Douglas Carswell MP makes a very good point in his blog today which is well worth repeating.
"Last week, Honda announced it was
laying off 800 workers. Why? Because the Honda plant produces almost
exclusively for the European market, and the European market in car
sales declined by 7 percent last year.
"This week, Jaguar Land Rover announced it was hiring 800 workers. It produces for markets in America, Asia and the Middle East."
As he says, "Nothing could better illustrate how our
future prosperity lies in trading with the wider world, not just the
declining Eurozone"
This is something that should be pointed out every time the "experts" talk about the loss of trade that will occur if we leave the EU.
Afterthought: I wonder if these experts who are full of doom and gloom about what will happen if we leave the EU are the same experts who predicted disaster if we failed to join the Euro. Yes they were right about disaster, but it was for the Eurozone, not us.
Tuesday, 15 January 2013
Obama Knows Best!
A few days ago, Obama, through the medium of one of his ambassadors, lectured Britain on the dangers of us leaving the EU. (here)
Today, White House officials have told a US journalist that the Israeli Prime Minister doesn't know what is good for Israel. (here).
I wonder which is the next country to be told how to run their affairs by this self-proclaimed expert who can't seem to get his own country's finances under control. But then, like Tony Blair, he probably has no idea what to do about the situation at home, and its so much more interesting dabbling in other people's affairs.
Today, White House officials have told a US journalist that the Israeli Prime Minister doesn't know what is good for Israel. (here).
I wonder which is the next country to be told how to run their affairs by this self-proclaimed expert who can't seem to get his own country's finances under control. But then, like Tony Blair, he probably has no idea what to do about the situation at home, and its so much more interesting dabbling in other people's affairs.
Monday, 14 January 2013
Mali - Update
Earlier today I suggested that our involvement in Mali would not be confined to just two RAF aircraft.
Far sooner than expected, The Telegraph reports that 'Britain is "committed to supporting" a European Union training mission that would put up to 500 European troops into Mali within weeks' and that 'David Cameron said that the growing strength of Islamist groups in Mali could have direct consequences for British national security'.
This is rapidly beginning to look like Afghanistan all over again.
Far sooner than expected, The Telegraph reports that 'Britain is "committed to supporting" a European Union training mission that would put up to 500 European troops into Mali within weeks' and that 'David Cameron said that the growing strength of Islamist groups in Mali could have direct consequences for British national security'.
This is rapidly beginning to look like Afghanistan all over again.
Mali, here we come.
The RAF is using two transport aircraft to assist the French in moving troops to Mali to fight insurgents. We are assured by the government that no UK ground troops will be involved, although it has subsequently became clear that some RAF ground crew will be deployed to facilitate the flights. Thus the escalation of our involvement begins; the ground crews will need accommodation and supplies, then they will need defending against the insurgents, and then as "attack is the best means of defence" combat troops could be deployed.
Now, it happens that I believe that the French are doing the right thing, they are. after all, the ex-colonial power, and have some moral responsibility in the area. But why should we get involved as this will only give the extremists further cause to hate this country? Haven't we learnt anything from our involvement in Afghanistan? How long will it be before we are bringing back the bodies of British Servicemen from Mali as well as Afghanistan?
One might also ask why the French didn't ask the US for assistance. Soon after Obama was originally elected he made it clear the the "special relationship" with Britain was no longer important and that he considered the French to be his main ally in Europe. Surely the US would rush to assist their best friend, especially as it would help to hold back the cause of militant Islamism.
I also wonder what help we would get from the French if push becomes shove over the Falklands - would they be prepared to assist us with any naval vessels?
Now, it happens that I believe that the French are doing the right thing, they are. after all, the ex-colonial power, and have some moral responsibility in the area. But why should we get involved as this will only give the extremists further cause to hate this country? Haven't we learnt anything from our involvement in Afghanistan? How long will it be before we are bringing back the bodies of British Servicemen from Mali as well as Afghanistan?
One might also ask why the French didn't ask the US for assistance. Soon after Obama was originally elected he made it clear the the "special relationship" with Britain was no longer important and that he considered the French to be his main ally in Europe. Surely the US would rush to assist their best friend, especially as it would help to hold back the cause of militant Islamism.
I also wonder what help we would get from the French if push becomes shove over the Falklands - would they be prepared to assist us with any naval vessels?
Sunday, 13 January 2013
Is Cameron Stupid - Part 2 - UKIP
There is no doubt in my mind that UKIP can stop the Tories winning the next General Election. I'm not so naive as to believe they will get many, if any, Parliamentary seats, but I do believe that they are capable of attracting enough votes to let Labour gain a majority. We have seen what UKIP is achieving in by-elections. At the Corby election, UKIP came third, well ahead of the LibDems, and their vote was almost equal to Labour's majority over the Tories.
Even so, Cameron persists in treating UKIP with contempt having stated and re-affirmed his belief that UKIP members are mostly "closet racists". He has also referred to them as "nutters and fruitcakes" which is hardly likely to endear UKIP members to the Tories. On the BBC, a few days ago he repeated his claim that UKIP members were "pretty odd" people.
The claim by the Tories that UKIP's position in the polls is to be expected at mid-term in the election cycle, may to some extent be true, but this was always said about the LibDems who in due course gained seats. This was in spite of Tory claims that voting for them would let Labour in. No doubt Cameron will take the same view of UKIP. The elections for the European Parliament come before the General Election, and if UKIP does better here than it did last time, a lot of people may decide that they would not be wasting their vote if the supported UKIP in the subsequent General Election.
But the stupidity of Cameron is to continue attacking UKIP as those ex-Tory voters who now support UKIP are unlikely to be brought back into the fold by such an approach, indeed I believe it would harden their attitudes. This is especially so as UKIP are taking on-board a number of policies which have been discarded by the Tories in their rush to gain the "centre ground", and this is attractive to disillusioned Tories, particularly in the shires. If Cameron had any sense, he would face the fact that UKIP could hold the keys to Downing Street at the next election and that if the Tories are to win, he will need to come to some accommodation with Nigel Farrage, something which now seems totally impossible.
And what is "odd" about UKIP? Well one huge "oddity" is that they have some policies which they actually stick to, and don't change every five minutes following some poll or report from a focus group. It has a party leader who has beliefs, unlike the other parties whose beliefs vary according to the direction of the wind. Now that is very odd!
Even so, Cameron persists in treating UKIP with contempt having stated and re-affirmed his belief that UKIP members are mostly "closet racists". He has also referred to them as "nutters and fruitcakes" which is hardly likely to endear UKIP members to the Tories. On the BBC, a few days ago he repeated his claim that UKIP members were "pretty odd" people.
The claim by the Tories that UKIP's position in the polls is to be expected at mid-term in the election cycle, may to some extent be true, but this was always said about the LibDems who in due course gained seats. This was in spite of Tory claims that voting for them would let Labour in. No doubt Cameron will take the same view of UKIP. The elections for the European Parliament come before the General Election, and if UKIP does better here than it did last time, a lot of people may decide that they would not be wasting their vote if the supported UKIP in the subsequent General Election.
But the stupidity of Cameron is to continue attacking UKIP as those ex-Tory voters who now support UKIP are unlikely to be brought back into the fold by such an approach, indeed I believe it would harden their attitudes. This is especially so as UKIP are taking on-board a number of policies which have been discarded by the Tories in their rush to gain the "centre ground", and this is attractive to disillusioned Tories, particularly in the shires. If Cameron had any sense, he would face the fact that UKIP could hold the keys to Downing Street at the next election and that if the Tories are to win, he will need to come to some accommodation with Nigel Farrage, something which now seems totally impossible.
And what is "odd" about UKIP? Well one huge "oddity" is that they have some policies which they actually stick to, and don't change every five minutes following some poll or report from a focus group. It has a party leader who has beliefs, unlike the other parties whose beliefs vary according to the direction of the wind. Now that is very odd!
Monday, 7 January 2013
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 !
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 !
Tuesday, 1 January 2013
"I didn't think ........"
"But I didn't think that . . . . . . . . "
How often do you hear the phrase these days? To me it seems that hardly a day passes without hearing someone say it on television or reading about someone who said it in the newspaper.
Typical in recent weeks were the two Australian DJs who phoned the King Edward VII Hospital, "We didn't think that we'd actually get through . . . . . . ". Or the interviewer who passed a list of alleged paedophiles to David Cameron, "I didn't think that anyone would be able to read it . . . . . ". The list seems endless, maybe a slight variation of the words, but always the same general idea.
It is time people learnt that "not thinking" is not a valid excuse for doing something stupid. Our maker provided us with brains and the general idea is that we should use them at all times! Certainly I was taught from a very young age (when I burnt my hand in the open fire) to think before doing anything and as a result I rarely do anything significant on impulse. This of course means that in this modern era that I am terribly dull, if not worse. It means, of course, that I could never have gone into politics, as, were I confronted by an interviewer with a difficult question, my reaction would be that I would need to think about it before replying!
What has brought these thoughts to mind is a piece in today's Telegraph reporting that students have been warned that on-line boasts could harm their job prospects. Seemingly, there are "Student Confession" web pages which accept anonymous details of various exploits. But no-one seems to know who runs these, and although submissions are anonymous, it would take little effort by the equally anonymous administrator to locate their source and use the information elsewhere.
The Swansea University Registrar, and the Students' Union President have actually had to warn students that "Irresponsible use of social media can damage their future employment prospects as companies are increasingly searching for information on job applicants." The question that I ask myself is how can any student possess so little common sense as to boast about his exploits on a public forum where they will be stored away for the indefinite future? Particularly one with an anonymous administrator who might have an idea about future blackmail? How did they get into University in the first place?
The answer, is as usual these days, they just don't think.
This of course follow hot on the heals of the report on television about young teenage girls sending naked photos of themselves to boyfriends, again apparently quite common practice. Do none of them think about what might happen in twenty or so years when they have got into, say, a newsworthy occupation, and an ex-boyfriend produces these photos for sale to the media? Alternatively, have the boys thought about the long term implications of keeping these pictures, which when they are in their twenties could suddenly become indecent images of under aged children?
Then of course there is Facebook, where again, judging by some pages that my daughter has shown me, people simply post things without any thought. Perhaps the younger generation might reflect that in America, prospective employers are asking applicants for access to their Facebook pages and take the attitude that refusal means that the candidate has something to hide!
What we need is a lot more good old fashioned reticence where people keep themselves to themselves and don't reveal personal details to anyone without good reason, but in these days of instant social networking, I suppose that is too much to ask.
How often do you hear the phrase these days? To me it seems that hardly a day passes without hearing someone say it on television or reading about someone who said it in the newspaper.
Typical in recent weeks were the two Australian DJs who phoned the King Edward VII Hospital, "We didn't think that we'd actually get through . . . . . . ". Or the interviewer who passed a list of alleged paedophiles to David Cameron, "I didn't think that anyone would be able to read it . . . . . ". The list seems endless, maybe a slight variation of the words, but always the same general idea.
It is time people learnt that "not thinking" is not a valid excuse for doing something stupid. Our maker provided us with brains and the general idea is that we should use them at all times! Certainly I was taught from a very young age (when I burnt my hand in the open fire) to think before doing anything and as a result I rarely do anything significant on impulse. This of course means that in this modern era that I am terribly dull, if not worse. It means, of course, that I could never have gone into politics, as, were I confronted by an interviewer with a difficult question, my reaction would be that I would need to think about it before replying!
What has brought these thoughts to mind is a piece in today's Telegraph reporting that students have been warned that on-line boasts could harm their job prospects. Seemingly, there are "Student Confession" web pages which accept anonymous details of various exploits. But no-one seems to know who runs these, and although submissions are anonymous, it would take little effort by the equally anonymous administrator to locate their source and use the information elsewhere.
The Swansea University Registrar, and the Students' Union President have actually had to warn students that "Irresponsible use of social media can damage their future employment prospects as companies are increasingly searching for information on job applicants." The question that I ask myself is how can any student possess so little common sense as to boast about his exploits on a public forum where they will be stored away for the indefinite future? Particularly one with an anonymous administrator who might have an idea about future blackmail? How did they get into University in the first place?
The answer, is as usual these days, they just don't think.
This of course follow hot on the heals of the report on television about young teenage girls sending naked photos of themselves to boyfriends, again apparently quite common practice. Do none of them think about what might happen in twenty or so years when they have got into, say, a newsworthy occupation, and an ex-boyfriend produces these photos for sale to the media? Alternatively, have the boys thought about the long term implications of keeping these pictures, which when they are in their twenties could suddenly become indecent images of under aged children?
Then of course there is Facebook, where again, judging by some pages that my daughter has shown me, people simply post things without any thought. Perhaps the younger generation might reflect that in America, prospective employers are asking applicants for access to their Facebook pages and take the attitude that refusal means that the candidate has something to hide!
What we need is a lot more good old fashioned reticence where people keep themselves to themselves and don't reveal personal details to anyone without good reason, but in these days of instant social networking, I suppose that is too much to ask.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
