayer? They create jobs which all the politicians agree are needed. But when they do so, the Labour Party comes along, and, brandishing the envy card, demands that such millionaires pay what they describe as a 'fair' share in taxes.

                        Such taxation against millionaires is not fair…especially as their companies have to pay a business tax on top of their individual contribution. Millionaires will never be popular with the ordinary people (unless they win the national lottery - where no taxes are paid).

                        City bonuses are Leslie's next gripe. These bonuses, at the moment bring in £1 billion to the Treasury in taxation. The City of London as a whole brings in £20 billion in taxes to the Treasury. Yet we still hear gripe after gripe from the Left and in particular the New/Old Labour Party.

CHRIS LESILIE alludes to his Great Leader's promise to ; '…reset our energy market so it works for Britain’s families and businesses, with a new tough regulator to stop overcharging. While we put that in place, the next Labour government will freeze gas and electricity prices until the start of 2017. This will save a typical household £120 and an average business £1,800'. 

                        This announcement secured the Labour Party a spike in the polls after their conference. But what exactly would such a policy herald? The 20 month freeze on gas and electricity prices promised would be gotten around. The power companies would no doubt increase their prices before this freeze came into being.

                        The saving on the average fuel bill would amount to £120 in savings; but as much as this could be saved by merely getting rid of the green energy tax on average fuel bills which would reduce bills by 10 per cent. But no party, including Cameron's are prepared to countenance such a move - although many thousands of pensioners, facing a winter which many may not survive, may do so if the wretched green tax was done away with.

                        The green energy tax was Labour's child, as was, in their term in office, the 160% increase in gas bills, and the 89% in electricity bills. Yet they still have the gall to attack their 'class enemies' in order to garnish their supporters vote.

                        Chris Leslie, like the rest shadow cabinet, should never be allowed within a mile Downing Street. They spent 13 years ruining this country and leaving the coffers empty, and the country living with an exorbitant amount of debt; which will take years to clear if the Tories stay in power; and decades if Labour comes back into power.

                       

             

                       

 

                         

                       

---

[1] Ed and David's daddy.

Kenya should serve as warning to West, just as it serves as a victory Islamism

EVERY POLITICIAN IN Britain should read Manzoor Moghal's article in today's Daily Mail . He reminds us that, because of years of political correctness and fear of the 'R' word, we have allowed Muslim extremism to get a grip within our society. Our fear of upsetting Muslim communities has lead to criminal acts going unpunished; as was the case in Rochdale, where the abuse and rape of white children by a gang of Muslims flourished freely for so long without police intervention.

            

            Then there was Finsbury Park Mosque which once boasted the hate preacher Abu Hamza al-Masri as its imam; and where  the 'shoebomber' Richard Reid, and Zacarias Moussaoui attended. The mosque was also used for weapons training[1]; but the entrance to the mosque was buttressed by political correctness. The police, schooled in diversity training, allowed radical imams like Abu Hamza to preach. The politicians turned way, and more likely than not prevented any action being taken by the Met.

            

            Other radicals also attended. In 2004 it was revealed that Kabal Rabat Bouralha, loyal to the Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev who boasts that he was behind the assault on the school in Beslan Russia which ended in the deaths of 380 children.

WHENEVER A HORRIFIC terrorist event occurs like the one in the Kenyan shopping mall over the weekend, commentators and columnists in the UK are keen to lay emphasis on the fact, and it is a fact, that the majority (if not the vast majority) of Muslims living in Britain are law-abiding, tolerant people. As the nationality of these Kenyan terrorists were Somalian and Muslims[2]; the UK media are quick to reassure the indigenous population that the reported UK Somalian population of between 150,000 and 250,000 are law abiding and tolerant… etcetera, etcetera.

            

             The simple fact is that 2,869,000 Muslims according to the 2010 census figures live within the UK  which is the third largest European population (it would not of course include illegals) after Germany and France. We have been told that young British Muslims have been recruited to jihad against the West, particularly (but not exclusively) in Syria. Our own intelligence services are scratching their heads over the possibility of what may happen when these British harvested jihadists return home[3]; and find security within our country's Muslim centres.

           

             The phrase 'having created a rod for our own back' is the most appropriate expression describing this country's dilemma - was it not, after all, Enoch Powell, whose various deliberations served as a warning for us of what may lay ahead; and may now be about to overtake us?

IF A MERE ONE PER CENT  of the British Muslim population shared jihadists sympathies, it would amount 143,450 people: and if a mere one per cent of those sympathetic to the Jihadist decided to actively participate in terrorist acts in the UK, it would amount to 1,434 Muslim terrorists targeting us. These terrorist could hide in cities such as Leicester or Bradford, where the indigenous population are now in a minority. This comes on top of British Muslims returning from Syria.

            

            It would be a nightmare for the security services, challenged as they are on an almost daily basis by organisations such as Liberty, as well as the many other liberal human rights lobbies: and as all such lobbies enjoy the ear of a liberal political class unwilling to be thought of as tyrants; then the security services face a desperate situation.

            

            I used to believe, that when our intelligence services warned us of terrorist attacks within our towns and cities, it was just special pleading for increased resources: but no longer. Today, I believe the only reason there has not been an attack in this country comparable to that which occurred in Kenya over the weekend, is because of MI5, MI6, and GCHQ; and when these organisations make requests from government for the right to take certain actions in their fight on terrorism which may be controversial, then they should be granted, and groups like Liberty should be sent away.

           

           We are at war with the Islamists, as they are with us. Because it does not feel like it as we go about our day to day business, it does not signify safety; but merely the fact that the intelligence services are containing it; and we must not deny them what they ask for to make it less and less likely that a tragedy like we have just witnessed in Kenya, cannot unfold in one of our shopping centres.

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

---

[1] According to a report in the Guardian

[2] One at least being reported as a British Muslim convert (that most disproportionate breed).

[3] A home created by Multiculturalism