Can you ever believe Cameron?

Last night, in response to a question in the Sky News interview, Cameron claimed that Turkey was unlikely to meet the criteria to join the EU by the year 3000!

Cameron has fought for Turkish membership of the EU for at least ten years and has made it quite clear that he wanted Turkey to join the EU as fast as possible. In a speech in Ankara, in July 2010, when he said the EU would be stronger with Turkey as a member, and that he would pave the way from Ankara to Brussels.

Turkey is blackmailing the European Union. First, we said we'd give them £3bn,  as part of an agreement on migrants, now we're giving them £6bn. They are now demanding, and they will probably get, visa-free access for 79million people by the end of this year.

Then last night Cameron said 'Ah yeah, but we do have a veto'. We may have, but would Cameron use it after all his previous promises to Turkey and the EU? Especially when Mrs Merkel, who's the real boss of Europe, has said she wants to fast-track them as members of the European Union

Nigel Farage dubbed David Cameron "Dishonest Dave" in an LBC broadcast and said that he doesn't believe a single thing he says any more.

It's definitely time to LEAVE the EU!

EU funding - More 'Project Fear'

Cameron’s latest bid to scare the British people into voting to remain within the European Union was delivered to farmers when he warned that withdrawing from the EU would cost the British farming industry £330 million.

What is he saying? The implication of this statement is that he has decided that if we withdrew from the EU and he remained Prime Minister, the government of the day would no longer pay this sum to our farmers in spite of the fact that at present we pay about ten times that sum to subsidise EU agriculture as a whole, a sum which we would no longer have to pay.

The same argument seems to apply to every other group receiving EU grants. This week, Stephen Hawking and 150 other distinguished scientists – all fellows of the Royal Society – wrote a letter to the Times saying that if Britain leaves the European Union it would be a “disaster for UK science.” Why should it? I'm sure that any government would be happy to pay the same grants simply on the basis that it would cost them a fraction of what it does to pay the money to the EU, who 'cream off' a huge chunk before paying the grants. The government of the day would even be able to increase the grants and still be in pocket.

I heard something similar from another Professor whom I know; He couldn't understand my argument that that no sensible government would discontinue the funding.

Indeed, almost every person or organisation (except pro-EU charities who are keeping very quiet) seems to have been enrolled in project fear to try to convince us that all such subsidies will stop dead the moment we are outside the EU.

Boris could put a stop to such nonsense at once. All he needs to say that if he were PM in a government outside the EU, he would continue the grants at their present levels. The exchequer could easily afford that, and we would still be billions better off as we would no longer be paying huge sums to the EU, only to get a fraction back. I'm sure any Chancellor, offered this choice would jump at the opportunity, he would still save enough to reduce our deficit to zero as well as being able to start paying off the country's debts.

Migration - Turkey is taking the EU for a ride!

According to the latest news, the EU has provisionally come to an agreement with Turkey about the migration which is taking place across the Aegean Sea.

Apparently Turkey will take back any migrants of non-Syrian origin in exchange for the EU taking an equivalent number of Syrian refugees provided they are given a payment of some Three Billion Euros and Turkish citizens being allowed into the EU without visas.

The EU has also agreed to expedite the accession of Turkey to the EU, in spite of it previously having been rejected because of human rights issues, something which has just got worse with Turkey's closure of the only opposition newspaper.

Clearly, not only has this has demonstrated not only that the EU would be incapable of negotiating its way out of the proverbial paper bag, but it has also shown, once again, how feeble Cameron must have been in his negotiations with the EU if he couldn't beat them hands down.

Of course, Cameron has insisted that the UK's opt-out from the passport-free Schengen agreement means that there could be no question of Britain joining any new EU asylum quota process, but it seems quite clear that he hasn't yet received his order from Fuhrer Merkel telling him to accept both the illegal migrants and a few million Turkish citizens.

As every day passes, there is yet another reason  for voting to get out of the EU.

Unfit to be Prime Minister

A headline is the "Mail Online" claims

'Even if we leave the EU, we won't be able to control immigration': Cameron's counsel of despair as he turns on rebel Brexit ministers 

If this is a true reflection of what Cameron said, in my view he is totally unfitted to be Prime Minister. It is apparently based on his belief that if we are to trade with the EU countries after Brexit, we would be forced to have continued free movement of people. What rubbish, other countries trade with the EU without having EU migrants forced onto them!

If he is admitting that we wouldn't be able to control immigration, what would he say if there was a prospect of war for any reason? "Let's surrender now as there is no prospect of winning"?

The sooner we are out of the EU and have a Prime Minister who genuinely stands up for this country, the better.

Cameron's fantasy

In a speech given in Germany, reported in the Telegraph, David Cameron has said that Britain must stay in the European Union to help “confront the evil” of Isil and stand up to countries like North Korea and Russia.

What on earth can the EU do about either that Britain couldn't do outside the EU? The EU made a mess of their dealings with the Ukraine with Russia coming off best from the confrontation. So he wants them to have more dealings with Russia on our behalf when they've already failed once. As for North Korea, I'd hate to think of the EU trying to negotiate with them, they'd probably invite the country to become a member of the EU!

When it comes to Isil, letting several million mainly Muslim migrants from the Middle East and Africa come into the EU when experts suggest that probably one in a hundred is probably an active Isil supporter was a clearly a great idea! We will be confronting them whether we like it or not when they start terrorist attacks.

Indeed, if the EU is proposing to “confront the evil” of Isil and stand up to countries like North Korea and Russia, we would be best out and looking after ourselves.

The money we pay the EU could be far more sensibly used to improve our own security and deal with Isil at home. As for North Korea, what has that got to do with the EU? It is essentially an American problem and nothing whatsoever to do with the EU which is clearly suffering from delusions of grandeur. If the US can't resolve the problem, it would need far more than a miracle for the EU to achieve anything.

Cameron's remarks, like his previous suggestion that the Calais 'Jungle' would move to Britain if we left the EU, but which has since been proved false as it is the subject of an Anglo-French agreement not an EU agreement, will do nothing to help his case for staying in the EU.

Let's have some real reasons to stay in, if there are any, not scare tactics.

Democracy - Cameron Style

When it comes to campaigning for the EU referendum, David Cameron has advised Tory MPs to ignore the views of their constituency party and of their local constituents and make up their own minds. Implied in his 'advice' is that they need to consider their future career within the party. Clearly Cameron has already made up his own mind to stay in the EU, and if the referendum is in favour of staying, the implication is that MPs who campaigned in favour of leaving the EU will not see any promotion and could even be deselected for the next General Election when many constituency boundaries are to be changed.

I have never belonged to a political party, until Mrs Thatcher was deposed, I supported the Tories, since when I've become a supporter of UKIP. Looking at the way Cameron expects MPs to treat their constituents and their local party, what would be the point of joining? The local party has very little power or influence; it is allowed to select its prospective parliamentary candidate, but only from a list of prospective candidates put forward by Conservative Headquarters. Exactly what are the benefits of joining the Conservative Party if one doesn't have ambitions to be a politician?

Strange as it might seem, many of our Trade Unions are more democratic. I used to belong to a Union and went to its annual conference on a few occasions. On one occasion, our branch had tabled a motion criticising the National Executive on a particular issue concerning professional engineers. The motion was called to be debated and I was allowed my five minutes on the platform to put forward my branch's views. The matter was duly debated and although we lost, our grievances were fully aired.

Can you imagine that happening at a Conservative party's annual conference? I certainly can't. It is simply a show-piece where the higher-ups in the party tell everyone how well they are doing and why they are doing the right thing, regardless of what members think. Why on earth should anyone want to join an organisation like that? I've never been one for toeing a party line just because I'm told that's what I should do, I like to make my own decisions based on my own conclusions.

Time will tell how many Tory MPs decide to ignore Cameron's 'advice'.

Political Party Manifestos

Any time now our political parties will be publishing their manifestos, but are they worth the paper that they are written on? I'm just going to consider the Conservative party's manifesto, as logically with my education and lifestyle I should be a core Tory supporter.

Whilst I never read the actual Conservative manifesto before the last general election and relied upon reports in the media, I am far more concerned about what the manifesto doesn’t contain.

I don’t recall the Tories mentioning anything about Gay Marriage in the 2010 manifesto. Whilst I can appreciate that a manifesto can't cover every possible contingency and that events might make it necessary for any government to introduce unanticipated legislation, this was not so in the case of gay marriage. There was no reason for the hasty action with minimal consultation and it could have waited until the forthcoming election and been included in the party manifesto. But, in my view, the party took the cowardly approach, didn’t consult with the majority population, and pushed it through hoping that most of the electorate would have forgotten by the time of the election.

Nor did the manifesto mention entering foreign wars for the sake of regime change. Again the government rushed into action without any real thought. If it hadn't been for the rare event of Parliament acting to prevent the government going to war against Assad in Syria, we would now be fighting alongside the evil ISIS who happily decapitate any non-believer without a moment's thought. However you look at the situation, Assad is by far the lesser of the two evils.
Then, of course there is Libya. Our aerial intervention was designed to prevent civilian deaths resulting from the fighting between rebels and the forces of Gaddafi. Here, again we opted to support the rebels and the media rejoiced at Gaddafi's death, but has this improved things? Seemingly not, as we now have two "governments" in Libya busy fighting each other and civilian deaths, either due to fighting or starvation are never ending. And Cameron claimed this was a great success - I wonder what would have had to have happened for him to feel that we had failed?

Then what did the manifesto say about our military? Did it propose cutting them to the bare bones and relying on a part time army of reservists? Did it mention scrapping the Harrier. Did it mention aircraft carriers with no aircraft? I'm sure it didn't as I don't remember any coverage of the subject in the media at the time.

And then there is Scotland. Were the English offered any say in the decision to give extra powers to Scotland whilst leaving England at Scotland's mercy in the event of a coalition?

That's what the manifesto didn't say, now let's look at what it did say.
The most important promise for a majority of the electorate was to reduce immigration and Cameron even said he wanted it reduced to tens of thousands. This has been totally ignored with the current political line being that immigration is good for the country. Tell that to those trying to buy houses, get their children into English speaking schools or waiting for treatment on the NHS. I'm sure they will all believe that immigration is good for us!

What will I be looking for in the manifesto?
One priority is to ensure that Christians in this country are able to practice their faith without interference. Seemingly, you can be of any other faith, or even no faith, and can claim that you are being discriminated against if you are not allowed to practice it and wear its symbols in public. Yet Christians are being sacked because they wear a cross or are asked to carry out work which is contrary to their beliefs, such as assisting with abortions or registering gay marriages. This article in Breitbart is worth reading.

Another is the issue of unbiased and independent policing. The failure of the police forces in both Rotherham and Oxford to do anything about gangs of Muslims grooming young white females for fear of being called racist is symptomatic of the political correctness of our police. The "Police and Crime Commissioners" have done little, if anything, to change the situation as many are political hacks who failed elsewhere. One, who has now resigned, was actually a councillor in Rotherham whilst all the abuse was taking place! Even now the police seem more interested in historic crimes committed by so-called celebrities rather than dealing with present day abuse. Today's reports of the “closing down” of police investigations into a child sex abuse allegations in Cyril Smith’s time is clearly a scandal, and needs urgent government action, although, unlike gay marriage, I doubt if it will be seen as a Cameron priority.

I await the manifestos with interest, but I doubt if any of those from the major parties will dissuade me from supporting UKIP.

Spending Money that the Country doesn't have!

Anti-corruption group Transparency International reports that 'Britain gave more than £1 billion to some of the world’s most corrupt countries in 2013, possibly even helping fund extremism, despite numerous warnings that the money was being misspent'.
And that 'Even North Korea, with its oppressive communist regime, received money from the British government'.
The Daily Mail gives more detail.

Giving away money we don't have and incurring interest on that money hardly seems to be a very clever way of restoring the country's fortunes, especially as the government is now spending more paying interest on borrowed money than it is on defence.

This billion pounds, of course, is just the money given to some of the world’s most corrupt countries, nothing is said about that given away elsewhere to countries like India which can afford a space programme or to Argentine which never has a word of good for this country. There was even money given to Venezuela, a  country which is oil rich but remains in poverty due to incompetent government.

The biggest joke, if it wasn't so serious, is the statement by The Department for International Development last night that "it took a zero-tolerance approach to corruption". Indeed it claims that it doesn't give money to the some of the countries mentioned, but that it given through organisations like the United Nations, which is not much of a recommendation as the UN itself is hardly free from corruption.

That was in 2013, and this year Cameron adopted the UN aid target which required a 30 per cent increase in the UK aid budget to £11.5 billion. Whilst this has been ignored by most of the world’s major economies, our government is pressing ahead and it seems that our officials are just giving away money by the bucket load without thought, simply to spend the budget on schedule.

No doubt ministers will be going to the UN patting themselves on the back at having spent money that the country hasn't got to meet a UN target simply plucked out of thin air. Or perhaps someone is expecting a nice sinecure with the UN when he doesn't get re-elected next May.

Isolationism

I'm beginning to believe in isolationism; Wherever possible we should keep out of other peoples' problems; we keep being told that we no longer have an empire so why should we continue to be the world's policemen?
Certainly our interventions have achieved very little; in broad terms this country's involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya can't be claimed to have improved things in those countries by any stretch of imagination. Indeed, all that it seems to have done is to turn Muslims worldwide against the West and against Britain and America in particular.
The Middle East problems at this time are clearly of great concern, a quasi-religious organisation going under the name of the Islamic State has captured large swathes of Syria and Iraq in the wake of the unrest in these countries. It has declared the new Caliphate will extend from the Mediterranean through to the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea where they intend to establish a most extreme form of Sharia Law. It seems to be getting organised, in that, what was a ramshackle mob in pick-up trucks, managed to cause the Iraq army in the north of the country to flee leaving them with a considerable amount of modern military equipment, kindly supplied by the Americans to the Iraqi army. They have killed huge numbers of people during their rampage which has received relatively little publicity compared with the assault by Israeli troops on Hamas in Gaza.
The only real resistance they face, at present, is from the Kurds and the Peshmerga fighters. However their weapons are old fashioned and the don't have the armour and longer range weapons available to their attackers.
The other quandary is Syria, where the whole problem started. Thankfully, our Parliament voted against providing arms and assistance to those fighting Assad which, for once, seems to have been the right thing to do as these are the fighters which have now become the forces of the Islamic State. I am aware that Assad in Syria is a nasty bit of work, but until the so-called "Arab Spring", he maintained law and order, and more importantly protected the minority religions.

My concern at the moment is that the government at this time seems to be simply watching events unfold and seems to have no clue as to what to do. Surely those responsible at the Foreign Office, Intelligence Services and the Military should be conducting a serious study of the different possible scenarios that might develop in the Middle East along with a further study of the threats posed by Muslim extremists within this country? In my view, Cameron should be kicking people into action, not surfing from a Cornish beach.

The next problem area is Ukraine, and here I'm in favour of an total policy of non-involvement. What have the events in Ukraine to do with us? We have absolutely no interests in the area and if Russia wants to take over Ukraine, so what? How does it impact on this country? It seems to be a corrupt basket case of a country and why the EU wants to get involved beats me and gives yet another reason for wanting to be out of the EU.

Meanwhile, I would observe that haven't read any reports in the media that "Baroness" Warsi, or any of the Muslim MPs have expressed their concern over the murder of James Foley. Indeed, I haven't read of any representative Muslin organisation in the UK which has expressed any regrets, which I'm sure must be a matter of concern to many people.

ISIS in Britain

The Telegraph reports that

The Prime Minister warned that the current crisis in Iraq must not be dismissed as a foreign problem because the same terrorists are planning to “attack us here at home in the United Kingdom”. 

Unfortunately,  other than drawing the public's attention to the problem, he gives no indication as to what the government is proposing to do about the problem.
His reported responses, at Question Time in Parliament, cast no light on what steps, if any, the government is proposing to take, other than telling us that:
British born extremists fighting in Iraq and Syria now represent the most serious threat to our security.

This, and his other answers, when examined closely, amount to little more than meaningless waffle. Clearly he believes that having drawn attention to the problem he has done his duty and the problem will go away. He tells us that:
The right answer is to be long term, hard-headed, patient and intelligent with the interventions that we make, and the most important intervention of all is to make sure that these governments are fully representative of the people who live in their countries, that they close down the ungoverned space, and they remove the support for the extremists.

What on earth has that got to do with the threat that within this country caused by returning extremists?

The United States has laws by which they can ban people from visiting proscribed countries without specific permission. Of course this does not stop anyone going to these countries, but if, on returning, there is evidence that they have been to such countries, they can be charged with a criminal offence and imprisoned if found guilty.

Surely, as a minimum, we could do the same. Were the government to declare ISIS as an enemy of this country, one would have thought that any British Citizens consorting with them would be guilty of treason, and here my only regret is that the Blair government removed the death penalty for treason.
Additionally, it would appear that many of those going to the Middle East from this country are not British Citizens, but "refugees" or "asylum seekers" with "leave to remain". This "leave" can be withdrawn and the Home Office should make it clear that this will be done in the case of anyone who visits the Middle East. If they willingly return to the countries from which they came, they are hardly refugees!

Cameron has admitted that extremists present a grave danger to this country, now he has to show that he is taking real action rather than talking about the problem.

The Tories - All Talk and No Action

The main problem with the current Conservative Party, and the reason why it is where it is in the polls, can be summed up in two words - "David Cameron".
As a retired engineer, there are a number of phrases that I could use about him (without resorting to foul language), but the one at this time which seems most appropriate is that he should "learn to put his brain into gear before opening his mouth".
Only this morning, we are told that he has dropped his proposal for a "per unit" tax on alcohol, apparently under pressure from some members of the Cabinet. One might ask why on earth did he put forward the proposal without first discussing it with his colleagues? It seems to me that he heard about the idea, decided "That's great" without even the slightest thought that there could be problems in implementation. In any case, a subject like this is surely for a junior minister to consider, not the Prime Minister personally.  Next on the PM's agenda - Plastic bags!. We'd have never won the war if Churchill had worried about such trivia rather than fighting the war!

Another problem with Cameron is that in issues that matter to the electorate, all we get are promises but no action. "If" (a very big "if") he wins the next election, and "when" he has held negotiations with the EU, we are then promised a referendum on our membership. But he has said that he will campaign to stay in which hardly indicates much enthusiasm for real change.

He is loosing votes to UKIP because they make their position very, very clear; they want out of the EU. No "ifs" or "buts", they just want to get out. If by some miracle they were elected, no referendum would be needed as it is part of their manifesto, and they would simply be doing what they said that they would.

In my view, if Cameron wants to stop the erosion of votes to UKIP, he needs to do one thing, table the necessary legislation before Parliament for a referendum at the earliest possible date. We know the LibDems would oppose this (although in doing so they oppose democracy) but what would Labour do? Milliband has said that he opposes a referendum, and if he does, at least the public will know where Labour stands come the General Election.

Theresa May could also follow the same approach with the European Human Rights legislation. Put forward changes to our own laws to allow our Supreme Court to be the highest court of appeal. If Labour opposes this, the Tories would be in a far stronger position to blame Labour for all the difficulties in deporting illegal immigrants who manage to argue their right to family life under European law.

Meanwhile I am confident that UKIP's position in the polls will steadily rise followed by a big boost early next year as the Romanians and Bulgarians start to arrive here.

Cameron's Promises

A week or so ago, Cameron "promised" that if the Tories won the next General Election, he would renegotiate the basis of our membership with the EU, following which we would have an IN/OUT referendum on the EU.
Now today we have another "promise", that if the Tories win the next General Election, he will ensure that Defence spending is increased each year.
Apart from the fact that UKIP has already said the same, both promises, when they come from Cameron are totally meaningless as far as I am concerned.
With the first one, what happens if the EU won't renegotiate? The referendum seems conditional upon renegotiation, so no renegotiation, no referendum.
Then with defence spending, most departmental budgets increase on an annual basis, if only to allow for inflation. But there was no indication as by how much the defence budget might increase and whilst an amount of less than inflation could still technically be called an increase, it would in fact be a reduction in real terms.
The moral in the case of Cameron's promises is to look at them very carefully, because, like his "cast iron guarantee" of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, he always leaves himself a way out.
More worrying are the things he doesn't promise, such as "Gay Marriage" where he distinctly said before the election that it was not under consideration.
Do you get the impression that I don't trust Cameron? If so, you're quite right!

Cameron's Speech

At last we have the long awaited speech outlining Cameron's position towards the EU. Made at 8am yesterday morning, I wasn't up in time to watch it.
Nevertheless, having read the various reports and blogs, and listened to the views of both Labour and UKIP on television, I must admit that I'm not much wiser. To me it appeared to be one of those speeches which seems to offer something to everybody, but when closely examined, actually offers nothing.

The whole speech seems to be a blatant attempt to win the next election as everything mentioned is conditional upon the Conservatives being re-elected. Whilst he doesn't mention UKIP, the whole thing seems to ba an attempt to get the "fruitcakes and nutters" back into the Tory fold. In effect he was saying to people like myself, "UKIP don't have a hope in hell of winning the next election, so the only way that you will get a referendum is to vote Tory". Whilst this might seem a valid argument at the moment as Milliband is against a referendum, I'm sure that if the Tories enter the election campaign promising a referendum, Labour will do likewise.

As  understand the situation, Cameron is saying that if he wins the next election (and that's a very big "if"), he will take that as a mandate to renegotiate our relationship with the EU, and following these negotiations, he will put the result to a referendum at which he will campaign for a "yes" vote. There is absolutely no indication as to the matters which would be subject to re-negotiation or what outcome he would be seeking.

For me, the best assessment of his speech, albeit from a UKIP point of view, is by Alexandra Swann in her blog for the Telegraph (here) in which she concludes that it is "waffle, platitudes and vague promises".  Milliband's response that the uncertainty brought about by this speech is damaging to industry and investment is probably the most stupid of all as he could call for a referendum at any time and would probably get sufficient support from the Tory Eurosceptics to get it through parliament..

Meanwhile, I have this vision of Cameron returning from the EU negotiations, waving a piece of paper and proclaiming that we have "Europe in our time".

That Gas Plant in Algeria

Since the attack on the gas plant in Algeria and the taking of some British hostages, Downing Street seems to have gone into a state of panic.
We have had two meetings today of COBRA, the emergency committee, Cameron has postponed his speech on the EU and Hague is cutting his visit to Australia short and flying back.
All for what?
There is absolutely nothing they can do about the situation. If there was a hostage situation in this country involving foreign nationals, I'm sure that those charged with resolving the situation wouldn't be happy to receive continuous "advice" from foreign governments.
As it is, I'm inclined to believe that the Algerians know best how to deal with the matter; they probably have a far greater understanding of the thinking and likely actions of the terrorists than any "expert" in this country. Regrettably perhaps, they don't place such a high value on life as we do, but on the other hand neither do the terrorists who have no fear of being killed as their religion teaches them that they will go to paradise. It is unlikely that negotiations with them would even reach first base, let alone a satisfactory conclusion.
We don't know why the Algerians launched an all out attack, no doubt we will discover in due course, but with reports of explosions from the site, they could have been concerned that the whole plant would be destroyed along with the hostages. The Algerians were best placed to understand the minds of those involved and probably acted accordingly.

Meanwhile what should COBRA do? Well, a large percentage of our natural gas is imported from Algeria. This is the real crisis, this attack could lead to the loss of our supplies and make us even more heavily dependent on Russian gas. The real emergency is our gas supplies, in the absence of which, this country could grind to a halt in weeks if not days. They should get together all those involved in fracking and clear the way for a massive effort to start getting our own gas out of the ground in the shortest possible time. That is the real emergency, the possible loss of gas supplies, not the hostages about which, regrettably, we can do absolutely nothing.

Is Cameron Stupid? Part 1 - Gay Marriage.

From the point of view of many Tories, the answer to this question is surely "Yes". Any thinking politician tries to look ahead and envisage the effect of his ideas before speaking out. Cameron seems to come up with what sems to be a god idea and speaks out without giving it any real thought.
Take for example gay "marriage". Whilst there are arguments as to the number of gays in the UK population, the The Office for National Statistics (ONS) says 480,000 (1%) consider themselves gay or lesbian, and 245,000 (0.5%) bisexual. (BBC News, Sept 2010). Presumably the proposals only apply to the first group unless the latter will be allowed two partners, one of each sex!  Of this 1% of the population, how many would be interested in gay "marriage"? Personally, I suspect, just a few activists and publicity seekers who feel that they need to prove something. Personally, I am acquainted with two gay couples, neither couple have even entered into a civil partnership, so "marriage" would seem to be of little interest to them.
But, back to Cameron's stupidity.  How many votes does he expect to gain from this?  He of course would say he is not doing it for votes, but because it is "the right thing to do" but if you believe that, you'll believe anything. Meanwhile, I am aware of a number of local churchgoers who have made it clear. in public, that if the Tories introduce this measure,  they will never vote Tory again.
Perhaps Cameron believes the activists' claim that gays are 10% or maybe 15%  (pick your own figure) of the population, and that he will "pick up" their votes, but with the ONS suggesting
 that it is 1%, of which a proportion would vote Tory anyway, it seems to me that statistically he is onto a looser however you look at the maths. But it isn't just the maths here that matters, it seems that Cameron doesn't even care about the split that it will cause in his party.

Where do I stand on this issue?  I take the view that gay "marriage" is impossible if the word "marriage" is to retain the meaning it has had for thousands of years in most languages. There appears to be no language where, until recent years, the word "marriage" has meant other than the joining of two people, one male and one female in what is intended to be a permanent partnership with the intention of having a family. I reluctantly accepted the concept of civil partnerships, as there are valid arguments in favour to ensure equality in areas such as pensions and the like, but "Gay marriage" adds nothing to homosexuals' rights except a word.

Afterthought. With all the unmarried couples bringing up children these days, and the even larger number of couples just living together, I find we are in the strange position where those who can get married don't want to do so, whilst those who can't, do !

Misuse of Powers - Addendum

Following my piece earlier today, it seems that the implied threats against the Daily Telegraph for investigating Maria Miller's expenses has been elevated to a higher level, to none other than Craig Oliver, David Cameron's director of communications. Apparently, he phoned the editor to express his concern  that Mrs Miller was “very distressed” about her family being questioned over her expense claims. He reminded the editor that Mrs Miller is currently overseeing negotiations about a new system of press regulation, and said that she was considering making a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission. (see here)

As far as I am aware, the Telegraph is one of the few papers which hasn't been tainted by the scandals surrounding phone hacking and  bribery of public servants, and for the time being holds the moral high ground. They state that before publication of the news items about Mrs Miller, they made sure that they had double checked all the facts. They claim that their reporter had a friendly discussion with her father who is a Telegraph reader, and it would seem to me that Mrs Miller's "distress" at her family being questioned more likely stems from the knowledge that they now know what their daughter has been doing, something that a person of my generation might find rather upsetting.

A number of those involved in the talks now suggest that Mrs Miller should withdraw from all negotiations on the Leveson report. The Prime Minister, through his press secretary has now become personally involved in the matter, which strikes me as yet another example of his  extremely bad  judgement. Meanwhile, I am looking forward to reading about the basis of her complaint to the Press Complaints Commission, as it seems to me that the Telegraph has done nothing more than carry out a piece of  perfectly legal investigative journalism. I think that this matter will run for some time yet!

But whatever happens, this further action by Craig Oliver illustrates very clearly that there is no way that politicians should have any control over our media. It may not be the best, but at least, subject to the laws of libel, it is free and can say what it pleases.

UKIP on the Ascendancy

The Guardian this morning reports that the Guardian/ICM survey shows UKIP gaining as support as that for three main parties falls.

For me, this is good news, with UKIP support rising to 7%. I know that this level of support is unlikely to win them any parliamentary seats, particularly as the poll shows the LibDems having support of about 13% of those polled. Various other polls gave UKIP somewhat greater support of between 8% and 10%. But with Labour on 40% and the Conservatives on 32%, the UKIP support could mean the difference between the Tories winning or losing the next general election although David Cameron seems happy to ignore this possibility.

I feel that the Corby by-election will give UKIP substantial momentum. People have seen that they can beat the LibDems by a significant margin and now are beginning to accept that a vote for UKIP is not just a protest vote but that UKIP is going somewhere worthwhile. Unlike John Redwood MP, I don't believe that UKIP's poor showing in the PCC elections is of any significance as probably people thought UKIP's main aim, that of getting out of the EU, was totally irrelevant when it came to the PCC elections.

Meanwhile, I believe that UKIP will pick up more support when the details of the changes to our planning system become more widely known. Also, next year there is likely to be a surge in immigrants from the eastern European countries following the end of the EU period of limited immigration, and this will obviously be blamed on the Tories as the party in power.

UKIP is now becoming seen as the protector of British values and its views on immigration appear to have the broad support of  large part of the electorate;  attempts by their left wing opponents to brand them as "racist" have generally failed. As the European crisis deepens, and the likelihood that Britain will somehow be dragged into the mess, more and more people will realise that being a member of the EU will not be our salvation but our downfall. With the next European elections in 2014 and a General Election in 2015 (if parliament runs the full term), UKIP is making the right sort of progress to ensure that they have a say in the future.  Cameron beware!

The Curse of Cromwell

Yesterday evening we went to a local dramatic society production of the musical "The Curse of Cromwell". It was a good production with some very good singers and held at a local Arts Centre.
One scene sounded somewhat familiar
King Charles I was complaining about Parliament, and whilst I can't remember the exact words, he took the view that it was Parliament's job to approve and collect the taxes that he required and that they now had the nerve to suggest that they should also decide how the money was to be spent!
My immediate reaction was to think of the recent parliamentary vote on the EU subscription, and I could almost imagine Cameron thinking exactly the same - your job is to approve the taxes, mine is to spend them and I can't possibly have Parliament telling me to cut what we spend on the EU.

Incidentally, there doesn't seem to be much in the media about yesterday's visit by Angela Merkel to Downing Street, other than the Telegraph claiming she was pleading with Cameron to keep Britain in the EU and the Mail indicating that she suggested that the UK would flounder on its own outside the EU. Clearly she, and probably the apparatchiks in Brussels, are getting worried - Good, it should strengthen Cameron's hand in the forthcoming negotiations, but personally I doubt if he will take advantage of the situation.

EU Budget

According to the Daily Telegraph,
"The Prime Minister renewed a threat to veto any real increase in the EU budget, despite warnings that his approach is alienating Germany’s Angela Merkel."
It goes on to say that
"Reports from Berlin suggest Mrs Merkel, the Chancellor, is prepared to call off a planned EU summit to discuss the budget unless Mr Cameron changes his tone."

The picture that one gets from these exchanges (if they are correct) is that Germany, in the form of Angela Merkel, is running the EU. If we aren't prepared to do what she wants, she will call off the summit.  In fact the EU comprises 27 countries and I'd like to know what the other 25 think about the prospect of Germany calling off the summit. Surely, if anyone is to call it off, it should be the EU president.

I'm sure that we are not the only country who opposes an above inflation increase. Are the others too scared of Germany to object, or is it just that they want us to do the dirty work?

It will be interesting to watch what happens. However, the way things are at the moment, my money is on Cameron giving in, claiming, for example, the extra money is for some new purpose and that it is therefore justified. Personally, if I was in his position, I would call Germany's bluff, it would after all save the cost of the meeting which is probably totally unnecessary in these days of electronic communication.

Cleggiband says "Britain is Isolated"

We have a new joint leader of the opposition,  Edick Clegiband!
The phrase "Britain is now isolated" slips off its forked tongue so smoothly, along with other phrases like "We will no longer have any influence in the World", "isolated and marginalised",  that it is effectively a single entity.

Perhaps we should look at the "British Veto".
What, of course, we don't know is whether any of the other EU countries would have vetoed  the deal; the thing about a veto is that the first country to use it effectively brings discussions to a halt. We will never know if any of the other countries would have got around to using it, simply that we were the first.

The instant reaction of Labour (who automatically oppose the Government without thought) was that this would "Leave Britain isolated" and it was therefore a bad thing, although they gave no indication of why this should be so. Norway and Switzerland are "isolated" in Europe, but this doesn't seem to be doing them any harm. Numerous other countries, with much smaller populations than Britain, are also "isolated" in terms of not being part of a political union - Australia, New Zealand and Canada to mention but three. So isolation doesn't seem to be a bad thing; indeed one might argue that it is advantageous in that these countries can "do their on thing" without having to consult anyone.
"We will have less influence in World Affairs". We don't seem to have much now, so it's hard to see how we could have much less. Why do we want influence anyway? Again you rarely hear mention of the countries that I've listed seeking to influence world affairs and they don't seem to mind.
Of course, politicians and civil servants love to get involved - all that travel to foreign parts at the taxpayers' expense is part of the job!

The LibDems said much the same as Labour with their leader doing one of the fastest U-turns in recent political history. From reluctant acceptance of Cameron's action to outright opposition has taken less than 24 hours, this must be a record! But we are also assured that this won't lead to the break-up of the coalition. You bet it won't - if it did the LibDems would soon learn the meaning of "having no influence"!

But the Clegiband has spoken; it's now a question as to whether anybody considers it worth listening to, particularly as snap surveys apparently indicate that the majority consider that Cameron has done the right thing.