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.
Monday, 12 October 2009
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.
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. www.popularalliance.org
Tags: debate on legalisation of drugs, drug abuse in the uk, drug pushers, drug traffickers, police in the uk
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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. www.popularalliance.org
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
