Christmas time

My family always have a traditional Christmas. It's gift exchanges in the morning, followed by a big slap up lunch, then a movie with an optional nap and finally drinks and cards in the evening. Then Boxing Day was the time Dad and I would go and watch some team stuff us four or five nil.

. This year though, with my son running up a big private hospital bill, we'll be keeping it lean. Never mind, younger kids don't worry about ipods or cars, they just enjoy the fun and appreciate what they get.

What will lie ahead in 2009? Well for me there will be another addition to the family. It's an exciting time, but I'll also be keeping focused on my long term plans for business and life.

For the UK the credit crunch aftershock will really be felt next year. Let's just pray none of us are causalities. That's really all we can do about that.

Enough waffle. Merry Christmas to all readers, bloggers, conservatives, leftists and Saints fans. But not Spurs fans.

It seems like we are back to the days of Charles II. David Green's arrest is remarkable not only for the fact that he "leaked" information that was obviously in the public interest to know about, but also for the fact that it was handled so differently to the arrest of Tony Blair.

Green received no money for his leaks. As far as I'm aware, nobody was punished for the information in the leaks, such as Jaqui Smith being aware of the high number of illegal immigrants working in Whitehall and lying about it.

As a Popular Alliance member, I'm against uncontrolled immigration and - like most people - I'm against the 42 day detention rule. Moreover, I most definitely support the "leaking' of information that exposes incompetence in government whilst endangering nobody. Long live Private Eye!

Some good reads

The English by Jeremy Paxman
The man who presents University Challenge also writes well, and this book is a sometimes witty, sometimes serious look at the English, a people who currently seem very confused about their own identity.



The Seven Ages of Britain
A gripping book that covers the life on common folk in England - instead of the royals and elites from whose perspective we normally view history - through several different ages. This book is educational, interesting and thought provoking. You are unlikely to be related to a queen or king from the past, but if you are a Brit, you will be a descendent from someone who lived a lifestyle like these people did.



Why England must Declare UDI by Vernon Coleman
Coleman is a prolific writer and in this short book, he gives a summary of the case for EU withdrawal and the threat to England from the perspective of an educated nationalist. A good but very short book.


I'll be happy to talk more about these books or any others if people are interested.

Straight talking parties

Craig of the Popular Alliance is one of my favourite bloggers simply because he says (or rather, types) exactly what he thinks and feels. In fact, that's what I think is so good about the Popular Alliance. They are the rarest of breeds - a straight talking party. Veritas and Free England are the only other examples I can think of. Maybe UKIP to some extent, too. But what makes Popular Alliance extra special is that the also have an excellent set of policies and a very 'down to earth' style of running the party. That quality is an essential foundation for any party that plans to expand whilst keeping its integrity. I guess that is the true challenge, to keep straight talking whilst mounting a serious bid to get in government.

The argument for the UK monarchy

Let me state very clearly this discussion is focused purely on the UK and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her monarchy.

When I was younger, I was a republican. I didn't like the idea that someone should be bestowed with great power and wealth purely because of the family they were born into. I felt that the UK royals were living the good life and giving nothing back to the people. Over time, I have changed my opinion, and this is why.


1) The monarchy has (probably) provided great stability.

The UK has probably been the most politically stable 'nation' in the last three hundred years. We have been without coup, civil war or revolution in that time.

Republicans say that we cannot prove this is due to the monarchy. Some also argue it is down to the advanced democracy of the UK, in other words there is something ""so special about us Brits.

My response is that if there is something 'special' about us, it obviously deserted our direct descendents who emigrated to the US and become caught up in the bloody civil war in America in the 1860s.

Whilst it cannot be proven our monarchy provided stability, circumstantial evidence suggests very strongly that it has. Whilst other nations have flirted with short lived republics punctured by civil war and bloodshed, we have come through peacefully and with a comparatively great deal of freedom and democratic choice.


2) It brings in money to the UK.

The monarchy costs something like sixty pence per year for every person in the UK. This is compared to something like one hundred pounds per person, per year for our membership to the corrupt EU. The queen and her institution pay rent for all the royal grounds in the UK and also generate a large amount of tourism. These funds more than cover the cost of the monarchy and generate funds for charities.
Overall, it is likely that the monarchy is highly beneficial in financial terms.
In any case, republics cost money, too.


3) It keeps politicians in check.

Who would you rather have as your head of state - George W Bush, Gordon "billions for Iraq" Brown or a woman who has an entire family legacy to protect and a wealth of political experience?

The Queen has more power than most western monarchs. She can declare war, cede our empire, appoint a PM of her own choosing and heads the Church of England. In practice she invests most of her powers in parliament but should one of the politicos attempt to become a dictator or despot, we have a safeguard in place to stop it happening.


4) It's not broken, so why fix it?

Our democracy has its faults, but compared to the rest of The World we are doing pretty well. The monarchy does no detectable harm and may well do a lot of good, so why risk any of this by changing it? What sort of republic would we change into? What would we do with the remaining empire? What would we do with the royal projects? The questions are endless.



The only real argument in favour of a republic is that it is more democratic and just. In theory this is true, but in practice it probably wouldn't be. As stated, the queen only has limited powers which exist as safeguards and are delegated to elected officials.

The only potential problem could be if an heir to the throne gave major cause for concern, such as insanity. For the time being, we seem safe. Prince Charles is not overly popular but is accepted, his two sons - the elder in particular - are very popular.

The British monarchy is now a unique institution in western culture. It could not have been designed, it has become this way through decades, indeed centuries of evolution and adaption. It now stands as an icon which not only helps us feel some identity in a country whose culture and way of life is rapidly changing and perhaps disappearing, but is also a highly functional constitutional check and balance.

As for the union itself though, that's something I am far less keen on. I may write about that in future.


(In this article I have borrowed heavily from Dr Sean Gabb. www.seangabb.co.uk)

Teach the pleasures of (gay) sex - another victory for liberal fascists

Let me state off the bat this is not aimed in any way as an insult to the gay community, I trust many of them will be as outraged as the rest of society at the liberal hell this country has become. I would be furious if children were taught about the pleasures of heterosexual sex at age five, too:
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/textbased/news/article-1056415/Teach-pleasure-gay-sex-children-young-say-researchers.html

When, oh when, will people wake up?


Section 28, the law which banned the promotion of homosexuality in state schools, was repealed five years ago. Current guidance on sex education says it should not promote sexual orientation or sexual activity.

If anyone is still in any doubt that the UK has fallen pray to loony left Marxists? If so, do this not change your mind?

The Liberal line of modernism

Whenever there is a debate between liberals and conservatives about the EU, multiculturalism or reform, one of the favourite arguments used by Liberals is something along the lines of: "Well you've got to get with the times. Things are changing and we have to accept globalism".

That argument gets my back up because it is so illogical and ignorant. Let me explain why.

Britain has always been a nation that punches above her weight. As a small island, we have achieved political, financial, artistical and sporting success well out of proportion to our size. These phenomenal successes have been based around our system of 'conservative progress'.

What I mean by that term is not that we use outmoded or inflexible government, but rather, we base our progress around steady, established laws and customs. Not since the Magna Carta (the first ever 'bill of rights' )has Britain ever used a written constitution. We've never needed to, because we have been very infrequent with coups, revolutions or massive overhauls. Even the "glorious revolution" of the seventeenth century resulted in a new bill of rights and an end to absolute monarchy!

As a result we have established a system of common law, rights and customs that have progressed and adapted gently, backed up by a core set of values and identity. That's why our House of Parliament has served as a model for many others, and the adversarial nature of our debates have changed little since Charles 1st sent his soldiers to arrest MP's during a debate in 1640.

So when Liberals talk of conservatives of being "afraid of change", I wonder what change it is that liberals actually want? Do they want to scrap the Magna Carta? Overthrow our system of common law and start over? What are the progressive changes they are looking for? Do they want to smash the ideology that has allowed them the education and awareness to spout their nonsense? Because if so, we need to make damn sure we have something pretty special to replace it with.

To say we should "get with the times" and accept the sweeping changes of EU nationalism, multiculturalism and various other Marxist ideologies on the Labour agenda as no more sensible than suggesting we scrap the English language because it is old.

English has grown from a tiny provincial language used in England into the world's language. It achieved this because it is rich, flexible (Shakespeare used nouns, verbs and adjectives in ways they had never been used before) and progressive (it acquires new vocabulary for each dialect) yet it is unmistakably English in character. In fact our language is the perfect representation of what is great about Britain or England and its conservative nature and traditions.

Now I wonder: with Blair and Brown planning a written constitution - not just for the EU but for the UK - unprecedented EU powers and a wave of political correctness, how long will it be before he imposes some kind of Orwellian reforms to our language, too?

The people who work for us

Edition 1214 of 'Private Eye' caught my eye in a "Gavel Basher" article on MP's expenses. As the vast majority of the house voted in a series of debates to keep their controversial expenses system and ignore the important parts of the salary reform system proposed by Sir John Baker, the MPs who objected were shouted down. One Liberal Democrat MP was called "sanctimonious and arrogant" for criticising MP's who claimed travel expenses for a second home when they lived twenty minutes away from Parliament.

David Maclean (who also proposed the disgusting act that reduced transparency in the house) actually said: "I've had pay freezes in the past and look what good that's done us". I find that to be bizarre and non-sequitur logic. It is basically saying that if MP's are not doing a good enough job, they should be paid more!

His self-indulgent, self-pitying whine continued:
"He compared our salary to that of a head teacher. Our salary was £60,000 and the head teacher was on £71,000. ..........There is therefore no doubt that we have fallen considerably behind those whom the SSRB considered our comparators. "


It would be interesting to see if the 'head teacher' in question had to pay for his or her own petrol , stationary and "extra costs" from that 71 grand. I'll happily wager they did. David didn't, he claimed 147,000 pounds in expenses last year. Of course, that would average his salary out to just over 72 grand, above that of the teacher.

Maclean continued:
none of those people—except a colonel in Afghanistan—is working long hours. Most of them are not doing 70 or 80 hours a week. Apart from those on the very front-line who are making tactical decisions involving life or death, most of them do not have the responsibility that we have of voting on issues that do include life or death,

Yes, poor overworked David who has voted in a grand total of 55% of debates this year and has almost as many holidays as the head teacher. Perhaps he uses all that time off to write letters, hence his 1,000 pound stationary allowance.


Perhaps the best quote of the bunch came from Patrick Cormack MP who actually claimed: "There are people in catering who get paid more than us". I'd be remarkably interested to know which caterer gets more than 63,000 pounds plus an insane amount of expenses (140,000 in his case) each year, sadly Patrick did not give specific details.

Another Lib Dem MP proposed that MP's submit receipts for scrutiny by a separate committee. Another MP actually rejected this by claiming .......wait for this....."If you hire a lock smith and submit the receipt for public viewing, it could help a thief to break into your home". As Nigel Farage likes to say: "you couldn't make this stuff up!"

How do we let people get away with such shameless corruption? And how can we - the next wave of politicians - ensure we don't become like them?

One of the debates is available to read here and is a textbook example of duplicity and doublespeak amongst politicos. Note how they unctuously praise the idea of transparency and auditing proposed by John Baker, then vote to ignore it and use their own system instead.

I've set up a new Facebook nationalist group:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=23754362369

UKIP have re-launched their web site. Most of the files are the same, it's simply the presentation and layout that have changed. It's a long overdue renovation. The old site was a mess and first time visitors who simply wanted to know who UKIP are and what they stand for could be confused and put off. The new site has easy access to introductory articles and creates a more modern and positive impression of the party.

The Free England Party have a petition campaign to request that the Prime Minister takes note of the growing discontent amongst the people of England with regards to the union and lack of recognition of Englishness as an ethnic identity and nationality.

The petition signatures are still being accepted here.

Immigration

It's hardly newsflash material that immigration is out of control but when you read a damning report from the House of Commons Library with the 'official' statistics, it really does bring home the seriousness of the problem.

Let me save everyone the trouble of reading through a dreary document by giving the information that matters: our population is projected to reach seventy one million by 2031 and two thirds of that growth is directly attributable to immigration. In other words, enough people to fill London plus one other major city will come to the UK.

And that's just a government 'best guess'. BBC Panorama and other media sources have already exposed the world of illegal immigration that is so vulnerable thanks to our lax border controls, and of course illegal immigration is uncounted.

A quick run down of the costs associated with immigration is also cause for concern. The Met police spent over ten million pounds on language services last year, the government is throwing over thirty million into community work to 'reduce tensions' and the police have raised concerns about multi occupancy housing ranging from littering to an increase in violent crime.

Of course most immigrants are good people who just want to work for a better life, they are not to blame, our government are responsible for letting immigration go unchecked This is not a racial issue either. The report also confirms that forty seven percent of Asian people and forty seven percent of black people surveyed said immigration was too high. The total score was sixty eight percent.

How did our government ever let immigration get so out of control and what can we do to fix it?

The report is here:


http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2008/rp08-065.pdf

Reasons for EU withdrawal

I'm going to keep a running tally of reasons to withdraw from the EU (European Union) starting from today.

1) Corruption in the budget

For thirteen years, auditors have refused to sign off the EU budget. It beggars belief how little uproar this has caused. (link)

2) Lack of transparency

The EU have pushed a new measure to state that "documents" (i.e. anything that can be seen by someone making a Freedom of Information' request) as papers on the official register only. In other words, if you don't want anyone to see it, simply don't place it on the official register! (link)

3) Lack of democracy

Only one chamber in the EU has legislative initiative and that is the European Commission. Each member state's European commissioner is selected by the government. In other words, they are unelected. The unelected minister from Sweden - chosen by a government I cannot vote for or against unless I emigrate to Sweden - has more power over my life than the Englishman I voted for in the European elections last time. (link)


This is just to get started, I'll be keeping a regular update.

The English question

Known to some as the "West Lothian Question" (after the locality of MP Tam Dylall who was the first person to raise the issue in Parliament), the 'English question' is the titular reference to the imbalance in UK parliament. Because Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own parliaments (though the later two have little power), the Houses of Parliament MP's who come from these countries have the ability to vote on matters that affect England but not their own country. In other words, people from other countries are deciding how England is governed.

It can cause problems and protest. For example, university tuition fees in England have been set by a vote from the House, whereas Scottish citizens are not eligible to pay the same fees. Some fear that if the problem continues and becomes exacerbated, tensions could rise more.

What is the solution to the problem?

The Popular Alliance believe in having "England only" voting days in parliament where matters that affect only England are voted on only by English MP's. This idea seems nice enough, though it could cause confusion in a government ruling by a clear majority. If losing the vote of non-English MP's challenges the majority of the ruling party, it could create problems.

The English Democrats favour an English Parliament with the same power as the Scottish Parliament and a referendum on further devolution or even dissolution of the Union. The only downside here is that the English Parliament would, logically, dominate other parliaments as well as adding an extra layer of expense.

The Free England Party, however, argue for a dissolution of the UK on the grounds that it "has served its purpose" and propose a "Council of the Isles" based on the Nordic model. This is a drastic and radical step, but one that can be argued well.