..:: James.R.Skinner - South Wales (UK) ::..

Swine Flu - The Price of Immigration?

2009-07-07T19:41:00.004+01:00

ITN has reported another victim of the swine flu outbreak around Britain. A nine-year-old girl from Dewsbury has recently died from the virus while suffering from an epileptic fit.
Granted it is a tragic event to occur, but have we as a society really taken swine flu too far? After all, common winter flu affects (and kills) many more people during the December-February months, yet no media coverage is ever made of the significant number of deaths there.
Furthermore, Sky News has released data suggesting that Britain is one of the worst hit countries in the world to be affected by the H1N1 virus, but why? Seeing as everyone is too afraid to say it, i'll go out on a limb and state my opinion; too much immigration into our country perhaps? I personally doubt its lack of educating the masses, especially as the government has invested millions into educating the population with the "catch it, bin it, kill it" campaign, so really, i cannot see any other culprit but our slack border controls.

Britain Needs To Become The New USA

2009-06-25T17:15:00.004+01:00

America has its flaws of course, but its political & societal achievements far exceed our own, and we as a country need to be more like the US.
For example, their Constitution is actually written as an official document, and hence much more protected than our unwritten, conventional constitution. Their Bill of Rights is reflective of the protection of all citizens within the United States (unlike our Human Rights Act, which seems to solely benefit illegal immigrants, criminals, and the radical left who refuse to favour common-sense over political correctness). Their younger generation are taught the values of the “American Dream” and the importance of hard-work (unlike our younger generation, who realise that dole payments will sustain you for the rest of your life, without you having to lift a finger). And finally, their country is united under one, independent nation who are proud of their religious and nationalist roots (unlike our country, which is riddled with devolution, struggling under multi-culturalism, and governed by cowards who would rather surrender our independence to a country who, only 70 years ago, tried to wipe us from the face of the earth).

Yes, America may have corrupt politicians who sent us to war for no reason, but politicians can be easily changed...political ideologies however, cannot. We may rid ourselves of New Labour by the next election, but will it really make a difference? Even with Cameron at the reigns, our society will still suffer because of one simple problem...we lack the right political beliefs to make our country great again. Of course, we need the Conservatives to change our health service, we need the Conservatives to protect our borders, and we need the Conservatives to reform our education system...but fundamentally, we desperately need the Conservatives to instil the political ideologies of America. We need a written constitution so our rights cannot be infringed at will. We need to instil the importance of hard work within our younger generation, and we need to take pride in Britain and forget our divisions. Only then can we be the great country that we once were many years ago, and only then can we be the great country that is demonstrated by the United States.

Iran Violence - May It Continue...

2009-06-21T18:11:00.006+01:00

Yes, as much as i dislike violence, i do hope the protests within Iran continue. Sky News have released a video (also available on YouTube) of a blooded teenage girl, who was caught up in the latest protests and tragically killed.
It is a very sad sight, but a famous political theorist named John Locke once stated that violence was justified in overthrowing a corrupt political regime, and i agree with him. It was actually his theories that led to the American Revolution, and truthfully, if the supporters of Mousavi use the same violence back, i cannot say i would look at their actions with distaste.
Of course, we then have to consider that overthrowing the President would be the least of Iran's concerns, but for what it's worth, i feel this is a situation where the ends justify the means, and violence justifies democracy.

a6byw57kzn

Brown - "We will win"

2009-06-20T23:22:00.003+01:00

The News of the World has reported an ever-growing confidence from Gordon Brown. He stated that "it is because of my purpose in politics that I am determined to lead Labour to the next general election. We must and we will win".
Yet another lie i feel. If you're that confident Gordon, call the election that has been requested of you.

Two Seats Too Many?

2009-06-18T22:08:00.002+01:00

The British National Party taking 2 seats in the European Election is far from breaking news, but even now, you cannot escape the media coverage surrounding the issue. Everywhere you go, you hear of people's disgust at the North-West voting in such a "thug-like, racist" party with Nick Griffin as its leader and new MEP.
However, regardless of what anyone thinks, i am actually happy that they managed to achieve those seats...yes....H a p p y.
Why? Simple really...how long has it been since this government (or any government in fact) has put effective measures in place to limit the flow of illegal immigration and asylum applicants into this country? Even Enoch Powell claimed we needed drastic reform, and that was back in 1968! Yet, no government has been willing to tackle the issue for fear of being branded "racist" and "xenophobic", and in my opinion, that is one cowardly approach to adopt. It is an issue that this country drastically needs to address, and even though the public has requested it on countless occasions (including the past 12 years), nothing has been done. I dont blame the voters of Yorkshire or Humberside for voting in the far-right...i blame the cowards in parliament for not addressing the issue sooner. If they had the guts to stand up and reform our dismal immigration system sooner, then the BNP would not be in the position of power that they are in now, and until the government actually listens to the people for once, then Nick Griffin and his party will only gain more votes.
The people have had enough Mr.Brown. If you want to stop the far-right from advancing, stop complaining and finally do something about it.

Immigration: Tories Need To Listen More

2007-01-20T00:56:00.000Z

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

2007-01-18T03:16:00.000Z

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"

2007-01-17T21:56:00.000Z

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...

2007-01-15T20:33:00.000Z

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

2007-01-13T00:59:00.000Z

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?

2007-01-10T02:43:00.000Z

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?

2007-01-09T18:00:00.000Z

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

2007-01-08T04:11:00.000Z

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?

2007-01-06T21:12:00.000Z

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

2007-01-05T14:43:00.000Z

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.

Bob Piper.....Not Guilty

2006-12-12T01:14:00.000Z

I understand from my most recent check on the BBC News website (and also from Bob Pipers site), that old Mr.Piper is in a bit of trouble for promoting a black David Cameron and using offensive literature towards the black community (by using words such as "niggah").
Now i perfectly understand that both me and Mr.Piper have differed (very strongly) about political issues in the past, of which, can be shown by scrolling down the page to certain NHS articles, but because I strongly believe in upholding the individual rights of each British person (regardless of their political opinions)...i am going to side with the councillor on this one.
Although i am likely to be sounding like a Supreme Court Justice in the following sentences, i do feel that it is Mr.Pipers right to publish whatever he deems satisfactory on his personal website (in the best interests of freedom of the media). Granted, many people feel that this should not be the case because of the articles racially offensive content, but i myself do not believe Bob Piper to be racist. After all, using the word "niggah" is not an offensive slur. It is used by black people all over the world (especially where I am in the United States) as a mark of pride and respect for their cultural heritage. It is not an offensive remark, but a sign of pride used by blacks in all countries. If however Mr.Piper used the word "nigger" in his article, then i can completely understand the reasoning for an outcry, as this does demonstrate racism, but according to today's modern slang and literature, me must respect the fact that the words "niggah" (used by Bob Piper) and "nigger" mean two seperate entities in society.
Personally, i see nothing wrong with what Mr.Piper did. Although i disagree with his slanderous material at our party leader, this does not mean that he should be denied his right to freedom of media publication......especially as the article was published on his own, personal website.

Yet another Conservative Blunder

2006-11-08T17:30:00.000Z

A report by ConservativeHome.com and the BBC has confirmed that Peter Davies (father of Monmouthshire MP David Davies) has been blocked by the Welsh Conservative leader (Nick Bourne) from becoming an assembly candidate in the next elections.
Nick Bourne has asked the Welsh party chairman, Lyndon Jones, to remove him from the candidate list "immediately", because Mr.Davies expressed his personal views that the Welsh assembly should be abolished immediately:

[Abolition would] give us better government in Wales, including reduced hospital waiting lists, a higher standard of education and local government without interference from the Welsh Assembly Government.
The abolition of the national assembly would also have the additional advantage of preventing Britain being broken up into regions by the European Union so that the commissioners in Brussels can run our country in their undemocratic, inefficient, self-serving fashion".

All i can say is, how ridiculous can one leader of the Welsh Conservatives be? Firstly, i fail to see how it is fair that Peter Davies should be banned from the candidates list just for expressing his political viewpoint, after all, i dont exactly agree with Keneth Clarkes views on Europe, but you dont see me demanding his resignation as soon as possible.
And secondly, considering it is a Conservative trait to oppose the Welsh assembly (and devolution in general)...what exactly has Peter Davies done wrong?
Personally, all i see in this matter is Nick Bourne fearing the loss of his job if the assembly were to be abolished, and considering more than 75% of Wales are in support of its abolition, this could become a reality sooner or later for Bourne. All i can say to Bourne is: dont put your self interests at the expense of the party's.

Peter Davies: supportive of assembly abolition

100 Policies from Conservative Home

2006-11-07T19:39:00.000Z

As those of you who are familiar with ConservativeHome.com, you will know that they are running an excellent campaign into what the Conservative party could include within their next manifesto (from their supporters point of view).
So far, the campaign has had numerous suggestions regarding the police force, prison sentences and Europe, so with their campiagn ideals in mind, i decided to forward my ideas for a new system of government within the UK (which can be viewed within the link below).
Of course, im not really expecting much to occur from it, but if it atleast gets people thinking about the current inefficiencies of our government, then i suppose that would be one step forward.

(Link to Proposal)

Are They Really That Corrupt?

2006-11-02T23:42:00.000Z

Considering i heard about these proposals via email (within the USA), they did come as a bit of a shock to me.
Firstly, is the government seriously considering allowing inspectors into our homes (whether we permit them or not)?
Secondly, is the government seriously considering recording our bank details, and other information such as where we shop?
And last but not least, does Tony Blair honestly want everyone within Britain to be DNA tested for criminal records?
I know that im not the most liberal person in the world, but there is a point where government intervention (within our personal lives) becomes too excessive, and if the government are seriously considering these proposals, then they will have significantly over stepped the mark on peoples freedoms and liberties. I dont know if im the only British citizen to think that this is wrong, but i did not elect a collection of politicians to represent me in parliament, just so they can vote on restricting my freedoms within society. In addition (being brutally honest), if the British public are stupid enough in allowing these laws to pass straight over their heads (like they seem to have done with ID cards), then they are no better than those who deem it acceptable to take away our liberties within society itself. Like i've always said, our society can only go so far, before it can never be resuscitated.

How many more liberties are the public willing to let politicians take away from them?

If you live in our Country, you contribute to our Country

2006-10-12T01:49:00.000+01:00

Since I came out to the United States of America 2 months ago (for a year long course in Economics and Politics), I have learnt numerous things that would benefit our country (which I will post on this site over the next year or so). One of those policies, which I feel Britain most certainly (if not immediately) needs, is the implementation of an American style immigration system.
Currently, within the United Kingdom, if an individual/alien from a foreign country crosses our borders and intends to live within the United Kingdom, they are not required to hold any skills or economic contributions to our society. Instead, they are entitled to claim asylum and live on government benefits which cost the tax payer millions of pounds a year (Abu Hamza being a perfect example; currently attaining over $40,000 a year in unemployment/disability benefits). Still to this very day, this is something which new Labour refuse to tackle (despite it costs us an extortionate amount of money, and yet our NHS and public services are suffering as a consequence).
So it leads us to this question…if the British government cannot think of a way to solve this situation, who can? Well, the answer is the very country from which I am typing this post right now….America.
Under American legislation (referring to the citizenship of immigrants and dispatch of immigrant visa’s), no immigrant is allowed to enter the country unless they intend to seek full time employment within the economy, and in doing so, such full time work must be of relatively high demand by employers and businesses. The same situation also applies to America’s great northern neighbour, Canada…except in addition, all immigrants who wish to apply for permanent settlement must contribute a certain sum into the economy upon arrival (bearing at least a few thousand dollars).

To me, this seems the exact policy that our government needs to adopt within the United Kingdom. Our easy going immigration laws (and even more lenient benefit system) are the very reasons why we have a significant problem with asylum applications and illegal immigration today. Every person who I have spoke to in the United States so far cannot believe how we allow anybody and everybody into our country free of charge, with no requirements to apply for benefits, and allow our government to accommodate them at the British tax payers expense. In my opinion, if you want to live in our country, you contribute to our country, ie: Britain cannot afford any more payments for asylum claims on the scale it is currently enduring. Therefore, we need to adopt an American style (even Australian style) immigration system, whereby you can only apply for permanent residence if you have particular skills that are required for our economy, and intend to use those particular skills in full time employment. Indeed, those of you of the centre-left spectrum may disagree with this proposal, but inevitably, there is no doubt that this would eventually benefit the British public, and the UK economy itself.

America's Green Card System: a system which Britain needs to adopt?

UK Conservative in the United States

2006-07-18T11:54:00.001+01:00

Im afraid that, despite i said i would not be commenting on this blog anymore, the urge to document American politics in relation to Britain has become far too overwhelming!
As you may or may not know, i have been out in Connecticut for the past month or so, studying Constitutional Law and Economics (with minors in Theology and US History) as part of a scholarship i was awarded by the English Speaking Union.
I decided about 2 months ago that, because of the 3000 mile difference between the United States and Britain, i would not be posting anymore posts on this site, but after experiencing numerous American political ideologies over the past few weeks, i will most certainly be posting all that i learn in relation to Law and Politics, and how certain American policies can greatly benefit the Conservatives and the United Kingdom itself.
Believe me, from the countless stories and news reels that the Americans hear about Tony Blair and the Labour party in general, they would have voted our present government out long ago (either by vote or impeachment), mainly as a result of the corruption that Blair has shown during his time in power (undermining our country's right to freedom of speech, locking up citizens for exclaiming "none-sense" at Labour party conferences, e.t.c).
My studies out here will continue until July 2007, and during this time, I aim to comment on all political aspects that would greatly benefit our political system, courtesy of the United States, with my first post regarding how our Country needs a Constitution to protect our people from government corruption (as we have previously seen). I will be posting such articles in the near future, so keep checking for any updates....and i can assure you, alot of the policies that i have learnt about over here will most certainly be forwarded to David Cameron for review.

Numerous American policies would benefit our society

Yes......Britain IS run by Marxists

2006-06-16T11:08:00.000+01:00

A letter that was uncovered in the House of Common archives on 15/06/06 has come back to haunt Tony Blair this week, with the letter stating that he was an enthusiastic admirer of Karl Marx (the founder of Communism).
The letter (written over 24 years ago) is written by Blair to socialist politician Michael Foot, urging him to adopt radical Left-Wing policies and not to become a "prisoner of the right". A few captions have been listed below explaining the content of this letter, written on July 28th, 1982. Tony Blair wrote:

"Like many middle-class people, i came to Socialism through Marxism...I found it illuminating in so many ways".
"We [the Labour Party] have a constitution and we have firm principles on which that constitution is founded" (ie: renationalisation).
"Socialism ultimately must appeal to the better minds of the people".
"In a party of the Left there should always be room for differences of opinion".

Blair also wrote about how the Labour party should adopt "radical, socialist policies", and how Karl Marx himself had "irreversibly alerted" his views on society.

Now, with this letter in mind, not only am i deeply concerned about our Prime-Ministers political roots and beliefs, but im also concerned about how he has changed his mind again and again just to appeal to the British public.
Despite his support for Marx in his letter, he was actually quoted a few weeks later saying he rejected Marxism because he found it "stifling". In addition, in 1981, Blair stated that he admired Margaret Thatcher, but later accused her of "rigid populism" and "economic madness" in the letter a year later.
So much for the old "Dave the Chameleon" campaign criticising him of "flip-flopping" between policies I guess.
Even former Labour minister Peter Kilfoyle said that Mr.Blair:
"...has carried his journey all the way across the political spectrum. I wonder where he will go next"?

So, not only does it seem that we have a Prime-Minister who has communist roots (and potentially might still do)...but we also have a Prime-Minister who merely changes his political opinion just to suit his popularity needs with the British public (something which he criticised David Cameron for doing in the local election campaign on May 2006).

Chris Palmer (another political blogger) has frequently written about the far left within British politics, disguising themselves as Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party. At first, i always thought that perhaps he was exaggerating such a theory, but when this letter is brought to the House of Commons (potentially next week in PMQT), it may be the case that his theories were not so radical after all. Either way, the possibility also arises that British political thought could now change towards "New Labour"...and you never know, we may even see a general election fought like that in 1924 (with the Conservatives versus the Pro-Soviet Labour Party under Ramsay MacDonald).
So much for a "new, modernised" Labour party i guess!

Blair: New Labour Politician or Marxist enthusiast?

What about OUR human rights?

2006-05-19T16:58:00.000+01:00

Whilst watching "Question Time?" last night in Cantebury, the issue of Human Rights was asked by one member of the public, concerning foreigners who had committed crimes within the UK and were due to be deported back to their country of origin.
As im sure you can respect, i was most supportive of such a notion, but the question also emerged concerning those criminals who fled to this country fleeing from persecution in their home lands. Should we deport them back to such places?
Now most of the panel (including Simon Hughes and Ken Clarke) were not supportive of this measure because it would "affect their Human Rights", but myself on the other hand...I could not be more in favour of deporting a foreign criminal out of the UK.
In my opinion, those foreigners who commit crimes in the UK have already forfeited their Human Rights, especially if they have committed murder, rape, assult, e.t.c.
It has always been my belief that the number one responsibility of any government is to protect the people, and to protect the people, you have to do whats best in our interests, and not whats best for those who have no regards for our safety (or our country) whatsoever.
One man in the audience actually summed it up very well, stating "why are we so concerned about protecting their human rights? What about protecting our human rights"?.......couldnt have said it better myself.
But then, you do get the minute few who would rather see a foreign criminal kept here at our own expense, such as one woman (who seemed rather irrate at the gentlemans remarks) claiming "How can you say that about them.....they are still human.....they are still people"?
Im afraid not madame.......in my opinion...i regard anyone who endangers the lives of my fellow citizens as anything but human. This government gets so wound up about protecting foreign criminals human rights that it completely forgets to protect the human rights of its own people, and you dont have to be a genious to see that something is wrong with that.
But then the question still remains of where do you deport them? Well...in my opinion......as long as its not in Britain...i couldnt care less. Im not saying that we should deport them back to their domestic country (after all, two wrongs dont make a right), but none-the-less, as long as they are outside of our British borders, they are not my case to worry about. If you want to endanger our lives, you pay the consequences......deportation.
But then, saying that, you still have to ask yourself the question of "Why are they here in the first place"? After all, the European legislation towards asylum and immigration states that asylum seekers (fleeing from persecution in thier home country's) must claim asylum at the nearest, safest country to their domestic persecution........but since when did Britain become the nearest safe-haven for these people?

Should we deport foreign criminals back to their home countries?

The Da Vinci Code

2006-05-18T20:22:00.000+01:00

I dont usually comment on recently released films, but after reading an article posted by Boris Johnson MP on the Da Vinci Code, i thought i might as well give my point of view towards the film (especially as im a confirmed Christian).
In all truth, i can understand why the Catholic church is fearing its release, after all, surveys show that over 60% of the adult population in Britain believe it to be true (which according to old Boris here, is about 7 million people in this country).
But being a Christian, most people would expect me to be completely against this book by author Dan Brown, believing that not only is it blasphemous, but also mocks the Catholic church by claiming that they have covered up the descendants of Christ who are supposingly living in France........not true.
In fact, when i have the time, the chances are that i will be visiting my nearest cinema in Newport (most likely with my girlfriend) and viewing this film which is supposed to be one of the best films of all time. Dont get me wrong, i cant exactly say that i agree with Dan Browns argument, i dont even believe that Jesus married Mary Magdalene (let alone had a child/children)...but then again, i also consider that Dan Brown (like the rest of us) is only human, and therefore (like most Christians in the world) conjure their own opinions to the meaning of the bible.
And im one of them. There are many situations in my life where i dont fully agree with the bible, such as its belief that all spiritual mediums are contradictory to God. Call me crazy, but i dont agree with this at all, as i regularly visit my family medium for advice and guidance in life, even though the bible forbids this...and i think its also the same with Dan Brown.
He may have his different opinions on the New Testament, but we cant judge him as being any less of a Christian as us......it is un-Christian to do that in the first place!
He may have created a best-selling book, which may have turned into one hell of a film, but lets not get carried away with this. It doesnt mean that his story must be added to the gospel...it simply means that, like most us, Dan Brown has differing opinions about the bible, and it is up to us whether we choose to believe it.

Does Dan Brown's book pose a threat to the Catholic Church and Christian beliefs world-wide?

The NHS Recession

2006-05-17T12:04:00.000+01:00

As many of you may or may not know, i was recently forwarded to Cardiff University hospital on May 15th to have an inguinal hernia repaired (of which, is quite a serious proceedure and involves a long recovery time afterwards).
Despite the difficulty of this operation however, i was more than pleased with the turn-out of the surgery. The surgeons had done a fantastic job, and whilst staying in the ward over night, the staff were more than happy to give me the support and medical advice that i needed.
But even though the nurses were working day and night to make their patients as comfortable as possible, i was told by one student nurse named Kerry, that many of them were fearing job losses because of the NHS being several million pounds in debt, with excessive spending resulting in very little productive output.
Cardiff has not seen any job losses yet, but with its estimated £9 million short-fall, nurses are fearing job losses could soon be on the way (especially as the Royal College of Nursing has recently predicted over 7000 job cuts in the upcoming months).
But yet...our health secretary has the nerve to turn around and say that the NHS has experienced "its best year ever"!
Many of these nurses (including those who attended me) do a fantastic job looking after patients and keeping their wards on track...why should they have their jobs at risk because one socialist government can not utilise its spending plans accordingly?
Whats even worse is that these job cuts are set to only get worse, because as more and more worthless spending goes into the NHS, the more into debt that it becomes, with more job losses around the corner.
The most irritating part of this whole situation however, is that those nurses (in Cardiff University hospital and nationwide), who do fantastic work, may not even be there next year.......so much for Labour's promises of job security. Cheers Patricia.

How many more job losses will the NHS endure in the upcoming months?

Flat Tax: Conservative Economic Reform

2006-05-06T13:43:00.000+01:00

Should Britain adopt the Flat Tax system? Click here to find out and read the interview I had with leading British economist, Professor Patrick Minford (CBE).

Important Note: You can now access this site through a new website address at:

www.conservatives.co.nr

Dave the chameleon...Tony the Weasel

2006-03-20T20:27:00.000Z

For those of us who saw the Labour party election broadcast on Tuesday 18th April, im sure you will agree with me when i say...what an absolute load of sleaze!
Even for the Labour party, i expected their election broadcast to be slightly more respectable than what they actually produced. If i didn't know any better, i honestly would have thought that "The Sun" newspaper had started their own political party, and that election broadcast was the product of their own doing.
I was quite pleased however to hear that the broadcast itself has actually backfired on Labour, as backbench MP's have called it "ill-judged and counter-productive" especially at a time when public confidence has been badly affected by recent expenditure shortages in the NHS.
But what this broadcast does show however is that Labour are running out of positive things to say to the public, and as a last resort, they can only turn their firing lines towards the Conservative leader. Even as David Cameron commented: "Labour are clearly showing that they have run out of steam, run out of ideas, run out of positive things to contribute either at the local level or the national level..."*
Did anyone in the Labour party actually think that not only is their chameleon campaign counter-productive, but it's also giving Cameron the exact focus and prominence which he needs? Obviously not...but im not complaining.
But then, you still get the odd Labour MP who finds humour in the campaign, Local Government Minister Phil Woolas being one of them, stating: "Well......it is funny"! Apparently not Phil.
Further more, despite the opposition from Labour backbenchers to the misjudged broadcast, Labour Ministers are still hooked on the idea that "Dave the chameleon" will be a huge hit on a national level. All i can say to that is......good luck with that, your gonna need it.

* Source: The Daily Mail 19/04/06

A Broadcast with opposite effects?

You cant say that...its racist!

2006-03-08T08:59:00.000Z

I hear about issues where political correctness has gone to the extremes every day, and usually i just grit my teeth and bare it...but after hearing of a new situation in both the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, this is one PC measure that i just cant come to terms with.
Much publicity has been made over the past week about the famous nursery rhyme "Baa Baa Black Sheep", and how it has fallen victim to political extremists, stating that the rhyme is "racist" and will now be taught to nursery school children as "Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep"!
It was all started by the Sure Start Centre in Oxfordshire; the chairman of whom stating that:
"No one should feel pointed out because of their race, gender or anything else, therefore we are folllowing stringent equal opportunities rules".
Children in near-by Abingdon are also being taught the PC version (along with schools in Scotland and London), and plans are now being made to sell CD's of the "new" ryhme in Mothercare stores nationwide.
What I dont understand about this is why complete idiots (such as those at the Sure Start Centre) believe this rhyme is offensive to black people. What relevence does a black sheep have with a dark-skinned person? The ryhme was created in the early 13th centery, portraying the tax that the king had imposed on wool (One third went to the local Lord [the master], one third to the Church [the dame] and the rest to the farmer [depicted as the little boy who lives down the lane]). Where in this ryhme does it portray racism of black people?
This is just another blatant example of political correctness gone mad (an example which the Commission for Racial Equality refuses to comment on). They state the move is to promote racial equality amongst nursery school children, but then again, since when do nursery school children (ie: 3-4 year olds) believe that traditional British nursery ryhmes are racist? They wouldnt even understand the meaning of racism, let alone feel offended by a black sheep sharing his wool.
So by the looks of things, political correctness is controlling nursery education as well as politics these days, and no thanks to New Labour for promoting such an ideology.

Is it fair that political correctness should affect their education as well?

10p/min to call 999!

2006-03-05T17:55:00.000Z

No...its not a mistake with the title....the government are actually thinking of introducing this idea across the nation within a few years.
First hearing of this whilst driving down the A449, I couldn't believe what Radio 1 news were saying! From an official government report, ministers are now thinking of charging 10p per minute when you dial 999, so as to stop Britains 3000 prank calls to the emergency services each day.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that this scheme is an absolutely ridiculous idea? Fair enough that prank calls are a huge inconvenience to the emergency services...but the majority of people who dial 999 are actually people in need of genuine emergency assistance...why should they be forced to pay just because a few minority "rebels" feel it is entertaining to dial 999 as a cheap prank?
Not to mention, many emergency calls are made outside the household on mobile phones. What if someone in desperate need of medical assistance needs to dial 999, but finds himself with no credit on his phone?
To me, this is nothing more but yet another scam by Blairs ministers to compensate for the huge debt that they have put the UK into. Of course, i would still against further tax increases as a substitute (considering we've had over 80 since 1997)...but where do they find the common sense in charging for emergency service calls? Yet again, this just goes to show how out of touch New Labour is with our society.

Is it fair that the general public should pay 10p/min to call for basic emergency assistance?

Should 16 year olds be entitled to vote?

2006-03-01T21:34:00.000Z

I couldn't help notice the BBC News article published the other day, stating that a bill could soon be passed through parliament entitling 16 year olds to vote in Local, By and General Elections within the UK.
I am going to start this post firstly by saying that I am well and truly against 16 year olds having the vote...not because I am selfish...not because I am prejudice to those younger than me...but simply because I feel 16 year olds wouldn't know what they're voting for in the first place.
Both Labour and Liberal Democrat MP's feel 16 year olds should have the vote because not only are they "responsible and mature enough", but also because the age itself entitles you to so many obligations (ie: you can smoke, purchase lottery tickets, learn to drive [with a mobility allowance], leave home, e.t.c). After all, if you can do all that...why shouldn't you be given the extra privilege of voting?
Well, the answer is clear in my view...because 16 year olds do not understand the political (or economical) fundamentals that control our everyday lives. For starters, not many of us can say that we knew about rising council taxes or inflationary pressures within our economy at the age of 16. People at that age (in my opinion) are more concerned with their own matters such as GCSE exams rather than British politics...so when they are granted the opportunity to vote, how do they know who (or what) they are voting for? If you gave a 16 year old the opportunity to vote in the European referendum, how would they know which box to choose on the ballot paper? Can anyone honestly tell me that they would be knowledgeable enough about the European Monetary Union and Single Currency effects at this age? Of course not...because they are too inexperienced (after just leaving school) to do so.
Furthermore, most 16 year olds I know are not even interested in politics in the first place. There is the common assumption around Britain that politics is "boring", and politicians are a bunch of liars in parliament who do absolutely nothing for a living, so what is the point in giving youngsters the vote when they are not even interested in political legislation to begin with?
I understand however that there are a few 16 year olds out there who are deeply interested in politics, some of whom write their political thoughts on websites such as this...but we have to respect the fact that they are (rather unfortunately) a minority amongst youths today. The majority have no interest in politics whatsoever, and wouldn't even know what to vote for if they were handed a ballot paper in the first place.
So before Labour and Liberal MP's decide to enforce such legislation, i believe they should consider the points I have mentioned, otherwise our ballot boxes could soon be filled with voting slips, marked by those who have no idea what is beneficial for our Country.

Should the voting age be lowered to 16, or remain as it is for those 18 and over?

72% of Criminals use Cannabis...

2006-02-24T12:09:00.000Z

A few days ago, the Government published a report revealing that more than 7 out of 10 teenage criminals have smoked cannabis every day for the last 12 months.
Not only does this show that cannabis use is on the rise, but also that solid evidence is emerging between use of the drug, and crime rates.
But the real question I want answered is....why does Charles Clarke still refuse to amend its classification from Class C to B?
Since New Labour re-classified the drug in 2004, youths have turned their attention to cannabis (including the super strength version known as "skunk"), and as a result, drug related crimes have increased further each year. Youths (who have now formed addictions to cannabis) turn to crime to fund their purchasing of the drug, and because of this, become less inhibited by legislation and legal restrictions. But does the Government seem to care? Of course not...after all, since its re-classification, police are not even allowed to caution youths for possession of the drug anymore, and no measures are being taken to consider the drug's likely affect on human phychosis, so its the last thing I believe when ministers claim its for the good of the country.
But what bemuses me the most is when Labour Ministers claim that it will turn young people's attention from class A drugs to softer narcotics such as that of cannabis. An experimental idea I have to admit, but an idea I feel would never work, simply because of one simple reason...drugs are addictive.
If a youth taking class A drugs (such as heroin or MDMA) hears that cannabis is downgraded from Class B to C, he is not suddenly going to stop admitting these illegal substances into his body just because Cannabis has become more legally acceptable. Heroin is addictive, and not even inhaling cannabis will solve this addiction, so the youth will continue to purchase heroin at any cost. Cannabis will not solve this problem, it just means that it will be used more regularly, and contributing to this country's negative externalities.
All I ask is that Ministers realise this; that Cannabis is not a solution, it is an addition to the ever growing drugs problem in Britain, and that it should never have been downgraded in the first place.

Police now have no authority over possession of Cannabis

Political Correctness: an excuse for inequality

2006-02-22T14:18:00.000Z

We cannot avoid it. No matter how much we try and escape it, political correctness affects everyone, and in most cases (if not all), it simply degrades the views of the majority so a small minority can rule today's political thought.
Its no stranger to the internet either. Whilst browsing a few political blogs the other day (listed in my links column), i came across the blog entitled "Anthropax", run by an ex-colleague of mine from Monmouth School, and a known supporter of the Liberal Democrat Party.
Whilst browsing through his archives however (October 2004), I came across the link entitled "Ignorant Bigots"! Through curiosity, i decided to select the link, only to discover that the link address lead to the website:
www.christianvoice.org.uk
...run by a leading Christian group within the UK, who comment on recent political matters through the eyes of British Christians.
Im not saying that the Anthropax website should be banned from the internet for all eternity (after all, he is entitled to freedom of speech)...but i couldn't help thinking what the situation would be like if the website address was slightly different.
What if I posted exactly the same link definition ("ignorant bigots"), but to these websites instead:

I cant help but think that if I went ahead with this idea, i would be branded either an anti-Semitic ******* or a racist islamophobe. But yet, if someone calls the Christian Voice Organisation "ignorant bigots"...nothing is done, and the matter is simply left to rest.

And this is exactly the point im making. Why is it okay for people to insult Britains most wide-spread religion, but politically in-correct to insult the minority religions of this country?
Political correctness appears to be nothing more than a way of keeping the public majority silent, silencing our view points while those of the minority groups are entitled to express theirs. If these people want equality in this country, then they should recognise that insulting Britains majority groups is not the way to go about it. The majority of this country used to have every right that our laws allowed...it now seems that its the minority of this country who have those rights, while the majority groups are left to stand still and deal with modern day political correctness.

New Labour: the party of political correctness?

The Death Penalty: Right or Wrong?

2006-02-20T19:56:00.000Z

It's a well known debate within the UK, and has been since its abolition since 1965, but the question still remains of whether the death penalty is morally wrong, or a necessary punishment for inexcusable crimes.
The sentence itself was abolished in the mid-1960's, but only for murder accusations. Now, it has been completely abolished since 1998, even for military offences and acts of treason. This was subject to New Labour signing up for the Human Rights Act, which denounces capital punishment for the reasons of all humans having:
-the right to life [and]
-the right not to be tortured or subject to any cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment [*]
However, as much as I believe every law abiding citizen has the right to these ideologies, I cant help but state my own views on this matter, especially after recently discussing this with a few friends of mine the other day.
Lets take terrorists for example. There is no doubt in my mind that those responsible for the July 7th bombings should be sentenced to capital punishment. Why? Because of two simple reasons. The first being...why should someone (who has murdered an innocent victim, and denied that person his/her human rights of life) be allowed to proceed sentencing under the Human Rights Act itself? The terrorist clearly doesn't believe in Human Rights, so why should he be given the benefits of saving his life under this Act in the first place?
And the second is this......how is it fair that an innocent man is killed, but yet a murderer is allowed his rights of life, which no doubt, because of the politically correct Judges in this country, will also be allowed out of prison within 8 years?
I'm a firm believer that harsh punishment is un-necessary, but if someone has murdered an innocent British civilian for the cause of their own satisfaction...then the line has to be drawn some-where. In my opinion, the American legal system is exactly what Britain needs; where if an individual kills an innocent civilian in unjust circumstances, then that individual will be tried and sentenced to death (if found guilty).
As for the anti-death penalty campaigners...all i can say is this: you have obviously never known what it's like to lose someone close to you when terrorists tragically take their life away. Britain should have the death penalty, because in my opinion, those who have no regards for life get exactly what they deserve.

[*] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Articles 3 and 5
What resource of punishment should Britain take for serious offences?

The Cameron Effect......

2006-02-14T17:05:00.000Z

Over the past few days, I have been visiting numerous political websites, and what strikes me the most is that alot of Conservative members are not actually happy with the way our new leader, David Cameron, is running the newly formed "Modern Conservative" party.
And i can see their point! He has indeed turned over alot of existing Conservative policies and introduced new, more modern policies which many argue to be of the "left-wing" origin. You may or may not like it, but in my opinion, Cameron is playing a very smart game!
He is known by many to be shifting the Conservative party leftwards, and taking us away from traditional Conservative ideologies and bringing us closer to the centre ground of the political spectrum. But is this a wise move? I believe so...
And in saying that, this is not the first time that the Conservative party have moved to the centre ground either. In the 1950's, they cleverly moved leftwards to decrease the competition they had from Labour, hence increasing their support base, which then allowed them later to move politics rightwards again in the 1980's (with Margaret Thatcher as their leader), and this is what I believe Cameron is doing.
He is tactically moving the Conservatives to the centre ground to gain support from both Labour and Liberal voters, and once he's done that, he will bring the country (and the Conservative party) back to a right-wing frame of mind, allowing himself to govern the country under the policies that the Conservatives once stood for. After all, its not difficult to see that Cameron is still a traditional Conservative at heart. I find it hard to believe that he calls himself a "Liberal-Conservative", but yet still supports fox hunting and independance from the European Union. Yes...I may have dis-agreed with him over his support for 24 hour drinking, but in general, I feel he is making the right move to getting the Conservatives back into office. Lets not forget, we have lost the past 3 General Elections in a row by fighting the same old policies over and over again. The Conservatives need a change of strategy, and I feel that Cameron is the man for that duty.

"Would someone please tell Cameron to stick to traditional Conservative values?"-Sam Pritchard

"Cameron is producing results, the Tories are higher in the polls now...and he will deliver the results that Hague and Howard couldn't"-Adam Sanderson

Is Cameron right for Conservatism?

Are we being represented fairly?

2006-02-13T22:13:00.000Z

Is the National Union of Students (NUS) really helping University students, or leaving our educational issues un-touched? (Read More)
www.nusonline.co.uk

Muslims turn up the heat

2006-02-06T13:47:00.000Z

We have all heard about the riots that have been caused my muslims protesting against European newspapers, who have published cartoons which are deemed "offensive" to the muslim prophet Mohammed. Only a few days ago (on the 5th February), thousands of muslims staged an attack on the Danish Consulate in Beirut, setting the building ablaze and destroying Christian churches throughout the night (which reports confirm that serious injuries had occured, and even numerous deaths).
Not only have the cartoons been published in Europe, but have also spread across the world, attracting the attention of Australia and New-Zealand. But why have these attacks and violent protests been carried out?
According to muslims, it is forbidden to visually display their prophet, and publish cartoons of him, which appear to ridicule the Islamic faith. However, im not here to discuss how they demoralise the muslim religion, but explain that there is something seriously wrong in the law, being that there appears to be "one law for them" and another for everyone else!
Lets take my first example, being the protests which occured in London a few days ago over these cartoons. Muslims were deliberately shouting abuse at the British government in the form of death threats, terrorist attacks, and claiming that anyone who publishes these cartoons should be slain and be-headed. But was there anything done by the British police? Absolutley not...and the reason is because this country is in a state of fear. Brtiain is too scared to do anything about this, because by arresting those of ethnic minorities, we fear that we may be branded "racist" by Labour/Liberal doo-gooders, so in result...those who offend and threaten our country by violent protests go free. Further more, a few months ago at the Labour Party Conference, Walter Wolfgang was ejected from his seat for merely shouting the word "nonsense"! How is it fair to arrest an innocent person such as Mr.Wolfgang under anti-terrorist laws, and yet allow muslim protesters (who threaten the safety and security of our own nation) to walk free?
Either way, it is clear that there is something seriously wrong with our legal system to allow such a thing to happen. And if you ask for my personal opinion, i think those European newspapers were right to publish those cartoons. As we have seen, it maybe offensive to some of the muslim population, but it is our freedom of speech which is the most important here. Every British citizen is entitled (by natural right) to express his/her own personal opinion, so according to our civil liberties and rights, what exactly have these newspapers done wrong? Either way, they have done nothing to deserve the violence that those hateful terrorists have thrown at them...especially the arson attacks made on the Norwegian and Danish embassies earlier on this week in Damascus.
You've now heard my opinion on the matter, and a few other internet users seem to agree with me.

"Our reaction belies how far we have moved away from the roots of Islam where tolerance was given to all. Once again the name of ordinary Muslims is being dragged through the mud because of a small bunch of zealots." Shapps, shappir.blog.com

"Death-threats do not exactly do Islam's image any real good...must I drag in last years example of Muslims handling it all wrong? V-a-n-G-o-g-h, ring any bells?" Farah, underprogress.blogs.com

"Cartoons Causing Riots...Yikes! Who'd have thought we could have such power?!" Matt Glover, mattglover.com

"I dont see any muslims protesting against al-Jazeera by showing all those bloody tapes." Haydur.dot.com

Preacher of hate: a muslim cleric preaches the word of Islam outside the burning consulate in Denmark

Some people think the internet is a bad thing...

2006-01-09T20:00:00.000Z

Whether we have seen the new TV advert or not, we all have opinions on whether the internet is good or bad for us. AOL have recently distributed a 30 second advert across our televisions, inviting us to discuss on their website whether we believe the internet is “a good thing or a bad thing”...... (Read more)

Iran and World War III...

2006-01-04T23:30:00.000Z

We all know of Iran's recent nuclear programme, and how the United Nations "Nuclear Watchdog" has deemed it a "peaceful" process, but just how peaceful will this programme turn out to be in the upcoming years?
Relations between Iran and the West has been unstable for decades, but has escalated since 9/11 when George.W.Bush declared Iran to be apart of the "Axis of Evil"; being in alliance with Al Quaeda's plot to build weapons of mass destruction. But how far from the truth is this?
Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, has continued to use provocative language towards Israel (a close ally to the United States), claiming that "Israel must be wiped off the map", and that "the new wave [of attacks] in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world. Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury”. [*]
Further more, despite rejecting the West's demands to abandon its nuclear activites, Iran has continued (since February 2003), to resume uranium conversion; a key component of Nuclear weapons. Iran claims that by doing this, it is seeking an alternative source of power to boost its economy (of which, over 40% live below the poverty line). However, being one of the biggest oil exporters in the world, I find it hard to believe that Iran would spend millions on nuclear power when it already has a masive supply of oil as a power source. So if it's nuclear programme is not for energy resources, what is it's actual purpose?
Also, to make matters worse, Russia signed a deal in which they would supply Iran with nuclear fuel for use at its power plant in Bushehr (in early 2005). Not to mention, Russia is also interested in building 20 more nuclear power plants as well.
But why cant we stop them? Simple. Iran is the West's biggest supplier of oil. If we impose sanctions, or even commit action against them, Iran will simply cease all oil supply's, pushing up already high, unstable global oil prices, and creating chaos within the British/American economies.
What the solution to this problem will be...I dont know. But at present, Iran's "peaceful" nuclear programme is looking suspicious in my point of view, and if left to carry its course, could result in hostility between the U.S and the Middle-East.
[*] Source: The Financial Times

Irans nuclear facility near Natanz

Euro Adoption

2005-12-05T16:58:00.000Z

There is much national debate about whether or not to adopt the Euro, but the question is, which decision is the best decision for Britain?
Its easy enough to say we're Pro/Anti Euro, but there are many circumstances where that verdict does need some deliberation.
If we adopt the European currency, Britain would see many dramatic changes, especially in professional business'. For this matter, adoption of the euro could have some beneficial factors; the first one being greater consumer surplus. By expanding into Europe, there would be increased competition from European firms. With this, British firms would feel the need to lower their prices and reduce their costs to keep up with this increased competition, and so we could all in the near future see a dramatic fall in UK prices of goods/services. Its also worth considering the low, stable rate of interest that the European Community maintains (currently at around 2%). Mortgage holders could vastly see a decrease in their debts, which in turn means higher disposable income for consumers, and less worry for taking out loans, overdrafts, e.t.c.
With these factors, both British consumers and Business' would thrive in European intergration, along with other benefits such as holiday making (where there would no longer be the need to change currencies from British sterling to the Euro), and a simple European monetary and fiscal policy scheme set by Brussels.
However, in my opinion, these benefits are out-weighed by the problems that would occur if we joined in the European currency union. Fair enough we would have a stable interest rate, but economically, this may not be beneficial in times of UK Inflationary pressure. Our interest rates are currently set by the Bank of England, and in times of economic inflation and high spending, the Bank of England will increase interest rates (to encourage saving rather than spending). This prevents any further advance of inflation within the economy, but in this case, the European interest rate of 2% would not be enough to lower inflation, and hence if apart of Europe, Britain may endure huge inflationary problems, damaging to all business' and British exports.
Its also cause for concern to whether the European Monetary Committee could actually do a better job of running our economy than the Bank of England. Is it possible that a Monetary Committee hundreds of miles away in Brussels could understand our economy the same way than our London bank? I very much doubt it.
And finally, are we really willing to give up our own national currency? Britain has always created and distributed its own currency (such as today's Sterling), so is it the case that majority of Britain wants to give up its currency identity?
A survey conducted in August 2001 of 1,002 Chief Business Executives revealed that:

Over 65% of business' wanted to keep the Pound, only 20% supported the Euro adoption.
80% of business' felt that the Bank of England would set interest rates that were more appropriate for UK business'.
Of all the things that the Government could do to help UK consumers and business', adopting the Euro was ranked the lowest. A huge majority of the public felt more investment in capital projects (such as Education, the NHS, and transport) would be more appropriate.

In general, many people think adoption of the Euro would be beneficial, and in some cases it is, but looking at the long run, it appears that Euro intergration would go against the benefits of consumers, business', and the economy within the UK.

Would adopting the Euro benefit both UK consumers and business'?

Cameron/Davis Hustings: Celtic Manor (Newport)

2005-12-01T11:11:00.000Z

For the whole of this Conservative leadership campaign, I have changed my mind numerous times on who i feel would be best suited to lead the Conservatives into the next general election in 2009. First, i felt confident in Kenneth Clarke, believing that his sense of character would attract more votes to our campaign (but unfortunately, a few Tory MP's destroyed that plan). I then stood along side Liam Fox, but it was obvious that his support was not going to get him the top seat...and then it came down the final two; Davis or Cameron.
Before, I rooted for Davis, but was still not entirely sure of his ability to lead a new "changed" party, but after attending the Celtic Manor hustings debate last Tuesday (29/11/05), I have finally come to a conclusion on who's name will recieve my cross on the ballot paper...and the answer: neither!
My honest opinion is "How can i choose when both have such great aspects to be the next leader"?
Starting with Cameron first though, all I can say is...what a fantastic politician. The moment he took the stage, the party members which i was sat amongst were hanging on by his every word, applauding the common sense he used in his speech, and above all, appealing to every member within reach of his voice...talking about how reform is needed for the NHS, pensions, education, crime, immigration, e.t.c.
Davis on the other hand also put on a spectacular performance, talking about how Britain must not suffer another 4 years under the hands of New Labour, and by no means did he recieved any less applause from those seated.
But why have i chosen to abstain? Simple....i can not justify each candidates positive characteristics any more than i can their negatives.
Take Cameron for instance, i know for a fact that he is the only one to reach a wider audience than the Conservatives have done in the past 3 general elections...period. He's young, speaks well and most of all can take support away from the Liberal Democrats and above all Labour, but he is in favour of a few policies which are absurd to me (such as 24 hour drinking, Top-up fee's, e.t.c).
Davis on the other hand has policies based on common sense, and is a traditional Conservative through and through. He speaks well, and comes across as he knows what he's talking about....but would he really get that extra electorate support that Cameron would? After all, we have fought and lost the past 3 elections using the same strategy's over and over again.....would it really be any different this time?
So the only option left for me to do is to abstain in this contest. Call me "sitting on the fence", but in the end, i cant vote for both candidates, so my decision is to leave it up to the rest of the Conservative party membership, and hope they choose Britain's next Prime Minister.

2 weeks remaining: Cameron or Davis?

Davis vs. Cameron

2005-11-18T20:57:00.000Z

If your into politics, you cant help but not avoid the Conservative leadership race between David Davis and David Cameron. But the real question is, who out of the two candidates is going to be the next Conservative leader? I for one was supportive of Kenneth Clarke when he was still in the race, but now that it is narrowed down to the final two, a few things need to be taken into perspective.
Firstly, who do we choose.....a young, talented individual who can bring a fresh look to the Tory party....or an experienced politician who understands both business and economics within the UK? Seems quite a simply "A or B" answer, but it does start to become complicated at this point!
David Cameron has only been in politics for approximately 4 years, and appears to take the more "moderate" approach to Conservative policies. On the other hand, Davis doesn't appeal greatly to the younger voters, and is known for having a slight lack of character when it comes to his speeches. So the question is now: "who do you support....the in-experienced politician, or the boring politician"?
In my opinion, the answer would so far have to be.....Davis. Why? Labour are a strong party, there is no doubt about it (with exception to Blairs recent defeat in the Commons over the 90 day terrorism bill), and fighting this next election is going to take the experience of David Davis to finally see a Conservative party in office. Also, it's rumoured that Blair is soon to stand down for the Labour leadership, making way for the Chancellor, Gordon Brown. I ask you, who needs character when your against Gordon Brown? If you asked me who had the most character out of Davis and Brown, i would probably have to say Davis! And finally, when Davis was questioned on 10/11/05 by the famous Jeremy Paxman on BBC2's Newsnight, Davis not only came across as confident, but also stated his policies for the Conservative party; which to me, sound like the policies which this country desperately needs.
I understand that many of you will feel differently to whom would be most suited for the Tory leadership, but even I am not entirely sure yet. On the 29th November 2005 however, both candidates are speaking at the Celtic Manor to a private audience. I managed to get tickets for this event, so it is likely that my final decision will be made then. For the time being though, the voting pendelum could swing either way for Cameron or Davis.
Davis has so far trailed behind Cameron for the Tory leadership, but 1 month of the contest still remains. Final voting: December 12th 2005

24 Hour Drinking

2005-11-09T20:56:00.000Z

I for one am in no way against sociable drinking, but new statistical evidence, recently leaked by Labour themselves, has put the governments alleged "24 hour drinking" bill into a completely new perspective. This new data, which Labour claim to be "over-exaggerated", just shows the crime and chaos that would follow if such an act was placed within British society today. It also reveales the growing level of serious alcohol abuse amongst under-age drinkers. This new information has revealed:
Drunk & disorderly prosecutions of teenagers have soared by 25% since Labour came into power in 1997
30,000 teenagers are now being prosecuted for being drunk & disorderly each year
London has seen a doubling of these cases since this Labour government
Not only this, but New Labours "Yob Culture" is exposed further as only a mere 23 teenagers are arrested for purchasing or attempting to purchase alcohol whilst underage. With this, how can Labour not see that this relaxation of the licensing laws is only going to fuel violence and anti-social behaviour on our streets? And further more, it won't just be the police who will feel the impact of this legislation, but also, residents (especially those around city centres), who will have to witness further increases in alcohol related violence/vandalism. Its time that this government realised what it is doing, and that is, giving freedom for violence and anarchy to roam freely throughout our streets, and influencing Britains "Yob Culture" to cause public disorder where ever they please.

Visit www.conservatives.com for more information

Gone and hopefully forgotten

2005-10-30T20:55:00.000Z

Despite this government being pro-human rights, I myself was more than relieved to hear that finally, hate preacher Omar Bakri Mohammed was barred from ever returning to the UK. What amazes me the most, is that some-one who despises the British way of life so much, and preaches so much hatred towards our society, is more than happy to stay on benefits paid by the British tax payer for more than 19 years, and most recently, claims he should be allowed to receive a heart operation paid by the NHS when he finishes his holiday in Beirut. In my opinion, he is a total hypocrite. If you hate Britain so much, you have a very simple alternative Mr.Bakri....get out. The question of how he was even admitted to this country is something that I will never understand. He welcomes suicide bombers, praises the London bombings, calls on all muslims to kill non-muslims "when ever, where ever", but still has remained in this country for nearly 2 decades, with no action at all taken by the government on his radical views. And what is even more absurd to me, is that British National Party leader Nick Griffen holds one rally in Yorkshire and is immediately taken to Leeds magistrates courts for enciting "racial hatred". I am in no way a supporter of the British National Party or Nick Griffen, but I do wonder how this governments race relations proceedures work, and whether its ethnic "minorities" such as Omar Bakri Mohammed that have had the law on their side for so long, when people of equal anti-race relation policies such as Nick Griffen have been silenced immediately from speaking their minds. To let someone of Bakri's demeanour run loose in Britian for 19 years is completely outrageous, and if this government wants race relations within this country, it needs to play both sides of the field, and not just give advantage to those of different ethnicities all the time. May be now that Bakri is barred from ever setting foot in this country again, the government will realise its own mistakes, and actually start to crack down on terrorism in Britain. Lets hope so.
The simple answer: if you dont like Britain...get out.

ID Cards: A George Orwell Reality

2005-10-21T20:54:00.000+01:00

Recently, the Labour government passed the identity cards bill through the House of Commons by a significantly reduced majority of just 31 votes. But what price will the people of Britain have to pay for such an act?
I for one, feel this is nothing more than the beginning of a "Big Brother" society...a society where civil liberties are no longer a matter, and as David Davis put it: "a fundamental shift in the balance of power between the citizen and the state". Shouldn't it be the British people themselves who have complete control over their independance, and not to be subjected to carrying around identity cards, just to cover up Labour's complete lack of control over immigration and other political failures? Our independance and liberties were gained through past British generations fighting and dieing for them, so how does this government feel it is acceptable to throw those aspects completely to one side, and forget everything that this country had to endure just to achieve our freedom? Whats even more absurd, is that new Labour doesn't seem to take into consideration the cost of such a scheme. Billions of the tax payers money will have to go towards this measure, money which could have been used in more needed areas such as our dismal National Health Service, education, police, e.t.c...but instead, is wasted on this ID proposal, which is inevitable to become a failure.

ID Cards - a breach of our civil liberties, or the way forward to stop terrorism?

British police in turmoil

2005-10-15T20:52:00.000+01:00

While growing up, I had always believed that the role of the police was to serve and protect the people of this nation from crime within our society. Now, after seeing the adjustments that new Labour have made to this system, Britain can no longer expect the British police force to perform its required dutys to an acceptable level. But why has Tony Blair brought our police units to their knees?Only 30 years ago, Britain was known as having one of the greatest police forces in the world, but now, it appears to be completely the opposite, as New Labour brought in numerous measures that would only make a mockery of our legal system. Before, police men & women could do their jobs with ease, but now, no matter how small an incident, are required to fill in a 60 question form which takes on average 7-10 minutes to complete. This form of paper work not only takes up too much time, but also prevents officers from being where they should be; on the street. Instead, they are stuck behind a desk filling in numerous time consuming forms, just so this government can prove to ethnic minorities that they are not being racially discriminated against. If this wasn't enough, Mr.Blair also feels the need to hinder our police force with ridiculous legislative measures, preventing officers from carrying out their duties, even in known illegal incidents (for example: officers are no longer permitted to chase after illegal immigrants fleeing from ports because of health & safety reasons). It appears that Mr.Blair fails to realise that officers simply can not carry out their duties with political correctness acting down upon them. And whats more is that Mr.Blair has the audacity to claim that crime within the UK is falling...despite police contradiction to this claim, and an increase in the number of gun crimes, burglaries, thefts, e.t.c. Britian needs to take action on this matter now, by having more police on the streets protecting the public, and more importantly, by ending the countless measures put against police including red tape and political correctness. If this does not stop now, New Labour will only drive our police force further into dismay and apprehension.
Red tape - a hindrance to our police force?

Private Education - Advantage or Hinderance?

2005-09-20T20:51:00.000+01:00

British people have always thought of private education as a head-start for students in life. A chance for them to recieve an education higher than that available on the merit economy; but is it really a helping hand, or a hinderance to us students in the UK?Being an Independant school student myself, I have nothing against those choosing private or state education. In theory, both are supposed to be substantial in maintaining the educational standards of Britain. However, since this Labour government came into power in 1997, it appears that more and more independant school students are facing discrimination because of their comparative "advantage" over those in state schools. By setting universities with targets to accept a certain number of state school students, privately educated students have suffered, with numerous cases occuring, where A grade students have been rejected by all their chosen universities (especially those of Bristol, Birmingham, Reading and Sussex). How can this government allow this sort of discrimination to occur. After all, didn't Tony Blair attend a grammer school, and later move on to achieve his degree from Cambridge? Why is it, that those who choose to have an advantage in life, are brought straight back down by government discriminatory targets? I have always agreed in every child/student having an equal chance to learn and work hard for their education, but this government is clearly going about this the wrong way. Considering this government has gone the extra mile to eliminate discrimination from our society, I expected better of them in the face of education. As a Conservative, I believe it is not fair that those who choose private education should face the burden of government targets. Universities should carry out their application methods like they did before 1997, and accept people on their ability to learn, work, and achieve a succesful carreer, no matter what school they attended. They shouldn't have to be pressurised unfairly in meeting government targets. Every student has an equal chance to fulfill their ambitions, and this government needs to realise this before university targets cause mass chaos amongst our educational system.
Is private Education under attack from Labour's social engineering?

Asylum: the real question

2005-09-10T20:49:00.000+01:00

Before I attack this one "taboo'd" subject, I would just like to point out that I am by no means a racist. I am merely expressing my right as a British citizen to use freedom of speech and explain my opinions on asylum and immigration in the same ways that Enoch Powell once did in the 1970's.
Personally, I cannot see how both the Liberals and this present government can be so relaxed upon the border controls of our country. It is absolutely shameful. Michael Howard has even given the shocking statistic that only 2 out of 10 immigrants within the United Kingdom are actually employed within legal work. Fair enough on those 2 in every 10, I have no problem with people moving to Britain to help our economy grow in a successful way. But what about the remaining 80% of immigrants? Those who choose to be held responsible by the government welfare state, and contribute nothing in the face of Economic growth within our nation. How can the government let them get away with this? Recent data has shown that every asylum seeker within Great Britain costs the average tax payer over £14,000 a year, which in my opinion, does add up considering 1 in 20 people within London is in the UK illegally*. Furthermore, how can we let this government take away our national pride & identity just to make ethnic minorities feel they're being treated equally among us? I had always grown up believing that Britain was a White/Christian majority nation, but now, my thoughts are beginning to challenge this notion. Leicester has become the first city ever within Europe to hold a black majority, and political correctness has also sold out to the British people. Incidents such as banning bibles from hospital bedsides and the Red Cross not supporting Christmas charities has taken racial equality to the extremes; as some people describe: "Political correctness gone mad". What is wrong with our national identity? What is wrong with saying "Im proud to be pure British"? I was taught that the British flag stood for unity between England, Ireland, Scotland & Wales, not Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Moldova, and any other middle eastern/eastern european country. The time, in my opinion, has come to stand up for our British identity; to say that this is our free nation, and to take an Austrailian style system only allowing legal/economic migrants into the country. The time for this political correctness of the Labour government must stop, and the time to reclaim our national identity, which millions of British men paid the ultimate sacrifice for, must start. Enoch powell once warned of this very event occuring, and in the face of war, bloodshed & racial hatred, this vision could soon become a reality.
How do we determine between "bogus" asylum seekers and those actually fleeing persecution?

European Constitution

2005-08-22T20:48:00.000+01:00

What part of "no" dont they understand? France (the most pro-European of all countries) killed the constitution, and Holland nailed the coffen shut. So why is Mr.Blair still trying to pass this dead weight constitution onto Britain? Being a Conservative, I'm all for keeping International trade with Europe, but to throw our soverignty, identity and economy down the drain just to fit in with the European "super-state" is absolutely absurd in my opinion. Being an economist, I expected better of Rt.Hon Gordon Brown in deciding whether to be apart of this European constitution. Does he realise the economic jeopardy that this would do to our country? In my mind, there is no doubt that joining such a referendum would firstly establish Britain into the single European currency, and hence, resulting in ourselves being controlled by the European Monetary Policy in Frankfurt, controlling our interest rates and money supply in a "one rate fits all" union. Does any of the Labour party realise the risk of inflation/recession that this could cause? Germany's/Latvia's/Spain's economical state does not mean that Britain's economical stability will be the same as theirs. Even European economists claim the inevitability of the failure of the European currency, and yet, Labour still insist on us being one with Germany, Lithuania, Belgium, e.t.c so we can encourage the potential growth of our economy, and increase the supply side potential of our production possibility boundary. I strongly disagree...I for one am not prepared to give up our national soverignty and ecomomy just because the prime minister wants to jump on the European band wagon. This is Britain, and always will be Britain, and the people for one should decide on whether to adopt the Constitution (that is...if Mr.Blair will let us decide).

The failure of Live8

2005-08-13T20:46:00.000+01:00

Solving world poverty (especially that in Africa), is a key issue, high upon every country's political agenda. As a Conservative, I feel those in African countries do deserve a better quality of domestic life to what they are receiving now...and yet, despite all this, I am 100% against the Live8 concert taking place next month.I have nothing against solving world poverty, but it appears to me that taking Bob Geldof's approach and throwing money at the issue (hoping the problem will go away) is going to do very little in helping the millions of people enduring famine and starvation every day. Britain has been funding Africa for decades with charities such as "Feed the world", "Comic relief", "Live Aid 1984", and the more recent "Band Aid 20" last Christmas. And yet, despite all this funding, what has changed? Answer: Nothing, because in all hindsight, Africa is the most corrupt nation upon the planet. Anyone who has heard of the events caused by Robert Mugabe and king Mswati III will know what I am talking about. Both of these political leaders have no regard for the welfare of their people whatsoever. For instance, Britain (through the funding of Comic Relief 2003), gave Mswati III (the present king of Swaziland), over £1.1 Million to spend on the welfare of his people in helping reduce the burden of poverty on them. And yet, just weeks after the king celebrated his 37th birthday, statistical analysis shows that Mswati III spent the exact total of £1.1 Million in funding his birthday celebration. Im no professional economist, but if the so called "king" has that much money to spend on a birthday party (along with his 13 wives and 25 children), then he certainly has that type of money in helping his people, who live in horrendous conditions, in a nation where 1 child dies of starvation/aids every 3 seconds. What is the point of this Live 8 concert taking place next week, when the money is only going to end up in the hands of the wrong people? Robert Mugabe is no exception. With continuous British funds also going to him every year (to help the poverty crisis within Zimbabwe), Mugabe, as Mswati III does, keeps the money, and in addition, confiscates grain/rice of African farmers and sells the produce for his own welfare. Africa is not a political democracy. It is merely a nation run by leaders who have no regard for their people whatsoever, and Britain (along with Bob Geldof's tree hugging ideas), are simply funding and encouraging them to continue acting the way they are. Africa needs to be saved; not only from poverty, but also those leaders who generate the mass poverty...those leaders who would rather spend £400 million on fighting civil wars in Ethiopia than saving their own people...and those leaders who laugh in the faces of our generosity. Live 8 with its mass expenditure is not the answer...and those such as Bob Geldof and Elton John need to realise that. And if your still not convinced, put it this way...you dont see many starving African leaders out there.

Fox Hunting: Re-Consideration

2005-08-10T20:44:00.000+01:00

Fox hunting has been apart of our British cultural system for over 400 years, and since April 2005, was voted out of British legislation as "cruel, vial and inhuman". But how can Labour possibly be serious about this? Fox hunting is apart of our British culture, it is what identifies us from the rest of the world (the same way as Spain has Bull fighting, America with the NFL, Austrailia with the ARRL, e.t.c). What is so wrong with this, that has resulted in Blairs one-party state voting for the abolishon of this sport?When in Westminster, I recently put this question forward to the former Labour MP of Monmouthshire, Huw Edwards, and despite not being able to give me a straight answer, also claimed that with my opinions on fox hunting, im a national minority. Well Huw, I have to disagree there. I personally feel that im apart of the majority who is in no way represented by the Labour party. Fox hunting is proclaimed as being cruel, savage, and in no way humane in the name of sport, in which blood hounds purposely go out in chase of a fox to brutally "man-handle" it until dead. Im not debating that the fox has a wonderful ending. In fact, Im quite certain that the Spanish bull has an even more painful death when over 15 arrows are driven into its body, and takes over 1/2 to 1 hour to die. Its simply a case of national identity...something which this Labour government have never been fond of. Fox hunting is part of British society, and should not be declared illegal just because a few politically correct politicians in government feel they're doing "whats best for the country". This is our country Mr.Blair, it is not right to take away apart of our British culture, just because you want to attack the upper class with your corrupt socialist government. As far as I remember it, it is your job to uphold the rights of the British people, and take an active role in our politics...it is not up to you what sports and traditional values the British people can adopt in their lives. In my opinion, it is time that Mr.Blair thought again about his anti-fox hunting ideologies, and starting taking into account the opinions of the public for a change, not the bias decisions of his over crowded government.