Modern Nationalist

How to 'win' a debate

2009-04-29T21:12:00.000-07:00

It's important to establish what we mean by "winning" a debate. For me, it means showing that your logic and ideas stand up to scrutiny and criticism better than that of your your opponent.

I do not believe - as so many people seem to do - that you "win" a debate or argument by having the last word, being more insulting or making the other person feel worse than you do. I could do this whilst arguing that the world is flat, all it would achieve is to make me a childish, insecure or unpleasant person.

Also I do not pretend to be an expert or even good at debates. I do feel that, having been subjected to a lot of criticism and scrutiny as a 'tradtionalist' or 'conservative', I've gained enough experience to be able to hold my own.

So here are my ideas for a beneficial and effective debate.

1) Cite credible sources.

One of the biggest mistakes I see in debates is people using no or useless sources. When we are talking about contentious or controversial issues, it's crucial to have a believable source of backup. That does not include personal blogs or properganda groups. Credible sources could include well known newspapers, academic figures, known think tanks, works of authority, etc.

2) Distinguish opinion from fact.

"Labour are introducing ID cards" is a fact, "Labour MPs are idiots" is an opinion (one I would agree with!) but one mistake I see so often is people - often people who should know better - stating their opinion as a fact. In a debate, we should distinguish the two. I do this by presenting my opinion with short fore-statements such as "I believe that...." or "In my mind....." etc.

3) Avoid simple logical fallacies.

If a man with blue eyes committed a bank robbery, I don't think anyone would say: "This shows blue eyed people are bank robbers". Yet so many people would say, for example: "Two party xyz members were arrested for robbery. This shows us the sort of people who support xyz". Such sweeping statements are a particularly prominent issue in Thai politics at the moment.
Statements like this can only be justified if the number of people committing the act are above a statistical average.

For a useful list of logical fallacies, consult:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

or

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

3) Stay on topic and don't award things to yourself.

Whenever I read or hear people say: "I beat you and ruined your argument" etc. I know it's a sure sign that they could not find anyone else to do it for them. It also strikes me - and I suspect, most people - as juvenile. Likewise, when people asses their own intelligence, I find it to be an almost certain sign of insecurity.

4) Don't be aggressive by nature

While it's natural that some debates will become heated, try to avoid them becoming personal slanging matches. In my experience, debates are more enjoyable and beneficial when they are done civilly. When criticisms become personal, it is human nature to become defensive and reluctant to consider the opposing opinion. This can only deter us from the truth.

5) Stay focused but also go with the flow.

One tactic for someone losing a debate is for them to change the subject. I recall one debate I had concerning ex Southampton FC manager Dave Jones and his criminal charges of child abuse. My opponent stated his guilt, I pointed to his total acquittal in court. My opponent responded: "But look how badly Wolves have been doing since he took over!". This is a total non-sequitur of course, but such tactics can work against younger people in particular.

So stay on topic but also be aware that debates can naturally lead into different topics, which is a good thing.

6) Keep to your own style, but also be versatile.

We naturally adjust our body language or manner to match another person. In a debate, a strong personality can use this to take you out of your comfort zone. For example, they may talk quickly or suddenly become aggressive in their tone. It's actually a similar tactic to a salesman who quickly thrusts out his hand for you to shake. It makes you feel committed or awkward and therefore makes you vulnerable.
To avoid this, simply make a conscious decision to keep to your own pace or manner. However, be prepared to change your manner or style when need be. For example, I know one blogger who can become lighthearted when criticised, serious when dealing with an important topic and calm when offering opinions. It sounds simple, but sometimes it isn't.

7) Don't be afraid to concede or compromise.

Above all of course, we should remember that every debate should have a purpose - even if that purpose is just fun - and should be beneficial. If it descends into a row or 'flame war' then don't be afraid of just 'walking' away. Nobody worthwhile is going to think less of you. Don't be afraid to concede either. After all, debates are for increasing our knowledge and understanding.

So these are my ideas. They are not ideas to I manage to stick to at all times and they are by no means extensive. I invite others to offer further ideas and suggestions.

Two excellent debates I have seen or heard recently:

Hitchens Vs Hitchens on Religion and the Iraq war:
http://tinyurl.com/d2jvlh

Dawkins Vs Lennox on religion:
http://tinyurl.com/d5cjmw

Pledge to PETA

2009-04-28T23:48:00.000-07:00

PETA are at it again. According to local papers, the group have been protesting against zoos and telling people not to visit them. Not just certain zoos, you understand. Not just zoos that don't allow sufficient space to the animals or don't feed them enough. No, PETA just want to stop you visiting any zoos, period.

I've written two blogs about PETA in two other places. I explained why I thought the group were extremists (via a long selection of quotes) , violent (explaining how a convicted arsonist is on their payroll) and hypocrites (a prominent member had her life saved by animal testing).

The response was remarkable, not only did I get several abusive comments on my blog but for the first time, I got private emails offering me abuse. I've never had that reaction before or since. To surf the internet looking for people who disagree with your view and sending them emails full of abuse strikes me as the behaviour of an irrational extremist.

Now don't get me wrong, I know animals have rights. I know we should investigate claims of cruelty to animals, I know we should respect all human life. But PETA don't think like this. PETA prefer college students to drink alcohol rather than milk, they want to assault and abuse anyone who dares to differ with them, they want to cause offence simply for the sake of making their opinions noticed, they have no ability to do so in any other form.

I have always said the best response to PETA is to laugh at them and walk into KFC. But since their fascism seems so persistent, I will take inspiration from Peter Hitchens, who pledges to pend more time condemning the BNP each time their members post message son his blog. From now on, each time a PETA member sends me an abusive or hysterical email, P pledge to go out and eat meat. It might be bacon from the supermarket, pork from the market or a slap up Big Mac at McD's but I promise I will do it and I promise I will down every last bit of my meal, all in honor of our paint throwing, arsonist supporting, fascist dictating hypocrite chums.

Have a nice day, PETA people.

Bye bye Britannia

2009-04-19T05:35:00.000-07:00

So what is the big deal concerning the removal of Britannia from our new currency system? After all, it's just a picture on a coin right? Actually there are many things wrong with it, we just need to look at the bigger picture.

The cultural and historical identity of Britain has been under attack for some time. School curriculums are far keener to teach appreciation and respect for non-Christian religions and cultures than British History. Reports of schools and local community centres "banning" traditional festivals or holidays - often in favour of a more "multicultural" celebration - are so widespread and frequent, they rarely make new headlines any more.

The attack is not confined to the present day.The National Maritime Museum in Greenwich - our leading maritime museum - declared in 1999 that the Nelson display was "old fashioned". The display - dedicated to educating viewers about our supremacy on the sea - was replaced by a display depicting British supremacy from "the view of the colonised".

In 1993, Britain's top four museums were told they must increase both their visitor numbers of, and projects focused on, ethnic minority groups or lose government funding.

Many other examples exist of the war of attrition against our cultural identity. The reasons for the assault are varied, but foremost amongst them is Britain's membership of the EU.

Ever since our political elite entered us into the EU in the 1960s (it was disguised back then as the "common market") they have been hellbent on pushing through with all reforms and legislation necessary to keep themselves at the top. But there was a problem: the British are a cynical bunch by nature, and shared a healthy distrust at the idea of ministers from Spain, Belgium and France creating laws over England. That cynicism was picked up by Margaret Thatcher who rightly expressed reluctance to surrender the pound sterling or the sovereignty of Parliament.

So the descendants of Thatcher developed another approach. Slowly but surely, they started to chip away at the defences of the British. Whilst making noises about referendums and retaining sovereignty, they engaged in a policy of creeping normalisation. The Human Rights Act, the Maastricht treaty and the constitutional treaty were all signed away. Each contract taking us one step closer, each deal designed to be secretive, purposely too tortuous and complex for Joe Public to understand what was happening. It was, and is, the classic 'boiling frog' method of manoeuvre.

There was a related problem for our politicians : the union. England shares many ties with Wales and Scotland, but the latter two are happy to join the EU as it will bring greater recognition and finances to their cause. The English however, have little to gain from such a deal. The solution? Erode any sense of 'Britishness' or 'Englishness'. "English' is already a hated term by politicians - you will never hear Gordon Brown use it to describe a person - because it implies a distinct ethnic identity, and therefore risks racial alienation of British citizens. But now 'Britishness' is also under attack, and the establishment will pull off all the Orwellian tricks they can to erode it. Removing Britannia from our coins is just the first step.

Yes, we are told the older 50p coins will remain in circulation. That is, of course, until the Euro is forced upon us. Indeed, one might even question why the treasury are bothering to pay for production of new coins when we all know they plan to kill our currency ASAP. The answer is simple - it takes us back yet again to the frog in the boiling pan - it's a gentle shake up to warm us up for the big change that will hit us in the future.

We're told Britannia may return on two pound coins, We're told this change is no big deal. But we are given these assurances by the same people who told us we would be given a referendum on EU membership. The same elite who promised us the Lisbon Treaty really, truly, was not a constitution. The same cretins who promised us the Irish "no" vote to that treaty would be respected. The same motley crew that have absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain from surreptitious removal of any symbol of resistance or common identity that could inspire British citizens of any class or ethnicity to object to EU rule. It may start with the removal of a 50p coin, but it most certainly will not stop there.

More on the monarchy

2009-04-16T23:44:00.000-07:00

This week I spent a little time on the UK Debate forum and participated in a debate on the monarchy. Sadly it descended - as so many debates do when people have a PC to hide behind - into name calling, shouting and playground style decelerations of self victory.

As usual when discussing our the British system of rule, I challenged anyone to name me a country that has enjoyed a longer system of stability without civil war, mutiny or coup. My opponent could only manage the micro state of San Marino (all twenty thousand or so of them) as a country with longer stability (not including their rule by fascists last century apparently) and as proof of the instability under our monarchy he managed the uprising by a few hundred people over one hundred and fifty years ago, as though any nation of millions of people could sit for centuries without a single incident. An incident of twenty deaths, while tragic, hardly approaches a threat to our constitution does it? Still, my opponent was not even aware that we had a constitution so perhaps my question was unfair.

One worthwhile point was raised though - the ongoing unrest on Irish shores. Putting aside the fact that Ireland is not our monarchy's or government's country of origin, and also forgetting that many of the problems in Ireland stem from the days of Cromwell ("Cromwell" is used in Ireland as a swear word), it is fair to say that British involvement in Ireland has been mutually destructive. One of the few true achievements of Tony Blair was to instigate peace agreements that appear to be holding together. Certainly though, Ireland has never slipped anywhere near civil war since the divide, despite the tragic events that have occurred.

My other challenge in these debates is to ask anyone to state which system they think wold be better for the UK and why. My opponent this time, not to be out done in his ignorance of our constitution (he also thought that our empire was still in its seventeenth century state) claimed that the Swiss "direct democracy" system was an "alternative", apparently not understanding the difference between a head of state and an electoral system.

There is no reason whatsoever why the UK could not use more involvement in its democracy and indeed, this is exactly what Popular Alliance want. The party pledge a referendum on issues such as EU membership and the death penalty and any other issues that are emotive and important.

Anyway, don't get me wrong. I' not some arch-royalist that bows to y toes when Her majesty appears on TV, I'm simply a realist. I've lived in other countries with other systems of rule (my opponent's sensitivity began to get the better of him and he called the entire nation of Thailand 'stupid' at one point) and seen the pros and cons. I've learned to appreciate what many Brits take fro granted and I'm all the better for it.

There's no perfect system of rule because there are no perfect people. But the day that we throw away centuries of relative safety and stability and history for the "improvement" of president Blair and PM Cherie will be a sad one indeed.

Some good books I've read lately

2009-04-12T18:42:00.000-07:00

Andrew Marr: A history of Modern Britain

Andrew Marr is a writer for the Daily Telegraph and his experience as a journalist shines through here. Not just because of the amount of detail involved in his commentary of post-war Britain - though that is thick enough - but simply in the fluency and lucidity of his work. Whilst many history books seem to naturally fall into disjointed sections - as though history could be chopped into small, disconnected pieces - Marr seems to effortlessly take the reader on a non-stop, six hundred page journey through time. It starts with Clement Atlee and Labour's ambitious, almost innocent, plans for a new nation through the return of Churchill for the last stand of the true Conservatives and onto the great depression, the massive impact of Margaret Thatcher and all that came after.

It's politically as neutral as possible and all the better for it. A great read for anyone remotely interested in learning more about modern Britain.

The Portable Atheist - edited by Christopher Hitchens

In this book, Chris Hitchens presents a wide selection of writings by atheists. This includes a mix that runs from Karl Marx all the way to Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. Each piece is readable as a stand alone chapter and that does indeed make the book portable. However, now that I have read several works by Christopher Hitchens, I'm starting to find his pomp and unassailable arrogance a little overbearing. This book is no exception, since Hitchens writes his own introduction for each section. No doubt this collection of literary blasphemy is valuable and enlightening, yet somehow it made me want to take a break from Chris' work and read some of the more down to earth yet equally informed works of his younger brother.

Londinistan - Melanie Phillips

Phillips is a writer for the Daily Mail and is Jewish. I mention her ethnicity simply because it's clearly so important and influential to her. Throughout this book Melanie presents a polemic yet often highly convincing argument for the dangers of Islamic growth in the UK. Apart from detailing important incidents, Phillips also presents her opinions on the causes of Islamic terrorism in Europe by covering the growth of individualism in Britain combined with post-war guilt and a rise in political correctness.

She also donates a lot of space to linking the Israel-Palestine conflict to our domestic situation and the antisemitic rhetoric of several key Muslim leaders, which does indeed make for shocking reading.

Although Phillips and I have similar views on many issues she covers in her book, I did not find her arguments convincing at all times, most notably when she argues that Israel is an innocent party in the Zionist conflict. Phillips is at her most convincing and informative when discussing domestic issues such as the rise of home grown terrorism. A very interesting and readable book.

Why support a small party like Popular Alliance?

2009-03-03T05:21:00.000-08:00

People often ask me what the point is in supporting a small party like Popular Alliance. After all, we're never going to get into power right? What can such a small party do against the big three or even UKIP?

Fair points, but easily answerable. The most obvious response to these criticisms is that a person's allegiance is worth little if it is not based on principle. I have never voted for a party just because I thought they would win an election (though I did vote Labour for Blair's first election) but because I supported and agreed with their ideas. If we all want to vote for a party based purely on their odds, then we may as well scrap every party except Labour and Tory right now.

However there is a stronger, more compelling reason to join a party like Popular Alliance: it's the only way to truly reform the system. No I don't mean 'reform' in some sinister, ultra radical, Communist way. I simply mean clearing all the corrupt, disloyal, insincere politicians out of Parliament.

Let's face it, there is little to no ideological difference between the big parties anymore. Imagine Boris Johnson switching to Labour or John Denham joining the Lib Dems, it's not atall difficlult is it? What this means is that each of these groups is under the grip of the same lobbyists, the same money politics and will behave the same way.

The only cure for this is to form a party from the ground up. A party that is built on solidarity and a need for change and, most of all, from people with principle. There is no shortcut to this, because trying to find one would mean going begging to the kinds of people we have just talked about.

And small parties can make a difference. Many councils in the UK have resident's associations on their board. Small parties in parliament can often tip the vote on big decisions. Labour (the old one) was formed by working people. It can be done.

So while it is unlikely you will see us - or any other minor party - running the country anytime soon, it's still, in my opinion, a crucial job we are doing in laying the foundations for a party to grown and strengthen in the future. Still, the clock is ticking for the UK and we need all the support we can have, so get involved!

Christmas time

2008-12-24T16:45:00.000-08:00

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.

2008-12-01T03:03:00.001-08:00

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

2008-10-08T07:15:00.001-07:00

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

2008-09-24T05:56:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-22T04:53:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-16T02:10:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-09-13T07:19:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-02T08:13:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-27T06:09:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-08-24T03:26:00.001-07:00

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

2008-08-23T07:13:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-08-22T07:27:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-20T08:20:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-19T01:26:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-18T08:04:00.000-07:00

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.