Monday, 12 October 2009


To any new readers or returning old ones. This blog will be a continuation of I moved to blogger simply because I find it easier to work with.
Thanks for reading. More will follow, and this layout will be improved, I promise!

If I had one year in power, I would…..

Immediate halt on unchecked immigration. A return to the points system. A task force to return illegal immigrants home.

A referendum EU membership.

A 5% pay cut for all MPS and financial penalties for anyone abusing the expenses system.

A move to change the House of Lords at least 30% elected.

A task force and separate think tank to review and revise economic policy.

Withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Abolition of all wind farms, funding of nuclear power projects.

Massive review of police powers and criminal law, especially juvenile law.

Zero tolerance drugs laws.

Abolition of the HRA.

Restoration of grammar schools.

Abolition of the new runway at Heathrow. Expansion of rail networks.

New citizen powers, similar to the ‘citizens arrest’ that allow members of the public to kick Portsmouth fans and far leftists in the nuts once per 24 hours.

The right’s road to destruction

I have a confession to make: I once voted Labour. In my defence I was young, I didn’t really understand politics and I was taken in by Mr Blair’s spin. In the years to come, I slowly realised that Labour was not part of the solution, they were making the problem worse. That was stage one of my awakening.

Step two was the Conservative Party. I guess I should be grateful to Mr Cameron, since his plastic, smug and utterly hypocritical attitude helped me to realise that, yes, the Conservative Party were also part of the problem. Soon after I also realised that no, they were not as bad as Labour: they were worse. Labour are a left wing party implementing left wing policies whilst drifting towards the centre. The Tory party presents itself as conservative and traditional, whilst being the total opposite. They are engaging in deliberate, malicious and active fraud, all to feed their own greed and lust for power.

I thought that would be my final epiphany, and my awakening was complete. I drifted around UKIP, the English Democrats and other parties in the belief that anyone supporting those type of parties was a least on the right side. In a way, I still believe that to be true but there is one more problem we need to come to terms with: we seem fixated on self-destruction.

This problem came to a head with the internal splits in UKIP. The shock-waves of this continue to be felt and I’m sure the resignation of Nigel Farage and the subsequent resignation of the treasurer is related. Farage was not a bad leader, his speeches in the EUP were impressive and he presented a good face to the UKIP party. On a European level, the party continued to grow but on a local level, there has been little or no progress.

Behind the scenes though, it was a badly kept secret that UKIP was plagued with squabbles, pettiness and factionalism. It’s not just them either. Other parties formed and fell apart almost instantly. Many of them fight with similar parties whose members seem desperate to be the ‘only’ party with certain policies or popular support. A quick survey of any right wing internet forum should demonstrate this. Often it’s just a few people creating tension and resentment for everyone else but the damage is there for all to see. Don’t get me wrong, it’s good to argue and debate when it’s done in the right way, but what we seem to be seeing constantly on the right is not debate, but pathetic, childish vendettas between people who really should know better.

Let’s look at the bigger picture: the last twenty years have seen Britain flooded by immigrants it cannot support, the destruction of grammar schools, surrender of our sovereignty to the EU, our police transformed into social workers, increases in violent crime, record amounts of divorce and widespread drug abuse. So what are we doing to deal with it? Apparently, a minority of us seem to think it’s far more important to squabble over a power vacuum that exists only in their own tiny world. It’s sad, it’s selfish and it’s small minded.

I joined Popular Alliance because they had the policies that matched my own ideology remarkably closely. But I will stand by and support UKIP, the English Democrats, Free England, UK First, Veritas and even the UK Libertarian Party when they stand against the three main parties responsible for destroying the UK.

The reality is that we simply don’t have the strength in numbers or resources to do this alone. I’m proud of Popular Alliance for offering to work alongside any other party with similar values and I wish other parities would follow suit. As the old saying goes “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”, andwe have too much to lose to waste time squabbling with each other over personal issues.

Right now, I fear that in thirty years time, the United States of Europe will be busy erasing British history from the curriculum of state schools where ALL children are sent to be programmed, criticising other religions or cultures will be a criminal offence, windmills will cover every inch of countryside, high rise towers will be the only permissible form of new housing due to space constraints and all laws will be passed by the marketing manager of the USE.

Meanwhile, on some secret samizdat internet forum, we’ll still be posting insulting messages to each other fighting about which party gave the worst convention speech ten years ago.

The argument against conscription

The idea of compulsory military service (conscription) is one that is growing in popularity amongst the political right in the UK. It seems to be a nostalgic, almost quixotic way of restoring pride in the nation, installing discipline and bolstering the ranks of those who defend our nation.

Sadly though, all of these sentiments are either wrong or outweighed by drawbacks. Compulsory military service is not beneficial, required or advisable. Here’s why….

1) Lack of resources and finances.

There is nothing less patriotic then sending soldiers to war with insufficent and inefficient equipment. That’s exactly what we have done to our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s an absolute crime, a crime that our government barely even acknowledges, let alone apologisies or seeks to amend for. Why on earth would we want to condemn more of our men to the same risks?

We could argue that a new government would take ore pride in our armed forces, but until they have assessed the state of play and ensured all equipment is both cutting edge and in plentiful supply (at a massive cost) then not only would it be wrong to deploy more soldiers at home or abroad, it would be downright evil.

2) Lack of precedent.

Not since the days of the Plantagenet kings have soldiers been drafted from the peasantry outside wartime. From then on, all military forces have always been composed, in bulk, of volunteers. During that time we have always remained a military power and, until recent times, have always had a sense of identity and duty amongst the masses, at least to a point far stronger than it is now.

3) Teaching the unteachable

I’ve lived or worked in several countries with compulsory service. The idea being that it installs a sense of national pride in the servicemen. The problem with this is that pride cannot be enforced, it must come naturally. Forcing nationalism upon people results only in lip service, fake ceremonies and hidden resentment.

4) Lack of pragmatism

Nations that use compulsory service such as Switzerland use the programme almost as a technical scholarship. Servicemen are simply deployed on standing guard duty within a peaceful city. This has the sideways bonus of keeping young males – the demographic most prone to crime and other problematic behaviour – in order, but what other benefits does it bring? Instead of using compulsory service as a form of training, any UK government would be far more productive in repairing the utter destruction Labour has inflicted on our education system. A return of grammar schools and a real curriculum would be time and money far better spent by our rulers, and in the long run it would reap far greater benefits for, and by, our young men.

This is where I stand. The UK has a great, great Armed Forces network – fulled by great people – that has served us brilliantly for centuries. We must be careful not to damage or weaken it by making quixotic or false sentimental decisions. Compulsory service is not the way to go.

Media bias?

In this day and age, a media pundit cold be sat in rural Papa New Guinea and be as up to date on breaking news as a London correspondent. The finer and more subtle events however, can be missed by an exile such as myself. Yet sometimes this can be beneficial in the long run; in the same way that you will notice how a friend has aged if you see him once every ten years, yet would never be able to see such a thing if you take lunch with him each day, the biggest changes in Britain seem to jump out at me when I watch the news or after several months.

Enough waffle: I’m talking about the shocking and unrepentant bias in our mainstream media. I had been warned about it from various sources. I thought I knew what to expect, but when I watched this interview with Gordon Brown I was stunned. Can anyone fail to have noticed that the BBC reporter – supposedly working for our flagship TV station and bound to a strict code of conduct and fairness – was firing a salvo of loaded and prejudiced questions at GB? Watch it again. Notice how each reporter’s statement opens with a Brown/Labour statement followed by a Tory response. It’s never the other way around. This is no accident, it’s a psychological tactic. Notice how the journalist – whose job it is to get information – shoots a shameless set of loaded and sneering personal questions at GB.

“Wouldn’t you say it’s a mea culpa?” , “Wouldn’t you say some of this is your own responsibility?” and so on.

The approach of the reporter and the overall report may be subtle but it is clear: every Labour argument or tactic must be responded to and overruled by the Tories (having the last word) , every defence of Gordon Brown must be followed up by another charge. Open questions and in depth questions must be minimal, as it may allow him to at least try and make himself look good.

This is neither paranoid, important or trivial. This is a fundamental change in the way BBC reporters are dealing with politics and Labour in general. It appears the naysayers are correct. Our media have been influenced so heavily by the Tories that an unspoken consensus has been reached: it’s time for a Tory government. No hat’s not because Brown has been a disaster (though of course he has) it’s not because Cameron et al. are doing so well or appear so ready to take the reins (they don’t) it’s simply that various influences have manipulated the media to take this stance.

This is not uncommon in newspaper circles. One only has to look at the year of Blair’s first election victory for an example of how quickly tabloids will jump ship and completely change tack. But the BBC always seemed to take an admirable, if problematic, stance of neutrality. Now it seems they have become as weak and corruptible as the rest.

Don’t get me wrong. I have no time for GB and Labour, but I believe in a fair and free media and I take pride in what little integrity the BBC has left. I repeat: Brown may have been a disaster, Labour may be a shambles, but to confuse the incompetence of the ruling party with the loaded and manipulative reporting of our flagship news station is unacceptable. If we allow this to happen, it can only lead to an Orwellian media, where not only our vote, but our whole image and understanding of our government will be twisted and manipulated by a few elitist executives and those who choose to wine and dine their workers.


This was originally meant to be an extra page on the blog, but I decided it would make the whole layout even more cluttered. So please take a read right here…………….

It’s important to understand the concepts in this blog, to avoid needless repetition and to save some readers from shock. To understand some of the key ideas I express and why they are so incredibly important, we first need to crush some of the nonsense that other political bloggers subscribe to, consciously or not.

1) The Conservative Party is no longer conservative.

Fact: The majority of Conservative Party members are interested in nothing more than gaining power.

This is surely a given. If anyone truly believes the Tories represent any form of tradition, social conservation, reactionism or any other form if reversal from the massive and horrific damage done to our society by Labour than they re uninformed or mistaken.

This should be clear from a look at the Conservatives track record should be damning enough. No resistance to the abolition of grammar schools, no open, honest opposition to immigration and most obvious of all, no organised opposition to the EU! Don’t be fooled by talk of ‘euro-sceptics’. The Conservatives will never have the collective courage to pull us out of the EU. Never!

Many members of the Tories at all levels are aware of this deep own, this is why they stick to empty rhetoric like ‘change’ and personal attacks on Brown and Labour members. It avoids debate of the real issues.

Yes there are some groups such as the Cornerstone Group and the likes of Daniel Hannan who are fighting the tide, in reality they would be better off with Popular Alliance.

2) There is little, if any difference between the ‘big three’ parties anymore.

Just because they play a few games during Prime minister’s Questions does not mean there is any real ideology beyond a lust for power anymore. I can only wonder how much time and effort cold be saved by supporters of the big three if they realised the illusion they play along with when they debate political issues.

All three support unconditional surrender to the EU. All three support the abolition of grammar schools and meritocratic education. All three play along with politically correct approaches to immigration (opposition in any form or however articulated is ‘racist’) education (they all support comprehensives and the universal dumbing own of examinations) , multiculturalism (all of them are terrified to speak out against it to the slightest degree) and so on. You name a major manifesto issue, you will be hard pressed to find a difference in the big three.

The only issues that provoke any real split are issues more to do with personal values and morality than ideology, such as the Iraq War.

And do I really need to point out just how evenly spread across the ‘big three’ the expenses scandal was?

Peter Hitchens is right when he says our political compass is broken I’ll be happy to debate this point with anyone.

3) The best thing any true conservative can do for the UK is to NOT vote Conservative.

My strong belief: The country has suffered great social damage and needs a genuinely conservative party to restore it. This must be done via the collapse of the Conservative Party.

It is not only Labour to blame. The Tories helped bring about our surrender of sovereignty when the began begging the French to let us in the EU. Whilst Thatcher was a great PM in many ways, she willingly helped along with the dismantlement of our education system. John Major did nothing to oppose immigration or the radicalisation of our justice system that values reform over punishment and has our police acting more like social workers.

But Labour have perhaps struck the hardest blow. More cameras than ever are watching British people,our liberties are being chipped away every day ( detention rules, curbs on free speech, etc.) let crime has not decreased in tandem. Gordon Brown presided over the biggest financial collapse in the UK since the Great Slump.Politically correct terminology has infiltrated every school and government institution in the nation at the expense of common sense, taxes continue to rise and the promised referendum on EU membership is nowhere to be found. Brown has made clear his intentions to create constitutional ‘reform’, which could involve any number of attacks on systems that have worked so well for us over centuries of development.

Reversal of these nightmares Will take time and will require a party with true conservative values.Yet voters are often driven by habit and many still foolishly or misguidedly vote Tory.

The only solution is for the Conservative Party to lose one more election. Such a shock, such an unprecedented run of defeats by a party so confident and desperate for power would undoubtedly create a fallout. That fallout would likely result in the collapse or major reform and create political space for a real conservative Party like Popular Alliance to step in. This is a supposition I will expand on in my blog.

Suggested reading:

Andrew Marr “A History of Modern Britain”

Peter Hitchens: “The Broken Compass” , “The Abolition of Britain”

Sean Gabb “Culture Revolution, Culture War”

Melanie Phillips “Londonistan”

Jonathon Bowman’s speech on Marxism (available from his website).

On the importance of teamwork

Now tell me, what does that mean to be noble? Your title gives you claim to the throne of our country, but men don’t follow titles, they follow courage. Now our people know you. Noble, and common, they respect you. And if you would just lead them to freedom, they’d follow you. And so would I. Unite us!

William Wallace

Craig Chapman over at Popular Alliance Staffordshire has blogged a simple but effective point to make about the importance of unity amongst the smaller, anti-EU parties. Craig has explained the pragmatics of the issue so I don’t want to repeat him, instead I want to reflect on why we got into this situation in the first place.

Certainly, since WW2 the UK has shifted leftwards on the political spectrum. Partly due to guilt over various issues, partly due to the dire financial situation we were in because of the cost of the war and partly due to changes in attitudes and behaviour amongst the working class.

That change could not be arrested by Conservative Prime Ministers, especially after the humiliation of the Suez Crises. Instead we slid into a world of politically correct, federalist and centre left rule. The Conservative Party have long since accepted that it is easier to work with this fact rather than struggle against it. AS such, they now pay lip service to Conservative ideals and nothing more.

These changes happened slowly, gradually and often in underhand methods. The result is there has been no major shock to the people, no wake up call or alarm bells have been rung. The British people have been immersed in creeping normalcy, as the older generation – who can remember when things were not this way – die off, and the rest of us just carry on. This gradual way of doing things, combined with the continuing fraud being spouted by the ‘Conservative Party’ has ensured that no mass resistance had grown up. Instead, we have seen a splurge of smaller, less powerful parties appearing – and sometimes dying off – in slow waves, with no great support base behind them.This suits the big three perfectly, by keeping the opposition divided, isolated and small we present no threat.

But something is happening. The opposition to the EU fraud is growing, disillusionment with the big three is growing, ….dare I say it………… some are even waking up to the myth of the Conservative Party. With all these changes comes a growth in the centre right, as we saw in the latest EU polls: two extra MEPs for UKIP and forty thousand votes for the brand new UK First party who had almost zero exposure or advertising funds.

Now comes the crunch. WE can build on this success by unifying the smaller parties – Popular Alliance, English Democrats, UK First, Free England, and anyone else who believes we have more in common than in difference. WE can for a larger party with a new name (or compound name) and a united front and make a real push to get seats in Parliament.

Or alternatively, we can allow the powers that be to worm their way back in. The fixed re-referendum on the EU in Ireland, newer and stronger measures to hide expenses scandals and lots ore lies about terrorist threats and economic “green shoots” could easily and quickly kill off the growth of the ant-EU factions if we are not strong enough to “fight” back.

It could be a turning point in the future of the UK. Let’s all hope that the leaders of the other parties are sensible and dedicated enough to talk about working together. After all, the good of the UK should be priority number one for us all.

Political self defence: the white belt class.

This week will be a quiet week blog wise as it’s exam week at work.

However I want to kick start my section on political tricks. We’ll start with something easy: the push poll.

A push poll is an insidious way to smear a political opponent without actually having any evidence. It will usually take place between a ‘pusher’ and a random voter (the ‘target’). The process involves the pusher slyly suggesting or inferring that a political opponent has committed an immoral or illegal act without ever directly stating they have done so.

Example of a push poll:

A push poll may work like this (in a telephone call):

PP (The ‘Push poll’ caller): “Can I ask you what you think of Party XYZ?”

Person (The ‘target’): “They’re OK, I think”

PP: “I see, and what would you think of them if I were to tell you their leader is a convicted bank robber?”

Person: “I would think a lot less of them. That would be terrible!”

PP: “I see, OK now next question….”

I’ve purposely made this example less subtle than a real push poll would be, so as you can see, there is an inference made of criminal behaviour without an outright accusation. This can be produce a subtle, often unconscious but highly effective change in perception on behalf of the target person. Such an inference is often enough to damage the opponent’s credibility

Of course a push poll can work in many forms, often more subtle than this example but the core idea is consistent: plant negative images, ideas and thoughts about your opponent inside the mind of your target.

Usage of push polls:

Karl Rove, a key figure in the Iraq War debacle, led push polls against John McCain the 2000 US elections.

Push polls can be performed in other ways other than direct conversation. Here is an obvious push poll type smear aimed at Nigel Farage. I left a message on this blog pointing out what they were doing. Needless to say, they rejected it.

Defending against push polls:

If you are the smeared person, seek legal advice. If that is not feasible, the I guess you have to take the same advice as you would if you were simply debating with someone using push poll tactics like our friends who smeared Nigel Farage, above. Simply call them on it. Say something like: “Why are you suggesting Politician X has an illegitimate child? Do you have any proof whatsoever? Why would you say this without proof? Are you trying to plant misinformation to smear someone? Is this the type of tactic you resort to because you cannot otherwise?” and so on.

Of course you could respond with multiple sentences rather than multiple questions but the questions are slightly more aggressive and if your opponent is using smears, then you should aggressively defends yourself. This defence works in my opinion because push polling – like so many dirty tricks – is a psychological technique and relies on the target or victim not fully understanding what is happening, even if they know something is not quite right. By fully exposing the technique taking place, you negate its efficacy.

Notice there is nothing astute about the defence. It is simply exposing the opponents tactics and breaking them down bit by bit. In the long run, you could use the opponent’s dirty tactics against them. Use a recording, photocopy or whatever medium you have of the smear and disseminate with a note explaining how push polling works, an example of the lie being told, a clear rebuttal and a conclusion that this is the depth your opponent sinks to.

That completes class one of political self defence. Would you like some homework?

PS Needless to say, Popular Alliance do not do push polls.

More on drugs

As an related aside, this debate and the Lisbon experiment recently cropped up over on Peter Hitchen’s blog. Peter posts a couple of papers that discusses things I have also discussed here.

The EU: Why we must leave

The most common misconception about the anti-EU argument is that it boils down to nationalistic whining about “losing our sovereignty”. This simply isn’t true. While the issue of sovereignty is crucial and should not be overlooked, there are other vital points to ponder.

Objections to Britain’s membership of the European Union can fall into two categories: those of principal and those of pragmatism. The former are easier to articulate and far more difficult for EU proponents to counter.

The essence is simple and indisputable: we were promised a referendum on Britain’s EU membership and that promise was broken by Labour. No prizes for guessing why that is the case. It would be foolish to throw all the blame at Labour though, the Tories set the wheels in motion in the seventies when Brits were conned into thinking their choice concerned a free or common market within Europe. The people were certainly never told or led to believe that they were voting on issues as important as supreme jurisdiction, sovereignty and democracy.

And democracy is exactly what the EU lacks. Of the two (arguably three, depending on your classifications) EU chambers, only one is directly elected, and that chamber has no legislative initiative . Of course, this little piece of reality is difficult for teh EU to hide or spin, yet still they try. Clicking on the previous link will explain:

The Commission has the legislative initiative {i.e. there is no legislative intiative for any elected body}. However, under the Treaty of Maastricht, the European Parliament has a right of legislative initiative that allows it to ask the Commission to submit a proposal.

In other words, MEP’s have about as much power over the laws as my son does when he wants a chocolate biscuit. In practise, motions within the EU are passed by the European Commission. What this means is that laws governing all citizens of the United Kingdom are as influenced by a politician from Greece whom we know nothing about – and who has never, ever been chosen by any election within the UK - as they are by our own EC representative. Even our own representative is selected by his or her peers, not the people.

To support this system is to believe with all your heart that politicians from every single EU member country are utterly equal in terms of ability, transparency, honesty and democratic validity. Even if you are so rose-tinted as to believe that, you must also believe it is fair for this system to come into effect without permission of the people.

The pragmatical argument is more difficult to approach for both “anti” and “pro” EU sides for a simple reason: the functionality of the EU is tortuous and opaque. The Lisbon Treaty – currently at the core of the EU controversy – and the already ratified Maastericht Treaty are complex beasts. So complex, in fact, that it is a badly kept secret that most of the relevant parties in the ratification have not read the whole document. You have to wonder: if the people who made it cannot understand this stuff, how can the rest of us even hope to do so?

In short: the EU system is a bit like the global warming debate; we all have an opinion, but few of us have the entire set of facts. In the case of the EU, is it really an accident that most citizens are confused or bored about what is going on? Whom does this work in favour of?

What we do know is this: the EU costs us millions upon millions. The EU creates ideal conditions for corruption to flourish – auditors refuse to sign off expense accounts, MEPs refuse to reveal expenses (a particular concern after local scandals) and have been exposed as signing in to parliament at 0730 and leaving immediately. This is done to permit the MEP to claim daily allowances.

The EU legal system overrides local wishes, as perfectly exemplified by the old Spanish trawler battle. It also renders our own parliament into an expensive form of impotence. However, nobody knows for sure how much of our legislation comes from the EU. Nigel Farage, Caroline Flint and the EU website have all given statistics that have been proved inaccurate. Again we must ask – how can such a massive entity be so ignorant of its own role?

These are a a few points from the small list of things we know for certain about the EU. Those who argue on its favour often do so in purely hypothetical terms.

“We are stronger together than we are apart”.

This line is a poplar piece of demagogy, and was proved false when the world economy collapsed around us last year. In response, EU leaders held an expensive summit with lots of smiles and lots of vacuous talk of “standing united”. As soon as the meeting was finished though, each leader fled to his or her own country and desperately tried to do what they could to minimise the damage. No central plan and no combined strategy, simply each man for himself. Am I the only one who was left scratching my head by this and wondering what the hell the taxpayers were paying out for?

” Leaving the EU would be financially disastrous”

I always respond to this line with: “You mean like Norway (top of the GINI coefficient index) or Switzerland?” to which the reply is usually:

“Ah but they have unique resources or services, we don’t”

Actually we are the financial trading centre of Europe, we were before we became fully fledged members of the EU and we will be after we leave. This ” we will be ruined” argument for EU membership implies it’s all or nothing – we are members of the EU or we are totally ostracised by Europe. This is total nonsense. There is no reason whatsoever why we cannot have free, strong and binding trade agreements with Europe without surrendering our sovereignty.

“The EU is good for human rights. It encourages other countries to be democratic and fair, because they know they cannot join otherwise.”

There may be some truth to this. But it’s well known that Turkey is being lined up for future EU membership, as are the old respective Yugoslavian and Russian states. When this happens we must either believe that all human rights abuses in the nations have stopped, or that the EU simply wants to increase its power and scope. Which one do we believe?

In summary, the EU is a juggernaut of corruption and greed, that only cares for power. It’s my strong belief that we are better off out of this wasted system, and can do more to help our European neighbors by working outside the system. But others may see things differently. That’s why my solution to the problem is the same as that of Popular Alliance, and UKIP: let the people decide, hold a referendum.

It’s that simple.
Posting part 3 of my manifesto tomorrow, here are a few quotes that I like for some reason. Feel free to add your own.

“An educated and literate electorate is far harder to govern”

Tony Benn

“Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the others”


“F**k the G-rides, I want the machines that are making them”

Rage Against The Machine

“Keep people scared and they will consume”

Marilyn Manson

“The strongest man is he who stands alone”

Henrik Ibsen

“I don’t agree with what you say but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”


“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Edmund Burke

“To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing”

Elbert Hubbard

‘It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles.”

Niccolo Machiavelli

“Gone are the days when the royals will farm on the backs of the people”

Pridi Banomyong (Thai politician)

Ashley Mote’s new look site

OK, OK, we know former MEP Ashley Mote is no angel, having served time for false expenses claims. Of course, he is also a civic nationalist and an opponent of the EU, and his expenses claims were revealed years ago. His opponents sang all about it from the roof tops.

Then of course, many local MPs also had their expenses exposed, showing them to be as dastardly as Mote.

So all being equal, I would invite anyone to look at Ashley’s web site which contains detailed, experienced and informed arguments against the EU, and a frank discussion of his own criminal charges.

Grammar schools and meritocracy

The debate and deception over the grammar school system in the UK could serve as a perfect example of what is wrong with Labour and British society in general, as well as the active fraud being touted by the Conservative Party.

I want you to imagine for a moment that you were fortunate enough to have an academically gifted child who excelled in Maths and Science, but you cannot afford to send that child to a private school. What options would you prefer to have open to you? Would you like your young one to go into a school and a class full of mixed ability students,or would you opt for an academically selective school that recognised your offspring’s talents and offered tailored learning, teachers and facilities to allow junior to fully develop all his or her talent?

If you choose option two, then I sincerely hope you are not a Labour voter. Labour have done more to demolish the grammar school system (that was option two) than any other party in history. Ah OK, so we all we have to do is hope the Conservative Party return to power and undo all the nonsense, right? Wrong. The Conservatives have never, and will never, reverse the damage done to meritocracy in the school system. Indeed, they actively participate in the demolition of it.

The fundamental principle of the grammar school system is opportunity. Bright students from any class, colour or creed can be selected to attend a school catering to their full potential through accelerated learning and appropriate treatment. That’s it. There is no excessive payment involved, there is no grand conspiracy to pick the finest and throw them into some privileged club, and those who do not make it can continue their education in a comprehensive school (just like me) that, in turn, is free to accommodate, plan and help students of a certain level. In short, it helps everyone.

This piece of common sense – like most others – has been blown to pieces by Labour and teh liberal establishment. Grammar schools have been viciously attacked as some form or elitism or symbol of inequality amongst the people, as though they were part of some grand plan to steal education from anyone who could not pass the entrance exam. Instead, we have been treated to the great dumbing down of British pupils via the comprehensive system.

If grammar schools were restored, comprehensives could go back to doing their job of assisting students to find their own skills, be they practical, specialised or simply identifying and overcoming any problems holding them back in the classroom. Right now though, the comprehensive system – of which I am a product – serves as an emblem of left wing ideology that everyone is equal. In this case, everyone is equally dumbed-down. Comprehensives offer no grouping by ability (with very minor exceptions) and subscribe to the philosophy that by mixing stronger and weaker students in one class, the weaker ones will gain some kind of benefit.

As a teacher myself, I can tell you categorically that in my experience, this theory does not work. Certainly there is little scientific evidence to support it. Rather – and surely this is a predictable conclusion to such an experiment – the class often settles down to a middle ground between the weakest and the strongest. Equally often, the class will take the character of the strongest and most vocal personalities in the group, which is rarely the brightest of the bunch, as those types tend to focus more on their studies than influence of their peers.

But it is not only the make up of the schools that have been transformed, the nature of the curriculum has changed too. In 2003, ‘Private Eye’ magazine published teh diary of a teacher in a standard comprehensive school. The diary was so shocking that, intially, some claimed it was fake or exagerrated. The writer of teh diary has since been revealed and teh deatils held to be true. I have never taught professionally in the UK but I have taken an active interest in educational developments and I have several friends who work as teachers or otherwise within the system. The conclusion is simple: we are producing higher grades through weaker exams, and lesser-skilled students through a liberal teaching ideology that focuses on life skills over core subjects and political correctness over practicalities.

The teachers must often feel like soldiers in the front line.Part of this ideological experiment focuses on student-centered learning to the (ahem) degree that discipline and mutual respect have become dirty ideas. Assaults on teachers are at an all time high. My own hometown figures in the national top ten for the number of students expelled for violence in the classroom.

It’s a Marxist’s dream and a Conservative’s nightmare, and it’s all happened under the watch of a Tory party who have done little to object. Moreover, many of them take part in its circumvention purely for selfish reasons. David Cameron, like so many of the elite, has moved into an area with souring house prices to land in the catchment area of one of Britain’s top schools. Effectively, such schools become private schools, the local property prices being determined by nothing but the locality of the school. Too bad that the rest of us cannot afford such massive house prices in tough times.

What can be done to reverse the body blow struck to our education system? UKIP, to their massive credit, actively support restoration of grammar schools. Popular Alliance go one step further and pledge to restore grammar schools, return balance to the curriculum and restore classroom control to the teacher. No we are not talking canes and ten hour detentions, but simply the ability to punish and reprimand where appropriate. Like so many of Labour’s targets for destruction, the Popular Alliance system is based and tried, trusted and effective techniques.

Drug pushers, users and abusers

This is part two of my ten part set on my own personal manifesto, borrowing heavily from my own party’s ideas. I’ve posted in a few places such as the British Democracy Forum and the UK Debate Forum where it has sparked several responses.


My students are doing a project on drugs. Their graded task is to write a leer to an imaginary friend who is using a drug (the students chooses which drug) and tries to persuade them to stop using. This is the culmination of two weeks study on the topic of drugs. Drugs are an emotive subject, and I was somewhat surprised that in teaching about them I never felt apprehensive, embarrassed or restricted.

Over the week we examined the ingredients of various drugs, the effects they have and their legal status. Of course, the aim of the lesson was to forewarn kids of the dangers of drugs. I didn’t find that at all hard. For most hard drugs, the effects are obvious and provable that an examination of them, combined with a summary of the jail time involved is all the deterrent needed. Of course, when it comes to alcohol and cigarettes the task of educating becomes tougher. This was summarised by one bright student who asked me “If alcohol has all these side effects [That I had just explained] why is it legal, but marijuana is not?” That question inspired this blog.

I take a very hard line on illegal drugs. If it were up to me, I would introduce the death penalty for convicted drug traffickers as is used in Singapore. Indeed, for all the many faults of its democratic system, Singapore is one of the safest places in the world. I always enjoy the feeling of being able to walk round the place at night without keeping one eye out for gangs looking to start a fight on someone walking alone. It’s even possible to walk into and out of a bar without seeing a single fight.

Can anyone really, truly, say they believe the safety of these places is not related to their very tough penalties on crime, especially drug trafficking?

While leftists love to talk about reform and rehabilitation – and of course there is a place for that – I prefer to look first at deterrents and justice for the victims. Unlike many other crimes, drug trafficking creates a domino effect of despair. It ruins careers, it breeds violence and corruption, it creates homeless children and orphans, the list goes on and on. The damage to society is massive. That’s why the Taliban work so hard to produce drugs to ship out west, and it’s why, to our shame, we Brits pushed opium into Hong Kong when we couldn’t otherwise get the Chinese to surrender.

In modern Britain, drug usage appears to have stabilized at levels obscenely high compared to usage say, fifty years ago. Since the sixties, certain drugs have become freely available to almost anyone who knows where to ask. Whilst our current legal and judicial system appears to be able to contain the problem, it is certainly not able to reduce or reverse it to any significant degree.

So what’s the solution? Liberals and libertarians would almost certainly advocate legalisation of more, or even all drugs. A case can certainly be made for this. It would raise a significant amount of taxes, it gives people to freedom to decide for themselves what to do with their bodies without state interference and – going back to the question my student asked me – it would eliminate the bizarre double standards we have with drugs like alcohol legally available whilst seemingly safer drugs are not.

What would the consequences of total decriminalisation be? For certain, more people would become users. The old adage: ‘Anyone who wants to take drugs badly enough will do so, legal or not’ is false.Some drug users are prosecuted, and I’m sure anyone who grew up in the 80s or 90s has known someone who wanted to get hold of drugs at some point but could not. Making something illegal does reduce usage, the only question is by how much.

If more people become users, many of them will continue to live healthily and productively. Other people will damage their health. More people will become mentally disturbed and more people will destroy their own potential. Let me be very clear right here, this is not ‘holier than thou’ or uninformed preaching. In my twenties I liked a drink and a smoke. I moved on a music scene where certain types of drugs were used by many people. I once shared a home with a cocaine user and I’ve had a fellow teacher sacked for turning up for work under the influence of ‘phet. An old school friend of mine has degarded into a shadow of his old self and is unable to work or hold a relationship because of his long term use of weed and LSD. I’ve read, spoken and studied with people who have a very liberal and informed knowledge of drugs. Am I an expert? Certainly not. Am I out of touch? No.

Back to the solutions to the drug problem and the case for legalisation. While decriminalizing may seem the least invasive and patronising move by the state, I think that is only true from the view of the individual. As we’ve established, society as a whole undoubtedly suffers from use of hard drugs, if they are legal or not. While libertarians may make a strong case for freedom of the individual, I prefer to find a balance between the needs of one person and the society that person lives in.

If that seems a little abstract then let’s take an easier example. Imagine your neighbour plays music (from a rubbish band, let’s say Santana) at top volume for three days straight. Would you still be saying “Ah well he has the right to do that in his home?” Or would you be saying: “Sure let him play his music but think of other people once in a while! Give it a rest”? You see? It’s about balance.

And when it comes to drugs, I strongly believe that balance lies in making certain drugs illegal. And when I say illegal, I mean zero tolerance. There is no point offering a punishment for something if that punishment is so soft it does not frighten someone away from doing it. I support the death penalty for convicted drug traffickers. It works. If you doubt this, go to Singapore and Hong Kong and see for yourself.If you doubt the deterrence of the death penalty itself, simply ask yourself – think of one tiny crime you commit (parking on double yellow lines for example) and imagine that as of today, the death penalty would be enforced for this act. Would you carry on doing it?

(Occasionally people have responded to my argument concerning Singapore by pointing out the dictatorship at work in these countries but that is a non-sequitor.The penalties work by themselves, regardless of who implements them.)

I also support strong prison terms without reduction for convicted local pushers and strong fines for minor drug users. Once again, these punishments will work. They will make the streets safer. They will reduce murders, prostitution, homelessness, disease, theft, robberies and gang wars. Yes that will come at the cost of the denial of freedom to use hard drugs but sorry guys, the benefits to others massively outweigh the personal sacrifice as far as I can see. Moreover, with the expenses saved by these measures we can invest more in our police to ensure they stay clean enough to do their job and free up their time to perform foot patrols.

All that is needed to make this operation work is an efficient and trustworthy police force. In Thailand, the war on drugs was tragic because it was given to a police force incapable of handling a task of such magnitude. But in the UK – despite recent negative press – we undoubtedly have the nucleus of a very good police force that can be trained to perform such a massive operation and do so well.

But what about the drugs already in our list? What about the question my student asked me? If I take my argument to its logical conclusion, shouldn’t alcohol also be illegal?

The fact is that alcohol – for better or for worse – has always been a part of British culture. It has become such an integral part of our tradition that its removal would never be accepted by the masses. Likewise for cigarettes. I speak as the occasional drinker myself when I say that we would probably be better off if alcohol did not exist, but it does. At least society has evolved to the point where most people can use these drugs responsibly, though binge drinking seems to be on the rise.

All in all, it seems the best solution – and the best compromise – that we allow the beer and Marlboro to stay on the shelves with the taxes remaining high enough to produce revenue for the hospitals that result from overuse. That said, I would most certainly encourage a reduction in the binge drinking culture by introducing penalties and even short term jail for anyone – and I mean anyone – who drinks and drives or engages in violent acts whilst intoxicated. By all means, exercise your freedom to go out and get bladdered, but when you do, do not decide to smash a glass in some other person’s face and break his jaw because you didn’t like the look of him. Alcohol fueled violence is increasingly commonplace in most British cities these days.That needs to stop.

Like I said, it’s the best compromise we can find. Compromises are what really works in this life, not some kind of Utopian ideals. Just don’t trying telling that to a Communist.

Popular Alliance support a referendum on the death penalty, possible life sentences for drug traffickers and twenty four hour detention for drunken violence.

Tags: debate on legalisation of drugs, drug abuse in the uk, drug pushers, drug traffickers, police in the uk

New speaker, same *****!

Could it have been less convincing, less hopeful or more unctuous if he had tried?

I sense I am not the only one disappointed with the appointment of John Bercow as speaker. After all, his own party voted against him. That is not a bad thing per se, as a distressed Tory party is the best thing this country can hope for right now, but the fact that Bercow received so much more support from Labour is a major concern, unless you believe they were acting with totally neutrality as the constitution demands. If you do believe that though, you probably believe they acted ‘impeccably’ with their expenses, too.

Bercow’s words on acceptance were scripted, vacile and tired:

“It has been a difficult time and many of us are feeling vulnerable…”

(We’ve been caught out and are really annoyed about that)

“….but we must remember many of the public are upset and angry…”

(Remember to keep sweet talking until something else big hits the news.)

“…..this is the proudest moment of my career….”

(My salary has never been so high.)

“….I will forget my previous politics…”

(I never cared much anyway.)

And so on. If I sound painfully cynical, it’s because I’ve heard this type of thing said so many times before without substance. Bercow is right about one thing: the need to restore public faith in the house. But what annoys me is the constant talk about ‘reform’, as though the system is at fault. It is not the system that needs changing, it’s the people! The only change needed in ‘the system’ is a tightening of laws on expenses to make abuse clearly illegal rather than just murky.

Anyway, here is an acceptance speech you will never hear, because I will never be house speaker:

“Thank you for your faith in me. I will not talk at length about personal pride because we do not have time for that. I will not thank the previous speaker because I do not believe he deserves praise.

Right now, the public have lost all faith in us for very good reasons. an of us have failed them. It will take time to restore that trust and we should all do what w can to begin that process. For my part, I promise to restore the constitutional role of the speaker. I will not allow police into the house with a warrant. I will monitor and scrutinise expenses and make public all findings. I will practise personal diligence inside the house during Parliament and outside the house with personal expenses. I will work tirelessly to restore the reputation of the house as this is the role I have been appointed to first by the public, next by my colleagues and finally by the Queen. Thank you once again”.

Hopefully I wouldn’t sound as fake as Mister Bercow when speaking.

Read all about it!

A couple of articles from the latest issue of ‘Private Eye’ jumped out and punched me between the eyes this week.

The first of them concerns expenses at the EU Parliament (the only directly elected body within the EU, and it has no legislative initiative). I have long felt that the sheer mess of the EU ’s oragnisation and audit trail is not accidental. By keeping things confusing and, ergo, inciting apathy, the EU elite get away with a lot more than they otherwise could.

And so it is that Private Eye tells us Glenys Kinnock is amongst those caught by MEP Hans Peter Martin utilising the time honored office tradition of ‘Sign In and Sod Off (SISO)’ in the EUP. Glenys and one hundred and ninety three other MEP’s were caught leaving the building immediately after signing in, simply to claim their GBP175 daily allowance.

The biggest shock here is not the lack of interest this has generated in the mainstream press, but the fact that it is only recent news. Tales of obscene fiddling and dubious expenses have been flowing from Brussels long before the local expenses scandal came to light.

The second article concerns my – and anyone who truly values equality – bitter enemy ‘multicultralism’. Tower Hamlets in London have recently appointed a new team to their council who promise to deliver ‘One Tower Hamlets’. For those who don’t understand the politically correct babble of British society, this term implies a perfect blend and representation of every culture in the area, living in Disney style harmony.

Just one problem: eight members of the ten man team are Bengali. This might be understandable if they were the best for the job of course, thought that seems unlikely considering five are defectors to Labour from George Galloway’s Respect Coalition, one tried to make taxpayers pay for his Olympic trip last year and another has been reprimanded for his lack of attendance at council meetings.

My question is simple: if people with the same track record had been appointed to these positions but were ethnic English instead of Bengali, would the press coverage be this thin?

The truth about global warming

Today’s ‘news’ features the appearance of Paul McCartney at ‘Meat Free Monday’, an event promoting the idea of “going ‘meat free’ one day per week in order slow global warming”. (From now on I’ll use ‘GW’ as an acronym for global warming.) Such nonsense epitomises everything that is wrong with the GW movement.

First of all, can anyone explain in rational, scientific terms exactly what benefits can be gained by not eating meat for one day each week? Do we actually have credible statistics that prove such a reduction in meat consumption will actually reduce emissions to any significant degree? Do we actually believe that Paul McCartney – legend that he is – actually has environmental interests at the top of his priority list when he makes these public appearences? Does he actually have real knowledge of the issues at hand?

As you may have noticed, events like this are one of my pet peeves. I get sick of seeing rock concerts screaming “Stop Global Warming!” at the top of every poster just to sell a few extra tickets. I get fed up of shops promoting fake ‘green’ products, and I wince when I hear people harp on about some ’stop GW’ fundraiser they attended.

Let’s look at this as if The World was a person and global warming were the cigarettes that person smoked. Attending a concert called “Stop Global Warming Now!” would be like the smoker saying: “Yes I really should give up sometime soon” before opening another pack. Not eating meat once a week would be equivalent to saying “OK, today I’ll smoke forty nine cigarettes instead of fifty”.

Heartlessly cynical? Maybe, but I detect a strong theme of self interest running throughout. Most green products sold in shops are simply ‘bandwagon’ advertising. Rock concerts and fundings events are often a form of publicity for celebrities and a cheap way for consumers to say “I’ve done my bit” and continue to live in ignorance. And notably, governments in the west seem only too happy to let us carry on like this. Why?

Perhaps it’s because the truth requires slightly more effort. Let’s start with the so called consensus. Now, I recently saw a documentary featuring an interview with a highly respected professor of oceanography from a top American university. He stated that he could not be sure that GW was anthropogenic but he felt it probably was. Now, let’s remember that this is one of the finest scientific minds in the world speaking here, and he openly states he is not totally sure. If such an expert cannot be sure, how can the rest of us be so fanatically convinced? The answer, of course, is that we have to trust the experts we listen to. But the experts are by no means united in their verdict.

Secondly, recycling carrier bags and eschewing meat once a week, whilst noble in its aims, is basically a spit in the ocean. The only way to make a real difference to GW is to push China and India to live differently and utilise cleaner forms of fuel. Of course,that could mean that China could not continue to produce ultra-cheap consumer goods for us in the west and would perhaps be unable to purchase so many US government bonds. Likewise, India would have to cease providing extra-cheap manpower to European businesses.

Could that reality explain why our governments seem so content to let us switch off our lights for an hour once a year, then carry on as usual?

Murderers, rapists and thieves – what do we do with them?

I will now slowly move across articles from my old blog to here. This is the first....

Fact – crime increases when economic times are hard.

Fact – We are currently entering the greatest economic depression since the great slump of the 1920s.

Fact – Violent crime – knife and gun crime – is increasing at an alarming rate.

Do you trust Labour or the Conservative Party to deal with this?

If you trust Labour, you obviously have been living under a rock for at least the last five years. If you trust The Conservatives to deal with the problem, you obviously didn’t know, or forgot, that the Criminal Justice Act of 1991 – when they were last in power – was responsible for major prison sentences being cut in half.

When discussing prison and punishment, debates always seem to split into two sides – those who believe in reform, education and skilled training for prisoners and those who believe in punishment, retribution and deterrents.

I’ve always wondered – why can’t we have both? It’s simple – prison sentences should be firm. They should take away rights and freedoms from those who have harmed others. Likewise, they should not be a holiday camp or free hotel. Sentences should be long too, it is a travesty that prisoners in the UK have been released early due to lack of space (as happened shortly after Gordon Brown took over). Conditions should be harsh. Yet at the same time, there should be classes providing education to prisoners and skills training to boot. This would provide a long term method of reform. Does all this sound unrealistic? It doesn’t to me.

Yes, your tax money will be spent on teachers and classroom equipment for inmates,it cold be the best money ever spent if it stops one criminal from going back on to the street and selling drugs, then catching one of your family in the cross fire over a turf war.

But let’s remember that prevention is better than cure. In the case of crime, the first, only and best line of defence should be our police. But it’s one of society’s worst kept secrets that we no longer have police on patrol (how often do you see bobbies on the beat in your town?) and are kept in virtual handcuffs themselves by red tape and constraints borne from political correctness and ridiculous liberal ideals. As such, we have a skilled and respectable police force that is often rendered powerless in doing their job.

How should we solve these problems?

Well when it comes to policing, I and the Popular Alliance would start at the bottom. Absolutely zero tolerance of gangs, graffiti, threatening behaviour and drunkenness on the streets. Don’t underestimate the importance of this, or mistake it for undue fear of relatively minor crimes. Stopping these types of offenses is absolutely crucial. Psychologists who study criminal behaviour (and generous behaviour, for that matter) frequently identify a ‘foot in the door effect’. What this means is that one small act of aggression or social upheaval breaks an imaginary mental barrier and makes it far more likely that the offender will go on to commit far more unpleasant crimes. No of course they won’t all do so, but many will.

If you doubt this ‘foot in the door effect’ think about how it applies to many aspects of life. How many of us have not tried to resist eating a single piece of pizza or downing that first glance of wine, only to find the whole pizza box or wine bottle empty an hour later? The good news is that such an effect can also work in reverse, and produce greater and greater acts of goodness in the right circumstances.For a very interesting read on this subject area, I strongly recommend ‘The Lucifer Effect’ by Philip Zombardo.

And rest assured, the police would have no problems doing their job under the PA. The disgraceful Human Rights Act would be scrapped and officers would be free to disperse gangs. In summary, our approach here is similar to the ‘broken windows’ police used by New York mayor Giuliani and was highly successful in fighting crime in New York.

Even in this day and age, different communities have different needs. Under the PA, police forces will be kept in regional constabulery form, and will be accountable to their communities. Regional chiefs will be elected.

When they are arrested, where will they go? Once again, under a Popular Alliance government you don’t need to worry. There will be enough prisons built. That may mean expenses elsewhere have to be reduced (oh yes, did we mention that we actually tell the truth, too? What the heck are we doing in politics?!) but it’s worth it, because nothing is more important to a society than the safety of its people and the freedom from fear of crime. In any case, the mass of red tape that we would cut would probably cover that expense anyway.

So there you have it take your pick – the rising tide of crime (thanks Labour) and politically correct prison sentences and lack of punishment (thanks Conservative) or a new system of common sense and reform. I challenge any supporter of any party to a debate on this topic. The Popular Alliance manifesto on crime is here.