Thursday, 30 June 2011

The EU.

I read the other day that there was, apparently a discussion in Britain during World War 2, just as France fell that the two countries should become one. Now, bearing in mind the French had rolled over when attacked and thought us saving our soldiers at Dunkirk (and a lot of theirs) was a treacherous act and wanted us to commit ever more fighters to protect their country, at the same time as the 'union' was proposed, you wonder who would want such a thing? Well, possibly those just about to hand over their country I guess. How useful to lose a war and then insist of your new hosts that they should divvy up their property with you. These people, for whom union was a natural thought at such a dangerous time, rather forgot to add their fleet to their new 'partner' and so we got more accusations of treachery when we had to neutralise it. The French you have to conclude are a monumentally stupid people.

But then, they did lose the wars (eventually) that Napoleon started in the cause of European domination and made a hash of WW1 and collapsed in WW2, yet immediately afterwards suggested that the whole of Europe should join a 'union' of nations. And this time they were much more successful.

If you seek a comparison for the EU only the Soviet Union will do. It is not exact, as the French, sorry the EU bureaucracy, do not actively believe in Communism rather they merely seek to have a powerful, unelected, unaccountable elite. The lavish spending on themselves, the denial of truth and the harassment of whistle-blowers is the external sign of this deep seated corruption.

It is this drunken power binge which gives us the current financial crisis. The EU brought in a single currency for one reason and one reason only, power. It made no sense to introduce it when they did and everyone was well aware of the damage it could do. They closed their eyes and hoped. Our own experience during the ERM crisis here under Major, was a mini lesson of what would happen inside the euro. Thank goodness we stayed out.

They get away with this because we now have a self-serving cabal of politicians. And to keep them in line there are laws and bribes. It is a crime to speak out against the EU. Whenever the laughable figure that is Neil Kinnock speaks on behalf of the EU in the Lords, he forgets to mention that they will stop his pension if he says anything against the regime. It is a very long time since the running of this country was in such a mess. It looks like it might take people power (and possibly not at the ballot box) to restore a workable nation and wrest us from the bubbles of corruption at Westminster and Brussels.

Greek Tragedy in Britain

Large sections of the public sector are on strike today, outraged that the pensions they don't pay for are at risk. Why they ask, shouldn't we expect a pension way above private sector workers? Why should we be expected to fund it ourselves? The public sector now pays its staff more than the private sector, requires much less of it (in far too many cases, at least) and allows far greater amounts of time off sick than would be tolerated elsewhere.

People laughed at Cameron, suggesting that we are all 'in this together', when referring to the need for belt tightening. He is privileged they wailed and wants to keep it that way. Just so the public sector. And the scale of the outrage at what they are being asked clearly shows how entrenched this sense of entitlement has become. The only actual outrageous aspect of the proposed changes to public sector pensions is of course, that the very people who are insisting on it, the MP's have excluded themselves from the pool.

In Greece so in Britain. The people are merely stating that they quite liked living beyond their means and how dare the government take it away? Brown of course foresaw this and was equally insistent that he should keep on borrowing to keep the good times coming. I still cannot get my head around how so many people fell, for so long for such an obvious con trick as that pulled by Blair and Brown. But with the level of 'me, me, me' stupidity on display on the streets today, self delusion obviously runs deep.

Naturally, quite apart from dimwitted teachers let loose to 'educate' our children and all the other challenged individuals hiding in public sector posts, there is the undeniable truth that there are just too many of them. Blair wanted to create a client state, one that was dependent on New Labour for its wellbeing. That is a large part of what the problem is. But joining some with a sense of grievance that the promises on employment are reneged on at leisure (even though they should never have been made), are the anarchists who will use this as a reason to unleash violence and the trade unionists who are seeking political capital. For them, their members are just 'useful idiots', a power bloc to support their communistic leanings. Rich communists of course.

Friday, 24 June 2011

Too Obvious?

Not being a financial genius, I wonder if things are as they seem or if that is too obvious? It strikes me that we have a populous in the UK that is increasingly fed answers not educated in the basics and thus able to make their own decisions. An example of this is the deletion of proper science from the curriculum and its replacement with pure propaganda about global warming. It is fed to children as a fact and they a) expect to be told the truth and b) lack the wherewithal to judge the veracity of what they are told. I once asked a physics teacher if you could effectively look back in time by viewing light obliquely, where it would appear to be travelling more slowly as do trains thus viewed. Similar to the Doppler effect, I suppose. He at least had to go away and discuss it with colleagues before coming back with a 'no'. I wonder if such challenges are encouraged today, or if such subjects are even considered?

Anyway, to finances. Greece seems to have succumbed to the Sirens for too long and is a basket case. The people don't like the idea of austerity but haven't suggested an alternative, just a cry of 'don't'. If Greece is allowed out of the eurozone it sets a precedent and suggests the EU is not infallible, which is a heresy. So we get Labour MP's, like the one on QT last night (apparently an economist) who talks eminent sense about Greece needing to grow her economy and export her way out of the crisis. Spot on, but then ideology disables her and she doesn't reach the logical conclusion that they devalue their currency (something they cannot do in the eurozone), but that they should borrow more to do it. Absolute madness, but the only way you can square the circle and comply with ideology, which the Left always put before all else. Naturally the Lib Dems are in the same trap, but are even more inexperienced at living up to their statements than Labour are, hence the constant abuse they are getting currently. But the audience miss the logic and lap up what they are told. Would they borrow more to get themselves out of debt?

Last night on QT again, a fireman said that he didn't want to have to pay more into his pension, he already pays 11% he said. Cue audience applause, as generally the left-packed QT audience don't want cuts and this self-serving cant seems to be infecting normal people too. But the problem is, the fireman doesn't want the level of payout his 11% affords him, he wants the level he was 'promised', which is way above what he is funding. This lack of basic understanding is what supports the Labour led shouts for no cuts, no increase in pension contributions. (We perhaps could feel more sympathy if much of this woe wasn't due to Labour in the first place). To me it is clear, having a population that must retire at deaths door doesn't make us an advanced society. A good few years of healthy and active retirement would be a decent way for all workers to end their days. Not rich, but comfortable. Why can we not do this? Because we recklessly spend on other, much less important things and to be honest, just waste a lot too. And by We I mean Britain and by that of course, I mean the government. Whilst every other week bin collection becomes a fixation of government and people, due to the money available, we are pumping money in 'aid' to a variety of undeserving causes abroad at an accelerated rate. Why is India a recipient of aid? It is currently looking to spend $100 billion on fighter jets. It has a space programme, nuclear technology and is a rapidly growing economy. Aid to African countries, whilst often a better target is handed to the 'President' who then, by strange coincidence acquires new personal jets, limousines and houses. We have pumped trillions of dollars from the West into African projects to save lives and feed the starving over the last 50 years. What would you say the result is? A much better continent, with peace and harmony? No, it is still the pit it was, but now with a few very rich people who are better able to rob their countries. Why must we keep banging our head on the wall?

And government does too many things, with too many people that we just do not need them, nor want them to do. The Quango's are the most obvious method of the implementation of these daft constructs and activities. They show up key areas of government being busy, but doing nothing (except consuming taxes that could and should go elsewhere). If we are under the rule of the EU, what is Westminster (let alone the Mickey Mouse Scottish and Welsh Houses) for? If we are a sovereign nation, then why do we do what a bunch of deranged foreigners tell us and why the hell do we give them so much money?

Of course, no such analysis can avoid mentioning the political scam of the far left that is climate change. Make no mistake, this is a political project to destroy capitalism and nothing else. It has no logic in science, but is designed to cause a massive disturbance to the Western economies by causing them to distrust the energy used in their methods of production. The enormous cost of this pointless effort is the easiest way to not only cut back on our expenditure but also grow our real economy. (By all means incentivise industry to combat pollution, which is  in need of some effort, thus promoting industry and technological innovation).

Smaller government means people can get on with their lives without constantly bumping into bureaucracy and its rules, all a result of them existing, allowing us to spend our own money, which we have more of due to lower taxes, on what we want to spend it on, growing the economy. African countries learn to rely on their people to develop and trade with the richer countries rather than just holding a hand out and keeping despots rich. And the dear old EU. A desperate attempt by the French to at last rule Europe under the Code Napoleon that has been denied them for so long. And it looks like this one is going to fail too. But you have to admit, as proof of the stupidity of the political class it is a good one. It has taken a very long time for a bad idea to be seen as a bad idea.

Friday, 17 June 2011


Sorry to bang on about the BBC, but last night I watched a programme that was going to explain why immigrants come to the UK, despite all the difficulties and dangers and then a bit of Newsnight. I don't usually watch Newsnight because I never thought of it as a serious, intelligent programme.

The programme on immigrants was amazing, not least because the one thing it didn't try to investigate or answer was why they come here. We saw how easy corruption abroad makes it for them to start their journey. We saw how they are then pray to criminals and the weather, dying in the Saharan heat or the cold of Europe. These were terrible stories, but the BBC didn't dig, they didn't think through what they were seeing, not least because the surface gloss (their hardships and the wealth of the West) immediately conformed to their ideological image. These travellers know all about Europe and how to get there (and where), they know about the smugglers and it is clear they have a pretty good appreciation of the stupidity of EU laws. What they didn't appear to know was that the criminals they paid might cheat or harm them. Those stories apparently never make their way back. Normally we would be harsh and critical of mothers who put their children in harms way, but an African woman weeping about her rape and the interference with her 4 year old daughter was included only to gain pity. Why was she there, why was she putting her child in such danger? Because the West waves a goal at her that she thinks makes it worthwhile. That should be our shame.

Afghans were shown, almost exclusively young males, proud that all they had with them was the equivalent of £3. Now, if you think of the newsreel images of refugees in the second world war, you see people with prams and handcarts bundled high with their possessions, old men and women struggling to save their lives. But in Afghanistan, things are so bad only the young men leave home and with nothing, no clothes, no food, no money. And they are careful to avoid taking anything with them. Why should they? Europe apparently will house, clothe and feed them. Then they can get a 'job'. They were shown wailing about the lack of facilities and the BBC joined them lamenting the lack of care of the rich West. Presumably we should have enough housing and food stockpiled, just in case the whole world decides to pop over for a visit. The BBC seems to be a shamefully ignorant organisation. The left-liberal bias they spin everything with, doesn't fully explain why this important subject was so badly handled. It was plain that most of these immigrants had a fantastic sense of entitlement and were genuinely confused as to why, in another country they cannot be handed free, vastly more than they could achieve at home. One said he had no choice but to leave Afghanistan, but that he had been so badly treated in Europe that he now just wanted to go back.  I thought he had 'no choice? It doesn't occur to these people that the West is more advanced than them not least because, many years ago and in a continuing pattern, Europeans fought for better conditions and opportunities in their own countries. Yet here we are faced with our soldiers fighting and dying for the freedom of Afghans and they neither assist to improve their lot, nor feel they should be burdened with that responsibility. In Africa it is the corruption and brutality of 'leaders', in Afghanistan and the like it is that they are stuck in the Middle Ages and Islam doesn't help, as it is the same.

So, was Newsnight a breath of fresh intellectual air. Nope, it was the usual left-liberal stuff and nonsense. Apparently, sunspot activity is decreasing and this means less energy will reach the Earth. So what of Global Warming? Well, at this point any suggestion that this was a reasoned view evaporated. The intention was to bolster the theology, not allow it to be mocked. Due to 'greenhouse gases' we may heat up more slowly but it will still be dangerous and of course, when the Sun is back up to strength we will be devastated. To back this up we dropped the plural (green house gases) and decided it was all due to carbon (meaning carbon dioxide) and us. The reason they drop to the singular is that of course, water vapour is by far the most active 'greenhouse gas'. Yes, clouds.

Further evidence was obtained from an expert who supports AGW, a member of the IPCC and an in-studio guest who was from Greenpeace. Very balanced. Just to show they know what they are talking about a mention was made of when sunspot activity was low previously; in the 1600's when we had 'frost fairs' on the Thames. They picked this of course because it was pre industrial revolution Britain. But the weather was severe in the 1800's with the Thames freezing repeatedly. Oh dear, can't mention that, stick to the Climatic Research Unit's tactics and hide anything that gives the game away. Mention was made, to secure the point that the AGW religionists are right, of the 'computer models'. These are the ones that cannot get next week's weather right but can be totally relied on to predict it 100 years in the future. No really, they are. Models that tell us to destroy our economy. Now where have I heard that before? Oh yes, the anarchists and dreamers who talk of destroying capitalism and living as one with nature.

They even started the much more dangerous talk of attempting to affect weather with mirrors, or pumping chemicals into the atmosphere. Man isn't currently doing enough to damage the climate but these loons want to. The level of threat they represent is ratcheting up. But do the BBC notice? Are they capable of so doing? Clearly, not.

Monday, 6 June 2011

IMF and Tory Economics

Stephanie Flanders on BBC news got herself in a bit of a twist as she had to report the facts of the IMF's support, broadly for the policies the Tories have in place for economic recovery. The poor dear was also trying to toe the BBC line that this could not possibly be the case. So she emphasised every hint of difference and stated twice about the pain in the recovery. Then gave the last slot to Labour's Balls who said the cuts were too much too fast. Which is not only something someone with the most basic grasp of finances could not agree with, but is becoming publicly the only person to believe it. Obviously Balls, putting ideology before all else is bound to say stupid things often, but he is becoming a pantomime dame. Or the back end of a cow.

Bearing in mind the BBC run an agenda of their own political choosing, just why are we forced to pay for it?

Wednesday, 1 June 2011

Britain In Europe

I think the stupidity has gone on long enough. We have indulged politicians and their whims but now it is time for them to stop. We should no longer turn a blind eye to the 'expenses' fiddles (probably just the easiest to discover) and we certainly cannot afford their flirtation with supranational parliament. Other countries can make their own decisions, but Britain must quit the EU now.