Wednesday, 31 May 2006

The Goblin King's pet policy

Many of us have experienced periods in our lives when we are desperately short of money. When I left the army, I spent 14 months in temporary employment. I was unemployed for about 6 months in 2004/5. Making ends meet whilst living in London was possible, but only just, and the end of every month when the bills came in was a calcualtion down to the last pound. I've had to go down to the bank to pay in £3 to see that everything cleared.

Immagine yourself in your most financially desperate state, and then immagine that you were landed with a bill for £1,000 - backed up with all the coercive power of the state.

That is exactly the situation that Gordon Brown has put 2,000,000 of the lowest paid households in Britain, with his ridiculous tax credits - which have overpaid by £2,000,000,000. Again. I can't work out whether its worse that most of these people who are presented with this bill are those who have secured a pay rise - i.e. those households who are working hardest to get out of poverty are punished viciously by the Government's incompetence.

This is the only policy (apart from his constant picking of the Nation's pocket) that he and his department has actually implemented and it is causing misery and hardship to millions of people. I've an Idea, Brown, you fuck-wit: if you want to help the working poor DON'T FUCKING TAX THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

So whilst the aims of the tax credits are (ostensibly) virtuous: to reward work and remove the disincentives to gaining employment caused by lost benefits - any fool could have told you that a system as bureaucratic and complex as tax credits would not work. Knowing this - and the fact that large sums in and out of the low paid's bank accounts cause more unessesary hardship** than the champagne socialists on the Zanu-Labour front benches could immagine we can safely say that Gordon Browns reputaiton for competence and good judgement is utterly undeserved.

What's more I suspect - without proof - that this may be deliberate. Here is a nightmare vision of Brown's Britian: He is trying to force large numbers of people to be beholden to the state's will, and be dependent on the exchequer for their income. The Goblin King can then divide up his minions according to whatever is "PC" that week and reward one client group over another. Calls for justice and fairness descend in to endless lobbying for state handouts to special interest groups. Gordon becomes the arbiter of everyones' standard of living. It is power to interfere he wants. Not to help the poor.


**think of the extra interest paid should they go overdrawn for a day or two or the effect the subsequent drop in credit rating has on their borrowings and especially mortgages.



Tuesday, 30 May 2006

Plagiarism? Surely Not....

Looks Like someone at the Sunday Times has been reading a Very British Dude.....



Friday, 26 May 2006

Polly "lefty" Toynbee, Dave and Tony (and the Goblin King)

Her Pollyness today is suggesting that David Camerons' Tories are some-sort of 'New Labour lite', as the Tories power ahead in the polls. Cameroons, by her anaylsis, are stealing Labour clothes whislt committing the (to the Toynbee mind) appalling sin of voting against increased maternity leave. (To put it another way, the Tories took the view that companies shouldn't be forced to pay women do do no work whilst on Maternity leave any longer than nessesary, for fear of companies being unwilling to employ women of child-bearing age - thus hurting the very people La Toynbee and her statist ilk want to help.)


This "they're all the same, so you might as well vote labour" stuff is exactly the same nonsense that was spouted about His Tonyness when he was ahead in the polls in 1996 - "he's stealing clothes and policies from the Tories". It's a desperate argument of a failing regime.

Commentators, pundits and policy wonks should be able to see that for all the similarity on the surface (parties have coalesced round a similar, centrist, psephologically comforting face) their underlying philospophies remain in place. This is best indicated by the respective right-hand men. The Goblin King once released from electorally nessesary Tory spending plans, immedately went into "tax 'till the pips squeak" mode. Osborne is a flat taxer. Cameron, when he has been allowed to be drawn on the subject is also "in favour of lower, flatter taxes if possible - sharing the proceeds of growth (blah, blah....)"

We aren't following New Labour policy or ideology at all, Polly and you're looking pretty desperate for good news for your demonstrably failing creed to suggest that this is the case. We Tories (and associated anti-idiotarian attack-dogs of the rightist blogosphere) remain committed to reducing taxation, when possible and shrinking the role of the state, and defending individual liberties. The Third way is a joke and has given way to classic spiteful, socialism under Gordon "means-test" Brown. The fact remains that, without having to qualify, this Government is Lamentable. But seing as this is my blog, I will qualify this further:
  • Tax-Credits - the only policy The Presbyterain Bastard has had a hand in implimenting - has been a hugely costly failure, which has hurt badly many of those it was aimed to help.
  • The NHS has been so badly managed that there has been no increase in productivity, nurses are being fired despite funds available doubling since 1997
  • Despite the British Armed forces being more deployed than in 1944*, we are cutting front-line troop numbers and vascilitaing on the Navy's desperately needed new carriers.
  • The Corruption - moral and financial - of this government goes to the top and has done since the start (Hinduja, Ecclesone, Mandelson, Byars etc... right up until the appaling auctioning of the Wide-Mouthed-Frog autographed copy of the Hutton Report)
  • Constitutional vandalism is the only way to describe the poorly thought out devolutions (without first answering the west-lothian question) of Scotland and Wales; and reform of the House of Lords (without first deciding what to put in its place).
  • The massive increase in the state salariat without commensurate improvement of services is demonstrative of appaling management - which is why the wheel is comming off the home office, the DoH, and every other major department of state.
  • This Government mistakes legislation for action - to the detriment of us all.
At least the Tories acheived their ends - end of union power, improvments in Labour relations, return to growth in the economy, an end to punitive taxation. We put the country back on its feet after decades of statist crap (from both parties, but inspired by post-war socialism). This lot of Crypto-socialist fuck-wits that I have been deeply ashamed to call my government for the last decade couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag or organise a fuck on a porn set. In the words of Rowan Atkinson "I would't trust them to sit the right way on a lavatory". Whatever you feel about Dave's rhetoric, let's help him get this shower of shits out of Downing street.

*That is 1944 before June



Thursday, 25 May 2006

Some Sense in the Grauniad.


A musician activist speaks in favour of enterprise
- and the Guardianistas squeal. Check out the comments for the ususal Guardian "head-in-the-sand" bollocks. Bono, however is talking sense.



Some things are what they used to be (part II)


It's summer in England, our Cricket team is struggling to beat opposition they should punish*, it's been pissing it down and there's totally unreasonable hope about our prospects at the World cup (Rooney's Metatarsal) and Wimbledon (Andy Murray - Yes I know he's Scottish, but the English do not have a chippy, spiteful inferiority complex about supporting other home nations).

Despite "life on Mars" (which I have never seen, being homeless), I think anyone who's lived in this country since the second world war would recognise the paragraph above.

* in fact, as I write this Mahroof has been put down by strauss at 3rd slip.
* No matter before I posted it he's been caught behind for 5 off Hoggard. 65-6. (Just like Lords all over again)



Wednesday, 24 May 2006

Water Shortage...


This is the wettest drought on record. I should know, I'm sleeping out in the fucker.



Tuesday, 23 May 2006

Some things are what they used to be...


The British, and especially those bonkers west-country folk, have always been eccentric. It is so heartening to see that in these days of health-and-safety nazis enforcing Zanu-Labour's nanny state conformity on everyone, that you can still chuck yourself off a hill at great risk to your person without enforced insurance, registration, entry fees and bureaucratic obstrusification, just a polite request that you tip a bit to a charity on the day and pay for your parking.

I'm going before it's banned. Wish me luck!



What's Wrong with New Labour?

If anyone needs to know what's wrong with our body politic in general and New Labour in particular, read this dissection of New Labour and general Toady, Neil Harding, by the Devil's Kitchin

Does anyone else feel ill whenever Hazel "indefensible" Blears or the appalling slug, Peter Hain are heard on Radio 4? Because you know every utterence of the members of this mendacious government is a tissue of lies, distortions and spin, yet they are so brazen, it's difficult to argue with them and you just shake your fist in impotent rage as the tears well up at the thought of what they are doing to this once great country. What's worse there are people, like Neil Harding who agree - and it appears that their only rationale is tribal dislike of the Tories.



Monday, 22 May 2006

Green Taxation


Whilst I'm not entirely convinced that the greenhouse effect is about to cause the catastrophe eco-doom mongers are want to forecast, I do accept that there needs to be some curb on our reckless use of energy. There's no doubt the oil industry is polluting and that increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere makes plants grow faster (did I say that? I meant "is on balance, a bad thing").

So we need incentives to make you change your behaviour, and to a limited extent, the tax system can be used to this end.

The problem is that this is a hugely unfair and prone to the law of unintended consequences. Take for example, the Vehicle tax that you trot down to the post office to buy every year. The chancellor has decreed that you pay according to the ammount of CO2 your car emits. Is this fair? Well no. We already pay tax on the CO2 emmited because we pay through the nose for petrol. This is fair - the tax punishes fast driving as well as large engines. It taxes use - high mileage drivers pay more than low milage drivers. So if your aim is to tax motoring ( and therefore charge for road use etc...), petrol taxes acheive the end. So what is the purpose of the vehicle tax? I suggest it is political - it allows the goblin king to send a message of spite against "fat cats in gas-guzzling 4x4s" to the pinko mermidons behind him. It has nothing to do with the environment.

The upshot is that the kind of person who can spend £60K on a Range Rover, is hardly likely to be deterred by a piffling £40 extra a year (or even the Liberal Democrat's £2,000). A hill farmer who actually needs his battered old series 3 Landrover to get to his sheep - and who' s been so thoroughly buggered by this government in so many ways already - will suffer. As ever, divisive, politically motivated law hurts those who can least afford it.

The same is true of the congestion charge in london. The west-london porshe driver is not to be deterred by a mere £10 a day and in any case drives to the city before the charge kicks in and leaves after it ends, but what about a nurse working shifts at barts? Public transport won't get her to work whenever she needs it, and at least one journey a day will be charged. So the desire to hurt the motorist (why something almost everyone does is such a red rag to the left-wing bull is a mystery to me) ends up disproportionaltely hurting the low paid.

All sensible conservatives should be in favour of a simpler taxation system. One that is cheap to administer, fair and transparent. Trying to micromanage people's lives through regressive taxation makes the British people less free and contributes to the stress of living in these crowded islands.

So we need to accept that the motorist already pays handsomely for his transport, and most of this goes to the government - who should give us smooth roads and bypasses in return. The fuel tax, who's increase was started under the conservatives as an environmental measure - we've always had concern for the environment - has been sucessful in persuading people to swich to less polluting vehicles. Let's leave it at that and scrap the bloody regressive, opressive bits of the tax system.

The same goes for taxes on second homes, inheritance, capital gains and on. The rich can either afford it comfortably or can avoid it. The less well off, who perhaps don't understand the intricacies of wealth - often get clobbered when they can least afford it. Inheritance tax can often cost a family a home. Capital gains tax traps people in unsuitable investments. Stamp duty hurts anyone who has to move - already a stressful and exhausing experience.

A fair tax system avoids double taxation, is relatively progessive without being punitive and is transparent and easy to understand. This will mean it is harder to avoid and cheaper to collect. The working poor need to be helped out of poverty by not being taxed. Our tax system has none of these attributes. We need a flat tax now.



Thursday, 18 May 2006

Grand Piano found at summit of Ben Nevis


I always knew the Guardian should be taken no more seriously than the Sunday Sport,



Wednesday, 17 May 2006

Education, Education, Education

There are 8,164,350* children in England's schools


The Schools Budget is roughly £55 Billion**. This is at least £6,736.60 per pupil per year.

The average fees at an independent day school are £7,287

So there's no evidence here of major under resourcing of the schools relative to the Independent sector, especially when you consider the justification for LEA's existence is centralised purchasing for catering and other services, which should make the public sector more efficient (it doesn't of course - it's actual role is political interference and jobs for the boys).

So whilst, fees at my alma mater are way above this, this is not representitive of private education as a whole (though if you listened to left-wing propaganda, the entire private sector consisted of the public schools). Many schools have fees lower than the centralised state buget per pupil. These still manage to provide a vastly superior education to that found in the majority of state schools, and have spare resourses to teach talented pupils on scholarships. (Many of them are called "grammar schools" - I can feel the lefties wince.)

So what's wrong with state education if it isn't resourses? Let's look at the possibilities:
  • Poor teaching
  • Poor students
  • a culture of low acheivement - especially the "discrimination of low expectations" with regard to inner city children in particular.
  • Under resoursing
These are all possible causes, but let's dismiss the first two - there are good and bad teachers and pupils in all schools. Some of my teachers were hilariously bad (most, though it has to be said were inspiring). One of the thickest, most dishonest and simian individuals I have ever met was a pupil in my house at school who went by the nickname of "Weggitt".

I do actually think that resources are part of the problem. Once that £6,736.60 has been filtered through the DFES (3,635 Civil servants) and the LEAs, I would be surprised if the schools saw half of that figure - the rest has paid bureacrats to push paper.

Now let's address the culture. One of the best indicators of the sucess of a child in education is the level of parental engagement in education. Evidence from voucher programmes in the United States indicate that the Inner City Black single Parent - the demographic most likely to encounter poor schools and have least engagement in education - were the ones who benefitted most. This is directly opposite to what the politicized teaching profession said would happen. This was in part due to the ability to move to better schools and in part due to the greater engagement that the act of choosing where to spend your voucher gives you. ("buying" in other words - a transaction everyone understands). In short the parents took more interest in an education they had a say in purchasing. But since when has "evidence" played any part in leftist "thought"?

The fact that under a voucher scheme, sink schools close and crap teachers get fired should displease no-one except the left-wing extremists in the teaching unions, who are to blame for the PC culture which beleives that to teach, correct or inform is a form of cultural imperialism, and who have therefore presided over a massive decline in standards. Parents do not like this. So vouchers will force schools to teach, correct and inform. Really good schools will inspire too. Parents will like this and vote with their voucher. The leftist fetish for "democratic accountability" in education is, in fact anti-democrtatic. The leftist would rather people like him tell people what to do. LEAs are victims of pure producer capture, and whilst under the purview of councils, hardly anyone turns out to these elections. LEAs are appointed by an at best, flawed democratic body. A voucher, on the other hand gives parents real autonomy.

So the leftist rhetoric which says vouchers and choice leaves the the poorest behind should be seen as the self-serving, producer interest crap that it is. The state shouldn't provide education - fund yes, but not provide. The only thing it doesn't do at present is the only thing it should: Set exams. There are several competing exam boards. On what do they compete? Do you think a failing school is going to choose the hardest exam to stretch little Johnny? No! They compete in a slow downward spiral of standards. The privatisation of examinations is just silly***. That's the state's role: to keep standards up.

So A Very British Dude's policy for education runs something like this:
  1. Close down LEAs
  2. Shrink the DFES to a rump with responsibility for setting exams and publising results (yes, on a "value added" basis too - i'm not totally unrealistic).
  3. Give every parent a voucher for £6,736.60 (could be a lot more - but only if we abolish the welfare state)
  4. give heads control of budget and admissions
  5. let the market sort out the rest.
Everyone wins except the NASUWT, who can fuck off.

*2004
**Extrapolation from 2001 figure - average growth of 6% in spending 1997-2001 applied to 2001 figure then rounded down a bit. Actually spending on education has accelerated so the figuer is likely to be much more than this.
***If any pinko says I'm being inconsistent with a former Tory policy or somesuch other fascile charge, I'll find out where you live and firebomb**** your house.
****When I say "firebomb", I mean "write a strongly worded rebuttal calling you a prick"



Monday, 15 May 2006

The People's Republic of North Britain

So the Tories are Hammering Labour in the South East and London and yet remain stagnant elsewhere in the UK.

Well that's not surprising. The statistics for State spending as a percentatge of the economy for areas north of Birmingham are horrifying. They look more like East Germany or Soviet Russia - and are already thouroughly part of The Bastard in No11's client state. People in the North and Scotland receive 20% more state spending per head (even before wages are taken into account). Of course they are not going to vote for a party committed to reducing the size of the state. Turkeys do not vote for Christmas. Northerners vote for the hand that feeds. (who's policies keep them them in their place as miserable supplicants to the state's will)

It's no coincidence that levels of alcoholism, drug use, depression and statistics like life expectancy are also distinctly "second world" in the people's Republic of North Britain.

The North of Britian has been unable to get back on its feet following the collapse of traditional industy because it is run as a labour fief, and therefore business unfriendly. (Notice how Birmingham's OK - despite losing its industry?) Who'd want to employ socialist jobswoths in the North and Scotland? So Business stays away. This acts as a vicious cycle where the only employer is the state and as a result, anyone of any talent, drive, ambition or entrepreneurial spirit moves south. London is is therefore overrun with talented Jocks and Yorkshiremen running the City.

The Politics of the North therefore become the politics of the "shit that's left behind" - and ever more insanely socialist as a result, after all they're not paying for this profligacy. Indeed there is a correlation to the Latitude from which the speaker originates and the level of Left-wing insanity. The Graph runs thus:

So what can be done. Either the state can spiggot ever more of the South East's money at the Labour Heartlands (did I say that? I meant "deprived areas") - providing unproductive non-jobs pushing paper for the civil service or otherwise checking up on the population and demanding more money and forms be filled in, or it can get out of the way and the undoubted delights of living in the North - the scenery, the low cost of living can attract wealth creators. - eventually the North will catch up economically. But only if it's set free of the horrible leviathan pulling the region back.

Some think the state can help people and economies. I think those instances are so rare as to be not worth the risk of fucking everything up - as the state is wont to do. The state should provide a defended realm, law and order, roads and infrastructure and .... Urm... er.... That's it. The state should fund healthcare and possibly education (not provide, fund) . Everything else the state does is entirely counter productive.



Thursday, 11 May 2006

The Big Bear In the Woods

This is not a Party political post - many of the trends I mention were set in train so long ago that the root causes are societal and not to be blamed on one lot or the other. Though naturally the socialists are more to blame than us, and I hate Gordon Brown.

21-22% of the working age population are "economically inactive". That is some 8 million people. Of these 2.3 million are looking after home, 1.85 million are students, though many are simply doing non courses in "tourism management", or "Golf Studies" (a three year degree? I think not) to massage the unemployment figures. 591,000 are retired, 200,000 are Temporary sick, which leaves 2.1 million Long term sick and the remainder some million or so "discouraged workers".

There are about a million people on the dole, so the unemployment figure, if you include the fucking lazy (did I say that, I mean "discouraged workers") is actually about twice what the government publishes as the claimant count.

These people do not starve. They exist on benefits. Whilst there may not be dole - unemployment benefit - for those not looking for work, the state will see to it that you never actually need to. Housing benefits, Disability benefits (for those lucky enough to be able to threaten a doctor into signing him off sick) . Income support pays £2,987 per year. Housing benefit will see to your rent, and for single mothers on benefit, the career prospects are staggering.

In allowing people to live totally supported by welfare, the state creates perverse incentives in housing and employment. Couples cohabiting lose some income support, and are less likely to be moved into a bigger council house. Savings are penalised and benefits are often lost on the commencement of work. So people choose not to live together to bring up children, and do not get their foot on the employment ladder, because they lose money if they do so. There's certainly no incentive to save when employed, because savings too cost you benefits. The socialist has no faith in the human as a rational agent and dismisses concerns of the incentives and moral hazzard of welfare by pointing to his compassion for these people.

This traps people on the subsistence income of benefits. What's worse is the damage that it does to the spirit of those in thrall to the state's munificence. Read "life at the bottom" by Theodore Darymple for anecdotal evidence of the collapse of the work ethic amongst what used to be the working class.

So when the lefty says "you try living in Lambeth on benefits" as if that's the only reality - you should point out that it is the welfare state that traps these people, the very policies their socialist compassion has created is destroying lives. Benefits are the problem. And it it is a huge one. Not only are 8 million people entirely dependendent on benefits, much of the lower middle class is also in receipt of tax credits, child benefit and other distributions from the state (this is Gordon Browns client state). In 2001, the police and Judiciary cost £20 billion, defence £25 Billion, Education £44 billion, health £53 billion. Social Security cost a staggering £101 billion - and the grasping presbyterian bastard in no.11 has subsequently increased welfare spending.

this was 11% of GDP and something like 40% of government managed expenditure. So cutting this bill should be a priority if there is a shortage of resources for the police, our overstretched Army, schools and the Sainted NHS.

So why isn't anyone screaming to cut this bill? Because to do so would be presented as taking form the poorest (which in a way it is). Because after 3 generations of welfare, there is a section of society - the underclass - who have never worked, know no-one who works and more than likely will never work. Benefits as a career. Without serious incentives these people will not look for work and don't know how. Getting people off benefits and into work is possible by looking at incentives - making work pay, and the penalties - cutting benefits progressively. In effect, a carrot and stick to getting these people into the Labour market. Look to the incentives and the outcome will follow.

In housing the situation where the more catastrophically you mess your life up, the higher up the housing list you go should be seen as the perverse incentive it is. It is also manifestly unfair to the hard working families who are pushed aside, creating a sense of indignation amongst the people who are trying to better themselves, often in desperate circumstances who see people with no personal responsibility jumping ahead of them in the queue for adequate housing. This issue, more than any other is driving support for the BNP, who are adding immigration and bogus asssylum seekers to create a heady cocktail of anger.

Realistically, the state shouldn't be in housing at all, and the hopeless maladministration of local authorities would end, and much of the incentives to house the worst people in the best homes - the political correctness which offends so many people, would also go - to be replaced by the private sector which is better because the owner has a stake in his property and will see to it that it is properly maintained. ("No they won't" scream the socialists - oh yeah... and the council does a good job, does it?)

Does the state have a duty to pay people not to work and does the state have a duty to house people who don't work? Yes - if they genuinely can't, but no if it's actually a lifestyle choice, which for many long term unemployed, it is. The welfare state should be a safty net, not a hammock. (mine's very comfortable by the way)



Wednesday, 10 May 2006

Gordon Brown, Financial Genius (Part III)


There are lots of issues facing the world economy at the moment

  • The dollar is collapsing
  • The oil shockis probably knocking .5% off global growth.
  • The commodity price bubbles in Copper, Aluminium, Gold, Silver and Platinum mean industrial goods are more expensive to produce.
  • The unwinding of carry trades has seriously undermined the Emerging markets of for example Iceland and New Zealand and left a lot of hot money sloshing around the world financial system - pouring petrol on smoudering fires.
  • A House price bubble is inflating in many parts of the world.
  • In short, inflation (and therefore High Interest rates) is back - held in check only by cheap export goods coming out of China, which has a seriously imbalanced economy.
What is our Chancellor doing?

Our Chancellor is increasing taxation at the peak of the economic cycle which is unsustainable. Regulation is reducing competiveness. He is levying windfall taxes on the North-sea Oil and gas industry, despite concerns about our energy security. He sold our gold at the bottom of the market, $270 per ounce (it is now over $700). - go short gold when the mendacious Presbyterian bastard buys it again. He is increasing the UK's borrowing, when we should be repaying debt. In short he is doing everything wrong.

The fifth largest economy in the world takes nearly a decade to turn round. The 90's were boom years because of global economic changes led by Margaret Thatcher in the 80's. Tory policy didn't cease until 2000, when Gordon Brown decided that prudence should go out of the window and he decided to fuck up the country's finances by spiggoting ever increasing sums of cash at unreformed public services. He has used prosperity which was bought at great cost by sensible Conservative administrations to attempt to create his client state. He will have succeeded in destroying Margaret Thatcher's Success by the time the next administration is 3 years old. Before then, he is likely to have his own black wednesday in the economy. He may or may not be able to blame it on "external factors" but there's no doubt he's made the economy less resilient and more at risk of global economic catastrophe.

This man, our next prime minister has therefore stored up trouble for the Next Conservative administration. (If you haven't bet on a Tory victory at the General Election, you're too late) David Cameron is aware of this. Just as the state took increasing slices of the National Pie under Margaret Thatcher in her early years - it costs money to sort out Socialist messes - so a Tory administration is likely to have to raise taxes before the serious cutting of state expenditure can occurr.

No-one is a more passionate advocate of low, flat taxes than A Very British Dude, but you have to have an eye on the Psephology - tax cuts are seen as an extreme idea and it's easier to educate the people from Downing street than the opposition benches. Furthermore, given the Grasping Bastard in No11's performance, the economy will be in a mess when the issues listed at the top of the post come and bite us on the bum.

So flat taxes is a late first-term policy, not a platform on which to win the next election. So Cameron is right to say that if the Labour Party leaves a shrinking economy, then the Tax Burden may rise under the Tories. I'm sure he doesn't like it any more than me. For my own part, there are a lot of conservative policies that I feel are weak, misconceived and wrong. My stance on drugs is deeply controversial. But whatever happens, I'd rather anyone run the country than the Smug, Shit-sack, grasping, lying, cowardly, interfering, incompetent, socialist bastard who currently occupies No. 11. Sure he's already fucked this country up, but immagine the damage he could do in 5 years with an electoral mandate, unrestrained by Tony Blair and cheered on by the unreconstructed leftist extremists on the Labour Back-Benches?

So I'm urging all right thinkers to bite their lip - stop carping and work for a Tory Victory. You get more votes pushing leaflets through doors than speaking to people who already agree via your websites. Join the Party. Volounteer to deliver (an hour or two every other month, weekly during a campaign). It's not a lot to ask, and you may be able to influence policy from the inside if you do. For Pity's sake, we've got to stop Brown.



Monday, 8 May 2006

First Night of homelessness


I moved my stuff into storage this weekend (moving all the heavy stuff on Sunday, despite drinking tequila until 5am - a tactical and strategic error for which I am still paying). I am now liberated from my things - can anyone tell me the name of the artist who burned all his posessions? Whilst putting them in a relative's garage is less drastic than the petrol and match option, there is a lot to be said for decluttering your life - forcing me to ask the question: "what do we actually need?". Whilst I am coming at this from the point of view of convenience, not marxist "thought" or environmentalist anti-consumerism, I do beleive that we would all be happier if we focussed on our personal relationships rather than material posessions.

I feel wonderfully free. Instead of a grotty bedsit, I woke up this morning in a wood, surrounded by bluebells - and despite at least one shower last, night I stayed dry. Can anyone tell me why I need a house more than the £1,200 or so it would cost me to stay in one for 2 months?



Friday, 5 May 2006

Joy in Defeat...

I failed to knock my opponent off his perch, polling 1028 against my Liberal Democrat opponent's 1390. (Labour were humiliated with just 178 votes - as they were across the whole district council).

IT shows that people do vote on local issues. My opponent is a very hard-working councillor with a strong local following. Many local tories support him (perhaps not his party), then vote for Peter Lilley in the General election. Nevertheless, at 3pm, it looked like I might do it. A late surge in voting however handed the seat to the Liberal Democrats. It's probably for the best, but I shall certainly contest the ward next year and hopefully with another years' effort, win aganst a lower profile candidate.

Despite dissapointment for the Dude, with gains still coming in, the Tories are back! Ye naysayers on the blogosphere - Dave's strategy is the right one. A rebranding exercise - but we remain the party of sensible taxation, smaller government and civil liberties. That will not change. 65% of the population like our policies, which falls to 40% when they are told that it's conservative - we've got the policy right (and always have done - poll tax excepted). We now need to regain the peoples' trust. That's hard.

But the local councillors are the people to do it. Hundreds more hard-working Tories delivering services as inexpensively as possible and suddenly the Parliamentary Conservative Party looks like a government in waiting. Furthermore, every councillor represents several boots on the ground in General elections. I know the blogger likes the big idea - tax cuts, pulling out of Europe and so on, but this is not what will get us elected. Getting Out The Vote will - and good Conservative councillors will be the agents of this. Harping on about Daves's weakness on right-wing fetishes will not help remove the worst government this country has ever had. The regaining of the people's Trust will.

Trust - and that requires work and discipline. Once we have that, we can bring the country to our way of thinking on Tax and Education - moving the centre ground as Margaret Thatcher did. Eventually Labour will follow onto our turf.

Politics is the art of the possible and If you want Gordon Brown destorying this country, then you can make the Conservative Party appear split and Idealogical to the country. Or you can work to elect a government which, whilst it doesn't do everything we want nor go as far in shrinking the state, at least has our interests at heart.

Yesterday vindicated David Cameron's strategy. We should all give him our support.



Tuesday, 2 May 2006

Don't be intimidated.

The Animal Rights crowd have claimed public support and the moral high ground for too long. They are terrorists and monomainiacs. Have you signed?

Vivisection is a nessesary evil and the British have amongst the highest animal welfare standards in the world. If you believe truly in animal welfare, you would want all animal research done at the likes of Huntingdon Life Sciences. Instead the animal rights lobby have demonstrated themselves to be fanatiacal, incoherent and have damaged the cause of genuine animal welfare - as well as science.

By causing the likes of HLS to have the kind of security which would put British Military bases to shame they have created undue fear, harmed a business in which Britain set the world's standard and destroyed peoples' livlihoods.

Send a message by signing the Peoples' Petition - if you support the advancement of science and a right not to be intimidated by nihilist thugs whilst going about your lawful business.



Share it