Immigration: Tories Need To Listen More

One of the latest YouGov polls has indicated that people are not satisfied with the Conservatives' stance on immigration.
A sample of 1,225 voters taken in Yorkshire and Humberside (on January 12th) reveals that when asked if the Conservatives "are listening to people on immigration", only 16% agreed, and a majority 40% disagreed. Furthermore, when asked if the Conservatives should "take a tougher stance on immigration", 62% agreed with only 15% disagreeing.

Of course, we cannot eliminate the fact that perhaps some members of the sample were Labour supporters, and hence stated that the Conservatives should tackle immigration more so they would lose alot of support from the "anti-racist" proletariat.....but then again, considering Yorkshire has a large Conservative majority, we could probably say that these stats are around 70% accurate.
Either way you look at them, i think Cameron may want to take note that his party support seems to be indicating that a tougher policy on immigration is required within his manifesto. Fair enough Cameron is trying to achieve Labour support at the same time, but the Conservatives have always stood for controlling the British borders, so in the light of these survey results, it would be stupid for Cameron to ignore these demands, especially at such a critical time where immigration seems out of control within Britain.

Gunpowder, Treason and Guido

I don't usually comment on issues like this, but it appears that Guido has finally got whats coming to him (shown here). Although i dont personally agree with the content of language used towards him, i cant help but feel that perhaps he is now swallowing a taste of his own medicine.

YouGov: "Things Are Only To Get Worse"

From viewing YouGov's most recent survey on a sample of 1918 people (a very small sample one must say).....a majority of Britains believe that Britain is a much worse place than what it was 5 years to go, and yes, you guessed it, its only going to get worse.

When asked "Do you think Britain is a better or worse place to live in than five years ago", the responses stated that:

• 11% feel it is better
• 62% said it was worse
• [25% said it was about the same]

Furthermore, when asked if they "believed Britain would be a better or worse place to live in 5 years time":

• 11% said it would be better
• 53% said it would be worse
• [25% said it would about the same]

Fair enough that it was only a small sample taken, but i myself also believe that Britain will decline both politically and economically over the next five years.
What is also interesting is that on the same poll, Britons were asked which country they most admired in the world, with a staggering 32% claiming Australia/New Zealand (with Canada trailing right behind with 11%). This should be a useful tool for the government. We have all heard about Australia's lower tax rates, reduced immigration and increased wage rates, so perhaps if we adopted a simular approach to our politics, the future wouldn't look so bleak for Britain.

Cameron here, Cameron there...

The BBC has published an article today questioning where Cameron's political allegiances really are, and although i never take anything the BBC says at face value, i do wonder myself where Cameron is basing his political support. Does he go Thatcherite all the way (and lose the Labour support he could possibly attain), or stay on both sides of the fence and be known as a political appeaser? Difficult one...so it will be interesting to see which one he chooses in the future.

Tory this....Labour that. Which side is Cameron on?

The Daily Politics Show......Bias

When i found out that the Daily Politics Show were doing a poll on the countries greatest political hero, i couldnt help feeling that it was obviously going to bias. As it so happened, my theory was bound to be proven soon enough, due to the final competitors battling for the title, being our very own Margaret Thatcher, and the far left winger, Tony Benn.
For some reason (still unknown to me), i decided to write in the comments box beneath the poll, claiming that the results were bound to be bias in favour of Benn because of his left wing stance. However, i didn't expect the comment to escalate into a full debate with myself, and the Daily Politics show's deputy editor, Mr.Gareth Butler. A copy of the debate is shown below:

James Skinner: Considering this is being held as part of the BBC, im gonna go out on a limb and say Tony Benn will win. Did someone say bias?

Gareth Butler: It isn't being held 'as part of the BBC'. It's a vote by viewers and users of our website. Of course, there's nothing to stop supporters of any of the candidates voting multiple times or circulating sympathetic blogs trying to whip up votes - I know that both Thatcher and Salmond camps have done just that, and I'd be very surprised if the Bennites didn't do the same.
Presumably the Hutton Report passed you by entirely. In case you hadn't noticed, relations between No10 and the BBC have not been particularly friendly in recent years. On the other hand, I understand users of Iain Dale's Conservative blog have just voted the Politics Show their favourite political programme - so we must be doing something right.


JS: You must be forgetting the incident that occured with the BBC back in May 2005, where the BBC personally assigned 3 people to heckle Michael Howard during an election speech. Doesn't sound like the BBC is very independant to me.


GB: If I remember rightly, that was a stunt for a BBC3 programme about heckling or something. It was certainly not a news programme.


JS: Still goes to show what a bias organisation the BBC is though. Then again, what do you expect for a broadcast network that is owned and funded by the government? Obviously its programmes are going to be bias in favour of Labour.......with the politics show being no different.

GB: You are quite wrong. We have excellent relations with the Conservative Party. Occasionally we get a complaint from them, just as we do from the other parties. Sometimes they have a point; mostly they don't. There really never has been an issue of bias concerning the Politics Show.


JS: But what i am saying is that the BBC has shown to be tied around Blairs little finger (as most of the nation will agree), so quite blatently, the politics show (being broadcast on the BBC) is going to be bias against the conservative party as well. You may have excellent relations with them, but that doesnt mean to say you dont favour the interests of the Labour government more.


GB: The BBC has not been shown to be anything of the sort; and opinion poll evidence suggests that a large majority of the population believe the BBC is fair and impartial. Since you clearly cannot produce any evidence for your accusations, I don't propose to continue this exchange.


Despite we had differing opinions, i did enjoy listening to Gareth's point of view regarding the BBC. In my opinion however, i hope he one day realises the spin and pro-labour broadcasting that the BBC is guilty of promoting.

Im Sorry Mr.Blair?

Its been quite a popular issue in the news recently......that being Tony Blair's opinions to the execution of Saddam Hussein.
Finally, he has broadcast his opinion of the penalty as "completely wrong", and that his execution should not excuse the crimes he committed.
Personally however, i wish Tony Blair would just swallow his pathetic hypocracy. He drags along with George.W.Bush's every will, claiming that he wants Iraq to reap the benefits of democracy, but as soon as Iraq achieves its democratic independance, he feels he has the superiority to criticise their political decisions. Yes Tony, im sure Iraq is deeply sorry just because you say the death penalty is wrong, but at the end of the day, you gave them the power to make their own political decisions, so dont criticise them just because they practice a policy dissatisfactory to your dying ideologies.


You gave them the power, now deal with it...

Are we done for?

A few things have crossed my mind this week, mostly regarding the future of our very country. There are so many problems that exist for us (as shown below), that it becomes hard to believe that our future will remain secure. For instance:

• We have no written constitution, therefore we have no structure which to base our laws upon and deem certain laws "unconstitutional" for the best interests of the public.
• The House of Lords is practically useless, which gives parliament the ability to pass any law it wishes without secondary consent.
• We have a multi-cultural society, which even our own Prime Minister has admitted not to be working, because of factors such as "ghetto-isation" and cultural isolation.
• We have accepted far too many immigrants and asylum seekers over the past 50 years, that a future problem cannot be avoided.
• We are apart of the European Union; a group of countries who not only have no common interest or language, but who are only associated with us for their own self benefit.
• Our Health Service is declining each and every day, with job losses and ineffective spending, let alone rising cases of MRSA.
  
• Education standards are falling each year, with social engineering allowing unsuitable students to enter university courses that they are simply not skilled enough to handle.
• Our police force are hindered from carrying out their duties because of red tape and human rights laws.
• Our own government (and indeed the opposition) would rather lie and decieve to the public just to attain votes, rather than give the public the dignity of being told the truth.
• Laws such as the Anti-Terrorist Act and the Legislative/Regulatory Reform Bill now prohibit us from exercising natural rights that we used to hold.
• Our government seems obsessed with a Big Brother state, which infringes our natural rights as British citizens (such as ID cards).
• There is no unity for a Great Britain anymore, just devolution and seperatism.

I could easily go on, but i hope i have made my point clear. I personally dont think that Britain has a future......and political bloggers such as myself are debating a lost cause. Perhaps its time we should seriously start to consider this very prospect, otherwise, we are all residing on a time bomb known as the UK.


Does Britain really have a future?

EXCLUSIVE: Iran and Syria are next

The other night, I was fortunate enough to be invited to a friend’s apartment to watch a couple of movies with a few friends. What was most eventful about this evening however, was that one of the people who resided at this apartment was a native of Palestine, and had witnessed many incidents throughout the conflict between Israel and his country.

Of course, the night was good fun, but I couldn't help myself asking the Palestinian about his experiences in Israel. So naturally, be began talking about the situation (discussing America's involvement also), and by the time I thought we had talked about every detail possible, he showed me what appeared to be a 74 page document. Little did I know that this document was not supposed to be read by the public, as it was for political use within the White House only, and to my surprise, it was a detailed description of how the alliance between Israel and America is influencing wars in the Middle-East more than we know.

For example, the war in Iraq did not begin (mainly) because of the search of nuclear weapons...it began due to Israel's demand for the US to overthrow Saddam. Why? Because during the gulf war (1990-1991) Saddam was the only Arab leader to launch missile attacks against Israel...and as a result, it appears the Israeli’s want their fellow allies to occupy Iraq to limit the hostilities made towards them (especially now by Iran and Syria). Today, the US occupies Iraq.....tomorrow, the US will occupy Iran (and eventually Syria), to prevent any further conflict towards Israel, and in doing so, they will make every excuse possible to justify their actions.

The bottom line is though, is that Israel has America's foreign policy wrapped round its little finger......and in the end, both achieve the benefits. Israel will have no more hostilities from surrounding Arab countries, and America will benefit from the vast quantities of oil that the Middle-East has to offer. Not a bad outcome for a corrupt bargain.

So here I state my bets: For now, it is Iraq. Then Iran, then Syria, then Lebanon. It will be interesting to see if this comes true in the near future.

How much of America's forgeign policy is influenced by Israel?

Should smokers receive a second class health service?

Of course, we hear a lot about this very issue, and it has also come up quite a bit in American politics recently too……should smokers, the obese and alcoholics receive a lower class health service?

The argument is that those who choose to self inflict health problems upon themselves should not be entitled to the full health benefits of non-smokers/alcoholics within the UK. Hence, those who look after themselves will receive the rewards in the long run (a first class health service with full benefits), and as a result, by spending less on smokers and the obese, the health service will be able to keep hold of more revenue for its expenditure needs.

From what I have gathered, there is about a 50/50 split between this issue (in Connecticut anyway), but I myself have taken a longer time to come to a conclusion, because both sides of this argument seem to have their strong points.

Say Britain was to give smokers a lower standard health service…this would be beneficial in some cases, because when we think about it, health problems of smokers and alcoholics are self-inflicted. They know the dangers of what they are doing, and if they choose to ignore the risks, it is no ones fault but their own. Therefore, the health service should not spend as much on these people, and preserve its funds for those who choose to take care of themselves.

However, we also have to consider that like myself and majority of the British public, smokers and alcoholics contribute to the NHS through taxes, and as a result, should be entitled to receive full health benefits due to their contribution. If someone has contributed equally to a service, surely they deserve to reap the rewards from it when the time arises?

In my personal opinion however, by reviewing both sides of these arguments, I think I eventually favour the latter option; that smokers, the obese and alcoholics should receive full benefit from the NHS.

Why you may ask? Because to me, if everyone equally contributes to something, then everyone (regardless of their health issues) deserves equal reward from such an investment. The argument that they are fully aware of the risks they are taking does not really persuade my opinion that much. Of course, a smoker will know that they run the risk of cancer, but at the same time, a sports athlete (especially of a professional nature) will know that he runs the risk of broken bones, torn ligaments, and even paralysis. This does not mean however, that a sports athlete should be given a second rate health service, just because he might endure a bad tackle.

Of course, I know that there will always be differing opinions to this issue, but personally, everyone runs risks in their daily lives...and just because personal health may deteriote to such risks, it doesn't mean certain members of the public deserve an NHS lower than the average standard.

Should self-inflicted illnesses deserve a second class health service?

Multi-culturalism Does Not Work

No doubt I will get some complaints from this post as being either racist or xenophobic, but still, I strongly stand by this belief, and that is, multiculturalism in Britain simply does not work. It never has worked in the UK, and quite frankly, it never will work within the Great British Isles.

Believe me, it is quite upsetting to admit this fact, but the conclusion is staring everyone in the face…that people from other nationalities/cultures can not establish co-operation and collaboration within one singular country, especially a country as small as the UK.

When we think about it, the poor state of our immigration laws have demonstrated this significantly. The more migrants that arrive here each day, the more angered the British majority seems to become, because truthfully, we know that 2 conflicting cultural backgrounds will never see eye to eye within society. It’s common sense to state that a foreign migrant (with cultural values of an Arabic country for example) will never except the British way of life, as it is natural for one to hold onto his/her traditions from their native country. The problem with this however, is that holding onto such values gives rise to isolation within society (with a perfect example of this being muslim women covered head to toe in black cloaks). The British public (whether psychologically or deliberately) will never accept this religious dress code as part of their way of life, and as a result, such women become isolated within society, only understood by those of the same religious backgrounds as them, and hence, leading to numerous cultures themselves isolated from what the British public deem normal.

This idea can also be seen on an international scale. Some may differ in their opinions to this, but overall, we can all accept that in general, the world simply does not get along. The chances are, France will always have a grudge against England, the Middle-East will always hate America, and Germany will never be forgiven (by most in Europe) for the genocide of World War II. And with that in mind, if populations on a scale such as this can not see eye to eye, how can we expect people within one, miniscule country to co-operate with all these cultural tensions and revulsions?

It was a nice thought, an idealistic dream if you will, but the conclusion is final and will always remain the same. Our differences will always outweigh the similarities we have with other nations and cultures, and consequently, Britain is doomed to hostility if multiculturalism ceases to exist.