Miliband: "I am a Socialist" - Told you....

If you want to hear Labour leader Ed Miliband get torn to pieces, have a listen to the interview with John Humphrys on the Today show here.

Full of snivelling soundbites about how Miliband believes in "fairness" and is pained by "inequality", Humphrys responds by asking about specifics, and Miliband falls to pieces.  Why is this?  The answer lies in an earlier interview during the day when he admitted that yes indeedy, he is a socialist!

Now, this won't come as a surprise to many of us who have known this all along, but there may be some in the general public who hear this and are alerted.  I hope so, because Miliband is already trying to turn the political climate back into an era of soundbites and catchphrases like "everyone doing their bit" and "helping each other out" and "reducing inequality" and of course Ed's favourite - "committed to fairness."

These can of course mean anything to anyone, that is the whole point.  However, once it gets out that Red Ed is quite happy to call himself a socialist, we can instantly see what policies come from his interpretation of these catchphrases.

So "everyone doing their bit" means "the rich and middle class pay more taxes"

"Helping each other out" means "expand the role and size of government."

"Reducing inequality" means "enormous welfare handouts"

"Committed to fairness" means "make sure no-one does too well in life."

Once people realise that these inoffensive slogans lead to these offensive policies, then Labour will sink back into the wilderness for as long as it takes for them to grow out of it.  However it is important that it is exposed just how left-wing this guy is, how radical he and his party's policies really are once we get over the fluff that they are wrapped in, and what a disaster such policies have been and will be for the country.

Luckily Ed appears to be doing that for us.  Although he has generally kept quiet since his election, and does his very best not to actually discuss policy, when he is drawn out into the open, he is quite happy to admit that he is a high-tax, big government redistributionist socialist.  This can only be a good thing for conservatives in Britain - if we can keep drawing him out into the open, Labour won't win a thing.
and

The Royal Couple Checkmate the Left

After the Royal Wedding was announced last week, we saw lots of hand wringing by those on the left, "anxious" about "excessive" expense on the upcoming Wedding  in a time where welfare and the power of government is being cut.  "We couldn't have that" said they, "It should be simple" they pined.

Of course, this was really about the left's distaste for those principles that the monarchy stand for.  In attempting to "draw attention" to these issues and politicise the wedding, they were attempting to hijack the happy day for William and Kate in order to push forward their own political ends.  However, it has now been completely wrecked.

It has been reported today that not only have Prince William and Miss Middleton set the date, but that (apart from security and clean up) the Royals and the Middleton's will be footing the entire bill.  Although I am sure that there will be some who attempt to claim this as a victory, this is actually a stunning checkmate for the Royals, and a disastrous defeat for the left.  This is because the left can no longer have any axe to grind about the whole thing.

The wedding was being set up by the left-wing media to be an horrific display of "pomp and privilege", to be contrasted with pictures of the Dickensian nightmare that we are told haunts Britain, all because "the rich" are too mean and stingy to give more than half their income to the taxman.  It was through this that the left would try and turn this happy day into a political canvassing opportunity for their cause, a cause that would result in the abolishment of the last checks and balances of state power and an even greater concentration of power into our State machine.

Now, they are going to have to regroup, and they will have to do it quickly, as this is quickly turning into the Monarchy's finest hour.  The Wedding will put Britain on the map once again, it could stimulate the economy by billions in the short term, and will increase tourism to Britain in the medium to long term.  It will make Brits proud of their country, proud of their traditions, and will inject both a patriotism and a religiosity into the British public at large that has not been seen for a very long time.

Do not underestimate this.  This is Defcon 1 for the British left.  They will try and attack this wedding with everything they have, but at the moment they have nothing.  Let us hope that it stays this way.

Congratulations Prince William and Kate Middleton!

First, Congratulations are in order for Prince William and his new fiancée Kate Middleton.  Most people have a fondness for Prince William, and Miss Middleton seems like a lovely woman, so this is a great time to be a Brit.  

It is also something that is necessary for the country as a whole.  It has been a while since there has been anything to get really excited about in Britain - the last election wasn't exactly a thrill a minute, and so this provides a much needed boost to Britain as a nation. It also reminds us of what we stand for, apart from the fluffy buzzwords of the left - "Oooh Britain is all about tolerance and diversity....."

Of course, the left are miserable about the royal wedding.  Certainly, there will have to be a carefulness about the wedding and where the money will come from - after all it would look a tad odd to be having an overly-lavish wedding during a time of cut backs and job losses.  However, in typical leftish fashion, they are pushing a decent point way too far.  This is because they have a very narrow vision of what public money should be spent on - unions and welfare mostly.  If it doesn't give the State more power, then it is a total waste of money.  Therefore under the banner of "fiscal responsibility" (giggle, snort) they are fighting tooth and nail against this wedding, or at least trying to make everyone feel guilty about it in the process.

The line the left are playing is "How dare you spend all this money of these horrible wealthy rich people, when there are so many poor starving in the Dickensian nightmare that is Tory Britain."  Ok, I exaggerate, but only slightly!  Expect rags like the Guardian and the Mirror to be making snide remarks about lavish wedding dresses in contrast to those who can "barely afford to buy clothes at all."  The implied notion is that we shouldn't have this wedding at all, and should instead throw yet more money into the bloated welfare state.

The problem for the left is that there are already lots of reports coming through that this wedding will easily beat its cost in terms of the stimulus that it will create.  One retailer has predicted that while the wedding will cost in the region of £50 million (small change by government standards), it will boost the economy by at least £620 million.  This will be done through the gifts and souvenirs, through food and drink purchases for various parties and celebrations, and through a boost in the tourist industry as well as Britain's standing abroad.

This will be an international event that will put Britain at the centre of the world, at least for a month or so, which is something that Britain has been lacking since it has been crippled by the lefties determined to turn us once again into a socialist state.  This is a real opportunity to give Britain a proper stimulus, as opposed to all those phoney slush funds we have been seeing on both sides of the Atlantic.

It will improve Britain's standing, improve Britain's economy, and give the British people a pride of their nation once again.  These are all things that the leftists will find difficult to put up with, so expect an onslaught of anti-monarchist sentiment to rise up through the lefty blogs and papers over the next six or so months.  It is important that we do not let these people spoil what could be an exceptional moment for our country!

Thomas Sowell - Economic Facts and Fallacies

I know it is slightly lazy blogging to post a video, but I do like to link to videos that I see as valuable in promoting the conservative movement, so I am going to do it anyway!

One of the authors I continually recommend is Thomas Sowell.  Originally a Marxist, he eventually had a dramatic conversion to free market capitalism, and has written countless books on economics since then.  I would argue that he is the true heir to Milton Friedman, he really is that good.  If ever you can pick up his books or listen to him speak, please do.  He is well worth it.

The link I post below is a discussion he had on Uncommon Knowledge a few years ago about his book Economic Facts and Fallacies.  So, fix up a cup of coffee, sit bak and enjoy this entertaining, and valuable, discussion!  Have a great weekend!

Lefty British Students Engage in Mass Tantrum

Well, we knew this was coming!  We had watched the French descend into chaos over the decision to extend the retirement age by a year, so when the Coalition engaged in spending cuts, it was likely that at least one group was going to start kicking up the place.  Every now and again there will be a G8/G20 etc conference, and a "minority" (a word always used when it is leftists being violent) of protestors start destroying buildings, throwing bins through McDonalds in addition to the usual whining, so another left-wing attack on private property was inevitable.

Yesterday was the day.  A student protest at the possibility of raising the cap for university fees from approximately £3,000 to £9,000 (that's right my American friends, British students are bitching at having to possibly pay $12,000 a year for University, that is how spoilt we are) quickly turned violent.  Police, who have been criticised by all sort of victims groups for their "harsh" treatment of rioters in previous protests, decided (understandably) not to step in, and Tory HQ was destroyed by a relatively small mob (I say relatively, it was still well over 500 people), but a small mob who was being cheered by a large amount of people nearby.

Obviously this is completely obscene.  The police should have had the ability to wade in, tear gas the entire place and start swinging batons.  They have a duty to defend those people who wish to go about their daily business without being attacked by a bunch of middle class communists.  However, Britain has completely castrated its police, so we have only ourselves to blame that it ended up being police officers who were being carried out bleeding and injured, and not the ones causing the trouble.

However, what is the most interesting thing about this is how the protesters and rioters view themselves.  They seem to think of themselves as some sort of freedom fighters, fighting for the "rights" of their fellow students, and for freedom against "the tyranny".  However, they are quite the opposite.  In their claim for "free education", they are not arguing for any such thing.  There is no free education, the only question is who bears the brunt of the cost - those who receive the education and the primary benefits, or those who do not receive the education, and who might only possibly receive some sort of secondary benefit?

All conservatives are asking is that people bear the cost of their own education.  They make the decision to do something, therefore they must pay for it.  If they cannot afford to, then there are a number of ways to get round this, from loans to bursaries to part time jobs and part time studying.  The question is ultimately not one of "How much should education cost?" because the price does not change - the only question is "Who pays for it?"

Conservatives want those who are making the free decision to go to University to bear the cost, while the leftists setting fire to things want taxpayers to be forced to pay for optional education for people who they do not know, and who may in fact be earning a lot more than those unfortunate taxpayers in the future.  So, who is really fighting for freedom from tyranny?  Conservatives are simply fighting for taxpayers to be allowed to do what they wish with their money, and not be forced to fund a bunch of people who will, at the first sign of an increase in fees, go and cause thousands of pounds worth of damage to public buildings.

Of course the ultimate irony is that if those students who took a day of from University to travel to London and trash private property chose instead to get a part-time job and work on those free days, then they would be in a much better position financially then they are currently!

Waterboarding Saved British Lives. Well...Yeh!

So, George W. Bush's latest book, Decision Points, is out and sure enough, much controversy abounds!  One of the main talking points (or decision points!) is Bush's claim that waterboarding resulted in vital information that prevented terrorist attacks upon Great Britain, and therefore saved British lives.

This has obviously caused enormous controversy, with many lefties (and a number of panicky conservatives) dismissing the claim, and stating that it doesn't really matter anyway as torture is completely unacceptable etc.  Now one of the difficult things about this is that the word 'torture' gets thrown about alot.  This is quite an emotive term, and is normally left undefined, which makes it impossible to have a proper debate about

If we give 'torture' a wide definition, and then declare 'torture = bad' then you end up with a ridiculous scenario where even giving a prisoner poor quality food is 'obscene' and 'abhorrent' and all the other emotive terms the left use to distract from arguments they always lose on the merits of the facts.  In order to condemn 'all torture', we need a very precise definition that does not lead to absurdities like the above, otherwise even banging on the table in anger would be classified as "torturing the suspect using fear and aggression."

This new revelation by Bush is perfectly easy to believe, and is pretty obvious as well.  One of the only three people to be waterboarded (by the way the left went on about it you would think we waterboarded all of Afghanistan) was the infamous right hand man to Osama Bin Laden - Khalid Sheik Mohammed - who eventually sang like a red robin, and gave away detailed information about potential terrorists attacks on Britain and the US.  While the exact nature of this information is classified, it can be revealed that these include plans to attack Heathrow Airport, Big Ben and Canary Wharf.  Such an attack would have caused unimaginable devastation, and all Brits should be thankful that we had someone like Bush in office who was prepared to make those difficult decisions that saved lives.

Now, we always have to look at costs and benefits to any action.  While the ends do not necessarily justify the means (i.e something intrinsically evil cannot be approved to get a good final end) unpleasant acts that are not intrinsically evil are made more bearable by potential benefits.  Waterboarding scumbags like Sheikh Mohammed are not intrinsically evil, because a) it is not torture, it is just water and b) Sheikh Mohammed is a direct and immediate threat to the lives of innocents.

Therefore the question is - what is more important, the lives of thousands of British citizens, or the comfort of the life of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?  With that in mind, I think the answer to the question of whether or not to waterboard terrorist scumbags like Sheikh Mohammed is clear - make sure that towel is wet, the water icy cold, and squeeze the terrorist lemon until the pips squeak!

"The West is Evil!!.....but I'll take their welfare...."

There are only very few Brits who I would describe as Anglo-American commentators.  I am one of course!  The other two whom I respect the most are Nile Gardiner - mentioned many times before on this blog, and the other is Daniel Hannan MEP.

Daniel has that excellent ability to squeak out issues that many other commentators have missed entirely, and then brutally nail that issue home, usually showing how ridiculous one leftist policy or another really is.  Sure enough, he has done the same today with an excellent article on the disproportionate amount of Islamic extremists who just happen to be claiming welfare in Britain.

Now, apart from the obvious outrage that always ensues when we find out that our taxes are going towards funding the families and lifestyles of people who would like nothing more than to kill our citizens and blow up our buildings, Hannan's point goes deeper and asks whether welfare dependency is in fact a contributive factor in the extremism we see in many young men in Britain.

Now, before my readers start getting upset, thinking that I have gone soft, I am not arguing that it is all our fault, and that terrorist are all just poor victims etc etc.  What I am arguing (and I believe Mr Hannan is as well although he does not say so specifically) is that Islamic terrorists and those who sympathise with them, before they attack anyone, first have to create a world of make believe for themselves.

This isn't just meant in a religious sense, but in the sense that they sit around with a false view of the world, completely separate from it, and have no interaction with the people that they hate so much.  Jobs, and more specifically integration into the capitalist system, helps to solve this problem.

By this I mean that it is much harder to hate "Western Civilisation" if you are a living, breathing part of it, or connected to it in some way.  So if you are an English Muslim who gets up every morning, prays, and then simply scowls at people who are on their way to work, it is a lot easier to convince yourself that they are the enemy.  However, if you are part of that group of people making the commute to work, you quickly realise that they are just trying to make it, and be self-sufficient.  Plus, it instills ambition - the idea that there are goals and aims that one might want to achieve in this life, not just the next.  The focus becomes on providing for one's loved ones, and for oneself, as opposed to simply sitting around hating people

This can be shown on a global scale as well.  Countries that become more globalised and enter into the capitalist system are generally more moderate than those that are not.  Vali Nasr is an excellent author on this issue (I have mentioned his name before) and he points to Turkey, which has much more moderate strains of Islam as opposed to places such as Iran.  The reason for this is that Iran has a boxed-in mentality of us vs them, hatred of everyone else who is not a fundamentalist.  However, Turkey  has entered into the capitalist system, and it is much harder to hate those who your are trading with.

All of a sudden it is not "The West" but various companies and individuals whom the country is buying and selling from.  Turkey and its citizens now have a mutual relationship and interest with people abroad, and destroying those other people would not help them.  Plus, capitalism always leads to financial stability and economic growth, two factors that are deadly to Islamic Fundamentalism.

So, while on the international scale we can work to push capitalist models in those extremist countries, and to encourage the growth of an Islamic middle class, we can also do that closer to home by ending welfare dependency.  The idea that we can essentially pay young British Muslims to stop holding radical ideas is nonsensical. These people need to integrate themeselves into the societies in which they live.  This will ultimately not be done by expensive government programs, schemes, and initiatives, but by forcing them to provide for themselves and their families.

The rise of an Islamic middle class both in Britain and internationally is nothing to fear, but this will not be created by pandering to nations like Iran, and handing out overly generous welfare payments to those at home who hate the country in which they live.

Cautiously Delighted about the Midterms

Is it possible to be cautiously delighted?  I'm not particularly sure but that is how I am feeling about last night's astounding win by the GOP in the House and Senate.  Although one might point to the fact that the Senate power didn't officially change hands, everything else is pretty much win-win.

As I said in my previous post as well, the Republicans essentially have power now in both houses, as the Dem side of the Senate now consists of a lot of either moderate, or scared Democrats.  They know that their necks are on the line, and if they vote as a bloc against repeal of healthcare, against tax cuts, or against spending cuts, then they will not be in the Senate after 2012.  A vote for Obama and against the GOP at the moment is electoral suicide, and they know it.  So I wouldn't expect too many problems as long as the GOP stick together in the Senate.  The House of course is about as red as it gets, and considering the Representatives have the power of the purse, we should be slowly saying goodbye to the era of big spending.

However, it is important not to get too excited just yet.  It is especially important not to underestimate Obama.  This guy has a lot of trick up his sleaves, and if you think that he is just going to roll over for the next two years, you have another thing coming.  This guy will play every card, use every tool at his disposal (including the media) to get the American public back on his side.

If the Republicans are not clear about everything they do, or if they abandon their principles, or if they get lazy, Obama will strike.  He might not turn it around by moving to the centre like Clinton, but he could turn it around in other ways that we might not be able to foresee right now.

Don't get me wrong, I am not overestimating Obama either.  The guy is NOT the wonderful, super-intelligent guy we have been told about.  He is a hard-left ideologue and ultimately that always comes back to haunt him.  I don't think that he will go back on his leftist principles by any stretch, but I do think that he will try and control the debate.  For instance, he will spend the next 6 months (trust me on this) saying that "Ok, well, if we want to reduce the deficit, we need much higher taxes!"

He will seek to control the debate, and it will be at this point when the GOP will need to jump in, shout just as loudly as Obama and say "NO!  That doesn't work" and explain why.  If it doesn't, then Obama will chip away at Republican support, both amongst the electorate, and in the House amongst the more 'moderate' Republicans.

The Republicans have the momentum, and unlike two years ago, 2012 is the Republicans to throw away.  If they do what they have promised, control the debate, and stick to their principles, 2012 will  be a success.  But if they implode, then Obama or another Democrat will take advantage, and we will be looking at another 4 years of socialism, instead of a fresh conservative new beginning in 2012.  Now is not the time to relax!

Victory!

I'm very very tired after a long day!!  But this evening I have been involved in a great election party.  Needless to say I am delighted with the Republican victory.  The victory in the house is looking monumental and although we won't gain the Senate, it'll be so close that the Dems will need to have every last Democrat on board in order to block a bill - and I just don't think they will work as a bloc over the next two years!

Anyway, I'm going to bed, but I will blog in detail tomorrow when some more of the results come in.  Toomey is apparently a winner which is great news, but it looks like Angle will not beat Reid at this point.  Ah well, can't win them all!