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!
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
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.
Monday, December 1, 2008
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!
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!
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
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.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
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.
Monday, September 22, 2008
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)
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)
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
