Last night I attended the launch of Libertarian UK. This is a website aimed at promoting libertarian thinking with an emphasis on practical policy.

Examples include:

• Citizen's Basic Income
• School vouchers
• Defence of Civil Liberties and limiting police powers

The thrust is not to pen a beautiful picture of an ideal libertarian society, but think about ideas which will help people by shrinking the role of the dead hand of the state in people's lives.

The blogosphere is overwhelmingly libertarian from left and right libertarian traditions. Between us we aim to come up with a platform which will inspire politicians to implement some of these ideas. We hope to have a post up at least daily. Go check it out!

Mingle² - Online Dating

I'm less sweary than DK, or PigDogFucker But still AVBD is no place for children. Or socialists.

The war dominates political discourse, especially on the left. I can't see why.

So what if a little under 100,000 iraqis die in a civil war? Can we be held responsible for deaths British and American forces are trying to prevent? A similar number would have died under Saddam. Chemical Ali was after all sentenced to hang for, amongst other things, the genocidal murder of 180,000 Kurds. We're holding the coats and trying to referee. Our governments can't be held to blame every time there's a car bomb in Baghdad.

The risk to British troops? Their morale is high and the TA is finding volunteers to go out. Hardly the disaster many would have you believe. In any case there's only 7,000 lads out there. Less than the workforce of a medium sized hospital. We spend around 4% of GDP on the military. So we aren't paying a particularly high cost in blood or treasure.

And what are we achieving? Lots. There is a functioning democracy. True it struggles a bit for political clout and is engaged in a civil war for survival but we're there to help. The Iraqi army is taking over more and more of the country. True the police are still militias in blue, but that's improving in many areas albeit slowly. People are going to work, and school, and buying and selling things. The everyday experience of most Iraqis is not car-bombs. There's work to be done in Baghdad, sure, but the Americans are achieving some sucesses. It's not difficult to get a skewed perspective of the results of the war when only the bad stuff is reported. Good news ain't news, you see.

Why did we go in? We needed to get rid of a nasty dictator, who was mass murdering his people and keeping them under the jack-boot of one of the nastiest regimes this side of Pyongyang. Did I mention that he had form? Oh yes, his cousin carried out Saddam's order of the genocidal murder of 180,000 Kurds. He had used Weapons of mass destruction in the past, and was not fully co-operating with the UN inspectors. It was a reasonable assumption on the basis of the precautionary principle that there were still some knocking around somewhere. The mass lefty whinge of "I told you so - no WMD" is just a result of the weight Tony Blair attached to flaky intelligence to sell the project to a skeptical Labour party and UN. Regime change was the reason for the war, WMD the excuse. If we'd been honest about that, there wouldn't have been such a fuss.

Was it illegal? For a start, international law is vague. Given the attitude of the French (veto resolution, come what may to defend a major trading partner) the Americans were clearly not going to allow the Quai d'Orsay a veto on US foreign policy. The UN is therefore not the arbiter of international law. Its a rule-book for guidance only, because there's no-one to enforce it. The UN wasn't even prepared to enforce its own resolutions and spends most of its time whinging about Israel. The UN had already explicitly authorised the use of force anyway.

So the war wasn't illegal.

We screwed up? Yup. The Iraqi army shouldn't have been disbanded, nor the bureaucracy destroyed. But there you go. Hindsight.

Troops out now then? And leave a fledgling democracy, one enthusiastically voted for by the Iraqi people to chaos and Islamic terror? I don't want that on my country's concience. We'll be there for a decade - just like the former Yugoslavia.

Croatia's a holiday destination now. I'll book my tour round Mesopotamian ruins for about 2015 then shall I?

Much as I loathe the slippery bastard who's taken our liberties, vandalised the constitution, and allowed his chancellor to rape the economy, he is at least one in the eye of the Labour party, who hate him more than I do. I have never been counting down the days to his departure because (apart from an opportunity to have a drink with some stout fellows) there is nothing to celebrate.

Gordon will be PM this afternoon.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Labour: You're welcome to him.

Pro-european, socially illiberal and authoritarian. No wonder he feels that his natural home is the Labour party. The EPP issue is apparently what did it for him. His letter, written by the Labour machine can be ignored. Read Iain Dale on the subject. He knows more than me!

Still, you have to hand it to Gordon Brown. A pretty impressive coup... not bad for your first day as leader.

Who needs elections when you have blog-polling?

A while back, I asked the question "What is Gordon Brown?" I offered four alternatives:

1. A Financial Genius, responsible for Britain's recent economic prosperity.
2. A Socialist wanker, responsible for Britain's slide down competitiveness tables
3. A mere Charisma Bypass
4. A Cunt

Now 1 & 2 are there to reflect the two main party's views, 3 is to reflect the belief that institutions are more important than personalities - Gordon, the one-eyed thief is merely an uncharismatic and morose presence, a figuerhead, if you will, for a system that has a bias towards reaching deep into our pockets anyway. 4 is a personal statement of opinion - you either like the monocular Presbyterian misery-guts, or you don't.

83% of people thought he was either a wanker or a Cunt, with just 11% of people thinking that he's responsible for Britain's economic successes.

11% is less than the percentage of British Muslims who think that suicide bombing is justified or who voice support for Al Quaeda.

Which just goes to show that people will say some stupid, extremist things - like "The UK should be run under Sharia Law" or "Gordon Brown is the right man to run the country".

With this in mind, here's my manifesto for Gordon Brown as Prime Minister.

1. Resign, immediately after PMQ's tomorrow afternoon, before his chat with Brenda.
   
2. Commit suicide.
   

Dear God No! The labour party have managed to find someone less competent than John Prescott for high political office.

Read This by Leo McKinstry, a former aide to Harridan Harperson. Damning with faint praise doesn't do it justice. The chippy feminist in-chief person thing is even less knowledgeable than her predecessor (yes really!)

"Once, when she was going on Question Time and we were running through the likely topics, she suddenly turned to me and said: "Leo, remind me again, who's Yasser Arafat?"

Staggering.

When Africans stop looking to Europe and America for money; when people like Bonio, the chubby chap from the black country or the scruffy one-hit-wonder stop making everyone think that the people of that continent are destined forever to be recipients of charity; when the violent, authoritarian, kleptocratic socialism that the last generation of African leaders took with their mother's milk goes out of fashion, maybe, just maybe the ingenuity and resourcefulness of the human race will be allowed to flourish there, as it has on every other continent.

When people talk about Africa, they talk of what we can do and how much we give. It seems we rarely ask to whom. Governments in Africa are magnificently incompetent and heroically corrupt. Aid via a government is therefore futile and often actively counter productive.

Small scale aid - often lending to women - sets individuals and families free by giving them the means to break out of subsistence. NGOs and governments think too big and usually fail. It is people like William Kamkwamba (whose blog I found via Timmy) to whom we must give our aid. Not let politicians get their hands on it and spend it on crushing his drive or big vanity projects.

There's a reason why I bait a certain pudgy West-of-Scotland councillor. It's because he represents the sick soul of the Labour Party. When the press talks about throwing "Red Meat" to the Labour party supporters - it means caving in to the demands of incoherent, chippy, spiteful, envious people for whom success by others is a slap in the face. They want to Lay waste entire successful areas of the economy and tax it to penury. The incoherent and bigoted attack on private equity investment that's going on at the moment is a prime example of the "if I can't win, everyone else must lose" attitude. "Red meat" thrown to the Tory party faithful, by way of comparison, would be promising a small tax-cut or ruling out further transfers of power to the EU.

Chalk and cheese. Because Tories are better people than socialists.

Today I got Terry to admit that he did, in fact, regret the fall of communism in Europe because of the "Poverty and Squalor" of the capitalist west. If I lived in the Ukraine in 1928, I'd take the "poverty" that the west now enjoys with a roof over my head with a colour TV under it, rather than rather than the kind that comes with mass starvation and execution squads. Even at the height of the depression, no-one starved, not in the capitalist west.

He actually thinks that oppression, the 3am knock, gulags and Genocidal murder of anyone (roughly 10 million people) owning their own small-holding big enough to generate a marketable surplus or employ a labourer (the definition of Kulak) is an acceptable response to the fact that some people earn more than others.

You see, written into the DNA of the Labour party is the idea that equality is an ideal to be strived for. To which I say Freedom or Equality. Pick one. I choose freedom. The Labour party, when asked, doesn't.

Dozens of Manc chavs had to be taken to hospital suffering from split sides today as the police demonstrated their inability to walk more than twenty yards between rests, by ordering a number of electric scooters.

The youngters were minding their own business, vandalising a bus stop when an officer approached them on Manchester police's all-new T3-Motion law enforcement scooter.


Lee Kevin Smith, 18, of Longsight, Greater Manchester told this reporter that he saw the PC Mulroon approaching on what appeared to be

"a flashing granny pram. Laugh? I nearly shat myself. I did actually piss myself. look!"

He was right, his kappa tracksuit bottoms were soaking, and he smelled strongly of wee. The nylon was retaining puddles of urine where they tucked into his socks. His girlfriend, Chardonnay, 12, went into labour with her third child about five minutes later. She was OK, complaining about afterbirth stains on her faux Burberry t-shirt. Others were not so lucky. One individual suffered a ruptured spleen from laughing too hard but was said to be in a stable condition in Manchester Royal Infirmary.

PC Mulroon, who attended the scene said

"I kept getting heart palpitations and was finding it difficult to get to the doughnut shop and back in time for 'The Bill' on TV. This scooter is a godsend! I can keep a days supply of deep-fried bread and jam based confectionery and proceed about my rounds without getting out of breath."

"I do look a prize cunt though."

he admitted.

...where I can get a copy of ManhuntII?

I want to play it, superimposing Blears, Brown, Browne, Hewitt, Blair, Booth, Harperson, The Safety Elephant, The Blind Nazi, Polly-fucking-Toynbee and all the rest of the utter pissants who have been nagging us for a decade, on every screaming victim.

Answers in the comments please.

If there's one issue that demonstrates the stupidity and the sheer bloody-minded indifference to cause and effect that exemplifies the left and that is why "prison works"

If you mean by cutting recidivism then it doesn't work. Nothing does. But in cutting crime, it is because if lags, people one can be sure have a criminal bent, are behind bars, they aren't on the street mugging grannies. This is why Lynne Jones is an idiot. At PMQs today she asked why "if violent crime is falling, why is the prison population rising". Crime is falling BECAUSE the prison population is rising! It really is so simple. I'm amazed she can't see it. Neither did Tony mention that simple fact in his answer. This illustrates a malaise that runs deeper than prisons policy, right to the heart of trust in Government.

I despair that just five weeks after Charlie "No Prisoners will be released due to overcrowding" Faulkner said that

“I am not going to announce early release, any early release”

there is an announcement yesterday that this is what, in fact, the "Government" is about to do. The "Justice" minister will not resign, despite their predecessor (in a department called something else) being warned about this five years ago. (Have you heard the phrase U-Turn on the BBC? Neither have I. Only Tories U-turn). That a Government who introduced a new crime a day for a decade and hectored the courts to imprison more people for longer couldn't see that the prison population would rise as a result is simply staggering. That legislative hyperactivity and departmental musical chairs was not seen as a recipe for short-termism and chaos is telling.

You chase those headlines, Tony and to hang with good governance.

Tony Blair's extended resignation prevented an appropriately fierce response to a Government minister in a supposedly allied country suggesting in no uncertain terms that suicide bombing against the UK would be an appropriate response to an overrated author getting a gong. Blair has no authority any more to deal with the leaders of other nations. By "appropriately fierce", by the way I mean withholding our half a billion pounds a year in aid to Pakistan until Mohammed Ijaz Ul-Haq is fired.

The debacle of the 15 sailors first getting captured because (whisper it) Lynxes have to limit their time in the air due to lack of spares. This Government puts the Queens service personnel in harms way underfunded and without sufficient equipment or investment. Then those service personnel, who behaved in a less than heroic manner due to poor, rushed training and low morale, were allowed to sell their stories, as a direct result of the Admiralty and The MoD dropping the ball, and this failed to cost Des "oxygen thief" Browne his job.

No-one in the Labour party believes in personal responsibility which is why their claims to bring decency back to politics has come to naught. They believe in personal gratification, not responsibility. I admit Major's lot were bad, but this lot are far, far worse. That is why Labour believes that Prison populations should fall with falling crime, because criminals aren't to blame for their actions - no-one is. This is why Tony believes that an extended period of leaderlessness in Government is acceptable - he feels he "deserves" a swansong. No thoughts about service or duty or what's good for the country. It's just about him and his evil, grasping hag of a wife. This is why no government minister has fallen on his sword: even Peter Mandelson had to be pushed (three times). This is why tax has risen faster than at any time in Britain's peace-time history. No-one can be trusted to manage their own affairs. This is why more activities have been banned, for our own good. The Labour Party does not believe in Personal Responsibility. One is not to blame for one's actions.

This week has seen a vast catalogue of ministerial incompetence going right to the top of Government going back years, for which people have died and this country's standing has suffered, and no big scandal - no ministerial scalp.

And the public's reaction: A weary shrug. After a decade they've come to expect no better from politicians. That this week has not cost a single minister his job is a measure of how low "democracy" has fallen in the home of the Mother of Parliaments. That the British public has been taken in by this bunch of Sub-Marxist sixth-form debating society bores and pissy little over promoted public sector middle managers is a lasting stain on this once-great country and the Parliament in which they sit.

Does anyone know why after using blockquote the line spacing shrinks from double to single spacing?

Blockquote

See what I mean? I've noticed it in other "Blogger" Blogs and It really destroys the layout of a good fisking. If anyone has a solution I'd love to hear it.

It's Salman Rushdie's gong this time.

Muslims and their representatives seem to delight in taking umbridge at the slightest offence. Anyone who has ever criticised the faith, been in favour of the "illegal" war in Iraq, or had anything to do with the Israelis is to be shunned and, if possible, locked up.

No critical comment of Islam can be tolerated. This in the name of "Inclusion". (Or we'll send the bombers into your streets)

Hopefully Salman Rushdie's knighthood will not be revoked. There are many great authors, but certainly midnights children deserves to be included as one of the great novels of our age. I haven't read the satanic verses, but Islam's passive aggressive strategy pays off more often than not, several countries banned it. Giving in to their demands would not satisfy the furious men on the Muslim street, it would just have them wallowing briefly in self-satisfaction before finding something else to be furious about. In the rough and tumble of debate necessary to a democracy, Muslims uniquely see their faith (and associated political issues) as above question (though Christians too sometimes have a plaintive whinge). It is enough that a Muslim be offended. No offence needs to be intended, for some cleric or other to come out saying

"This [insert recent offence] demonstrates, along with the Illegal war and the support for the Zionist dogs, the West's Islamophobia. This justifies martyrdom operations against British targets"

This is not playing the game, and a lot of reasonable people for whom racism is an anathema are becoming frustrated with the endless parade of angry Muslims pleading for special treatment under the law.

There is no right to live unoffended, free speech means that some people say things you don't like. Your options are "argue" or "ignore". There is no justification for terrorism, even against Jews. The sooner supposed moderates like Sir Iqbal "Death is a bit too easy for [Rushdie]" Sacranie realise this, the sooner Muslims can take their place as equals in our society where they belong, from whence shrill extremism and condoning of terrorism is exiling them.

I'm just watching BBC 2's documentary on the great Battle. In the introduction, the initial success of Operation Barbarossa was put down to German "mechanisation". Neither Stalin's execution of most of the Red Army's officers, and the subsequent sheer incompetence of initial soviet tactics was not mentioned, nor was Stalin's order forbidding even the most basic preparations for invasion, despite evidence that a huge army was being massed over the Vistula

I would like to think that a BBC documentary would at least try to present some balance - Soviet atrocities are not mentioned at all. The slaughter of soviet soldiers and their terrible leadership and meat-grinder tactics are not mentioned. Instead the soviet propaganda (for propaganda it was) of highly trained snipers making life intolerably dangerous for the Nazis was given a thorough airing.

Anyone who has read any history of the battle not written to order by a communist authorised hack could write a more interesting, nuanced documentary.

This is the defining moment of the 20th century and it deserves better than a mere tiresome re-peddling of the "plucky soviet" led by "resolute uncle Joe" myth.

No enemies on the left for the BBC.

That Britain-hating socialist thief, Brown wants to wrap himself hypocritically in the Union Jack by declaring a "national day".

He could do worse than today, June 15th. This is the day in 1215 that King John was forced to sign the Magna Carter by the barons, ending England's 149-year experiment in arbitary rule. He could celebrate it by ending its more recent 10-year experiment in totalitarian-nanny statism under Tony "trust me, I'm a pretty straight kinda guy" Blair, and repealing some of this Labour Government's 3023 (and counting) new criminal offences.

He won't of course.

My Blog. My rules.

I do not moderate, and you take responsibility for any comments you make. If however you come to my blog, be aware this is a robust free-speech zone, no mealy-mouthed "voluntary code" here. If you come with a name or nick-name, you will be treated with respect (i.e. being called an idiot rather than a fucking silly idiot with shit-for-brains), at least by me. Anonymous socialist comments accusing me of being an "enemy of liberty" because I support the Conservative Party will be torn apart in fruity, anglo-saxon terms. I'll only delete comment spam and anything which will get me in trouble with plod.

Name, Pseudonym or Nick-name = dealing with issues raised on merit.
Anonymous = working assumption that you Read the Guardian, bugger small boys, vote Labour or harbour some such other filthy perversion.

Understand?

Matt Wanks his 1 Footer

what the fuck?

When Boris puts pen to paper, I rarely disagree with a single syllable. This is no different. You see unlike the lefties who have to make things up, and get torn to shreds by commenters and bloggers as a result, Alexander Boris De Pfeffel Johnson talks sense. That's why (along with a public commitment to free speech) he is against regulation of the blogosphere.

And this is the key point: it is not so much that politics and journalism are increasingly tawdry or despised. It is the growing media literacy of the public - the understanding of soundbites and vox pops and two-ways and blogs - that allows everyone to participate in activities once reserved for the journalistico-political complex.

That is a wonderful thing, and I would much rather have cyberspace regulated by public scorn than by Tony Blair, who should depart as soon as possible to complete his farewell tour in an open-top submarine.

Quite, though drowning is nowhere near painful, humiliating or nasty enough for the man responsible for the "Government" of the last decade.

Surely if something isn't illegal, then it's legal. There is therefore a "Right to breast feed" already and David Kidney's law is entirely redundant. Or am I missing something?

Oh yes. The Labour party are either entirely ignorant of our constitution, or they hate the fact that the Englishman (or woman) has the right to do anything except that which is proscribed in law - rights are not in the gift of the state.

That explains everything....

David Kidney is therefore a well meaning, but ignorant dick-head.

In a display of hypocrisy that should shame even the Labour party, Tony Blair blames the media for debasing politics and cheapening debate, something he was totally complicit in, when it served his ends. But then that's not news.

But as we approach the coronation of The one-eyed Presbyterian thief, I actually feel warmly towards the charlatan in chief. Better the devil you know.

There is a long-running joke: "say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, at least Hitler made the trains run on time".


Yes, not exactly hilarious, but I was given to thinking about this when I tried to book a ticket to (don't talk to me about culture, I've been t') Leeds in September. Like a dutiful forward thinker, I seek to get the best prices by booking early and three months is as early as you can get - they don't issue tickets any further in advance on The Trainline.

You're bored - I can tell. Bear with me.

The cheapest ticket available today is £63 return. None of the cheaper tickets advertised (from £10.50 each way) are available. Railways are not airlines, they are supposed to be flexible. If you book one of these super advance tickets that may or may not be available, and your plans change in the quarter of a year between purchase and travel, you cannot exchange and you must pay the full fare of £75 for a single, £150 for a return or think "fuck it, it's cheaper to take the car"

For comparison a flight costs £138, and the bus takes six hours and is full of heroin addicts and the unemployed & smells of wee: they'd have to pay me.

This is why we are all pissed off with the rail network. It's not because it's unreliable - it isn't particularly bad. It is far, far safer than any other form of transport. It's not overcrowded, at least outside the major commuter routes and I've found that getting up to Town by 8am rather than 9am guarantees me a seat - people are too lazy to get an earlier train. In fact, outside the major commuter routes, I rarely see a full train. The cost of a ticket, you see is prohibitive.

I hate, having tried to navigate the painfully slow website and bought a ticket, arguing with some bureaucrat in bri-nylon over whether the ticket I have is valid on the journey I'm on - a question of Stephen Hawking defying opacity.

I believe this is the place to deal with the "Tory Privatisation" argument. Yes the Tories got the structure wrong, but the problem was not with privatisation as such. Indeed it achieved it's main function - a cut in the subsidy, matched by private-sector investment, and a massive increase in passenger numbers, without any change in the safety of the railway. Labour subsequently re-nationalised the railway in 2000 and the state subsidy mushroomed 250% to £5bn, whilst the Train operating companies are not laying on any more services to cope with demand. The problem is not about who owns the railways, but in the incentives for whoever does. It is these which are skewed. All changes to schedules must now be cleared by the DfT, which is ludicrous: the Government actually prevented additional services being laid on to meet demand. Thus TOCs hike prices, hiding it under the cloak of the cheapest fares of which about 10 are available, to maximise returns, rather than driving up passenger numbers by meeting customer demand, which is what they did under privatisation. Renationalisation has kept the bad bit of private industry: the profit motive, and lost the bit that makes it work - the flexibility and investment. A typical New Labour worst of both worlds fudge, just like PFI.

If you want to get people off the roads and onto the railways then the fare structure needs to be simpler. Rail needs to be the cheapest option at all times (apart from the bus, which is for scum). It needs to be no less reliable than a car. Trains need to be full, the toilets need to both work and be cleaned occasionally and the buffet needs to never, ever run out of cold Lager.

If the government regulated the railways to that end, then we'd all be happy, but Tony and Co. are a total bunch of cunts who couldn't organise a clusterfuck in a Brothel. They have been led by the media's hysteria following the Hatfield rail disaster in 2000 and chased headlines rather than implement changes which might actually work. Just like everything else done by this mendacious bunch of sub-marxist wank-stains on whom I would only consider pissing if they weren't on fire at the time.

We've got authoritarian bastards running the country without even a working transport network to compensate.

A Conservative MEP and MP* write about what's wrong with policing. The Dude Concurs.

*His own Website is down.

I'm not sure the audience of Guardianistas in London's Curzon Cinema who sat down to watch Taking Liberties on Sunday felt the revulsion I did when I saw the trailer for The war on Democracy, a film which apparently sees no irony in lauding a man who has just passed an enabling law, has closed down most opposition media and is busy arming militias. John Pilger clearly is a cunt of Michael Moore proportions. Neither did they cheer, as I did when footage of a green-haired poll-tax rioter getting run over by a police horse was shown. The only group of people I like less than the police are anarchist rock-chuckers, so the poll-tax riots are win-win viewing for me.

We all know that St. Tony of Albion's police state is awful. To readers of this blog, that the Labour party has completed it century-held mission to destroy Britain comes as no surprise, but the film makes clear that Tony Blair's enabling law is a wide ranging, Orwellian piece of legislation making it a criminal offence to speak in anything other than totally subservient tones to anyone wearing a hi-vis vest.

Go see the movie.

But ye gods! The Fucking war. Whilst mention was made of a range of subjects from the Natwest 3 to the Countryside Alliance, Most of the protests were about the war: Self-righteous whining lefties whittering about firms selling computer parts for bombs and such like. Nice, middle-class people being roughly treated by the police, who are shown, entirely fairly, as bullying, officious and corrupt, not the public's friend of Peelian immagination. Running through the film though was the assumption that all of the old bill's abusive new powers are exacerbated by the "illegal" (ffs) war in Iraq, and the wider war on terror. I am really fed up up with the endless criticism of Blair's international adventurism as "illegal". It isn't. It has poisoned the debate about civil liberties because opposition to Blair has coalesced around a pointless, subversive-inspired lost cause (Stop the War) which spends more time protesting about American abuses of people who hate us in dusty third-world toilets, rather than the more numerous though less serious abuses of British people by British police and the fundamental destruction of the rights of the British Subject. The war has distracted us from the fence posts of a totalitarian state being put in place. The War Against Terror (T.W.A.T), though is not the root cause of the assault on liberty.

This is merely the excuse.

The destruction of our liberties is a direct function of the welfare state. The massive extension of state powers since 1945 requires that the people be monitored, controlled, and corralled into state sanctioned behaviour. It's inevitable that the information be collected, files maintained. The Labour party is a socialist organisation and it needs to monitor, control and coerce to build a "progressive" state. How will they know from whom to take and to whom to give if they don't know everything about everyone? 9/11 gave them the opportunity that they have never had before to fuck us (for our own good, naturally) and take our liberties, something they've been itching to do since Attlee's failed attempt to create some form of democratic communism. Socialism, in any form requires oppression.

Taking liberties threw up some wonderful footage which should prevent anyone trusting the police ever again, but missed the point as to why this was all happening, blinded as they were by bombs in the middle east. Destroy the welfare state, give people back their courage and self-reliance and the public support for the assault on our liberties will vanish.

I wandered out of the cinema with the girlfriend to go and see some pictures in the National Portrait Gallery. There was a protest going on in Trafalgar square - against (what else?) Israel - a leftist fetish I just don't understand. One of the entrances to the Gallery was blocked by a strand of red and white tape patrolled by a high-vis vested fat man citing 'elf n' safety. Apparently some people like to stand on the portico of the gallery overlooking the square and take pictures. This cannot be allowed, and it clearly gave the officious oaf a great deal of satisfaction to create an entirely unnecessary queue. He was doing something "for our security".

Welcome to Britain.

Its an order

Apparently that ghastly Harperson thing is the key to Labour's electoral success, according to Pol. Apparently Benn is unsuitable because he's

"Born a Millionaire".

That puts your opinions out of the running too, Pol.

Labour won in 1997 because, for the first time ever, the party won the women's vote - now it is lost again. Women voters were won in large part because Harman led the argument for all-women shortlists...

God, that Toynbee tart is really stupid. Can you believe this shit passes for psephological logic on the left? Well I've got news for you, Pol you fucking hypocritical bitch. Most of the electorate don't care how much other people earn. That's only a concern of spiteful socialists like yourself. Most people think that all women shortlists are a bit unfair and, well just not British. You see most British people make judgements on issues other than what daddy did for a living and the shape of ones genitals.

Can you imagine a less appealing prospect than The Goblin King and the arch-feminist Harridan Harperson grinning unconvincingly at you at the hustings whilst saying how great it would be if you let them take even more of your money? One more calculated to make the electorate vote Conservative? (apart from Brown and Hain, naturally)

I know several Labour party members and they all think that Brown is loved and respected and the real Problem is Blair. What a bunch of twats! I've not met anyone, anyone outside the Labour party who thinks about The Goblin king in anything other than four-letter Anglo-Saxon. As for the god-awful brace of women running for the position of arch minion and lickspittle to the one-eyed thief, Harperson and Blears' major contribution to the debate has been on how much you should spend on a handbag. (less than £50 if you're a cheap, chippy spiteful bitch, and £250 if you look like a chipmunk).

This gives us hope that a party, now into its 10th year of power is now only talking to itself.

Americans are polite people, when compared to us boorish Brits. (Actually come to think of it, everyone's polite when compared to us). Is that because if you're rude to someone in the USA they might, possibly, if you're unlucky, bust a cap in your arse*. An armed society is a polite society perhaps?

*an "ass" is a domesticated equine of supreme load carrying ability, sure footedness and foul temper. Not 'yer bum.

Monty Python, the Meaning of Life.
George Monbiot

So a left-footer, high up enough in his particular cult to get to wear a really funky hat says something which in no way contradicts centuries of doctrine and belief and some people say this is "controversial".
If you take the view that life begins in the womb and that unborn foetuses are people, then it is entirely consistent to believe abortion to be murder, and therefore the rhetoric that Keith O'Brien used comparing daily terminations of Healthy Foetuses to the Dunblane Massacre was reasonable, and has internal consistency. He went further adding that perhaps people who claim to be Catholics who happen to be politicians should consider their position on abortion legislation if they wish to partake in Holy Communion with all the smell, bells and craven idols of Rome. Maybe they could consider conforming?

Labour MPs in the west of Scotland (though not yet our favorite pinko weegie Left-footer) have reacted furiously calling this an "affront to democracy". Surely you're free to join or leave a church? surely you can vote in parliament according to your conscience (weighed against party political considerations, naturally). So there's no affront to democracy, just a principled addition to the debate. That this might severely affect Labour MPs in the West of Scotland to a greater extent than others may be the real cause of the Bleating in Labour ranks. They've already lost Scotland to the SNP. The last thing they need is people getting religious instruction to vote against MPs and MSPs who have failed to overturn legislation legalising abortion.

Religion, in the secular west at least, should be a private vice (like masturbation). Therefore Law is made without reference to religious dogma. Religion is free to contribute to the debate, and free to seek to influence Legislators, but it should not seek to impose religious law on people who don't share a particular interpretation of scripture. God-botherers are free to demand that their fellow cultists do what their particular millennia-old paranoid schizophrenic demands. I just wish they wouldn't impose it on the rest of us.

My personal view is that the female body spontaneously aborts a lot of embryos. Therefore an Embryo is a "potential person". The abortion of which is therefore not desirable, but is sometimes the lesser of two evils. It should however be done as early as possible with a cut-off after which abortions should not be considered. That date should depend on which point a child is viable outside the womb. I am not qualified to set that date and I therefore defer to medical science. The current law broadly takes this view.

Catholics (and Presbyterians, Lutherans, Scientoligists, Hindus, Muslims and Zoroastrians) do not defer to medical science, or avail themselves of reason on any question of morality and are therefore part of the same school of thought that brought us 80,000 human sacrifices in one festival in 16th Century Meso-America, Witch Crushing, flagellation and Clitorectomy. One that has brought Hundreds of Millions of deaths through history - all in the name of God. That school of thought is one that denies that truth and justice can be found anywhere other than one heavily edited book by someone of unknown, about someone else of questionable sanity (who claimed to speak to God) who died more than a thousand years ago. A closed-minded doctrinaire approach which has been responsible for holding man back wherever it has gained temporal power. Religion, and especially one which brought us the Inquisition, is in no position to preach "humanity" or bleat about mass murder.

So whilst I defend Cardinal O'Brien's right to make the sermon he did, I defend my right to call him a bigoted, closed-minded old fool, who should go back to drawing a salary for criticising gay people and threatening the credulous with hell-fire and brimstone. I suggest that he leave his opinions out of the lives of a great many people, most of whom don't bow to the bishop of Rome, or any other old chap in a silly hat.

If you're American, This is not the place to air your "pro-choice" or "pro-life" views. I don't give a shit.

If only this were not so painfully believable. (Tip of the Hat to Harry Hutton)

I have argued before that the total contempt in which politicians are held by the general public is because a legitimate debate in a party is presented as a "Split". Hazel Blear's comments are the reason people hate politics. The Tories are groping towards a coherent policy in the mess that is the British state "education" "system". They made a total hash of the presentation; the policy is however, sound.

Thus Willetts makes explicit the Tories' long standing education policy - one in which Grammar schools, however effective the system might have been in the past for the children lucky enough to pass the 11+, do not form a core of the educational system; though existing ones are to remain, and areas which have them, can (u-turn?) open new ones. This last bit was the demonstration that Conservative policy wasn't fully thought out. "What about Buckinghamshire and Kent?" was clearly never asked, beyond keeping their schools as they are.

The reason for this is that whilst Grammars worked, and still do, there are a tiny number of them and anyone thinking about broader policy can be forgiven for ignoring them. Thus Willetts only mentioned them in passing. Grammars were sucessful, but Secondary Moderns were less so (though better than the comprehensives that replaced them). It is perfectly reasonable to argue that the closure of Grammars was an appalling act of vandalism, it does not follow that the only way to improve the education system is to return to the 11+ Exam. 11 is probably too early to separate the sheep from the goats.

In fact the process of setting schools free from the Local Education Authorities is the key to a better system, and this has already begun: a toe in the water under Major, knee deep under Blair perhaps finally summoning the courage to dive in and finally destroy the truly awful LEAs under Cameron. This will be far from a big-bang, though.

This policy does not "strike at the heart of what it is to be a Conservative", whatever Graham Brady thinks.

It is noticeable that this blew up with Cameron on Holiday. This may not have been a change in policy, but it was taken as such, and the very public mishandling of the media storm is Cameron's first trial by fire. He or his team fluffed it, and this excellent Observer op-ed is bang on the mark.

But this is more important than just schools policy. For 20 years the Conservatives, and in the last 5 - the Blairites too - have had the right education policy, but have been unable to put it into effect because of the row that the LEAs and the Teaching unions would throw up. Blair has been unable to get diversity and choice, with the funds following the student (meaning vouchers, or something like them, eventually) past his party. The Tories can and will. The Battle lines are now drawn for the next Tory government's miners' strike. Can the Shibboleths of the leftist educational establishment be slain? What about the collateral damage of children's education whilst the NASUWT, NUT call their members out?

There you go. The Tories are split, yet need not be. Some have a sentimental attachment to their Alma Maters, and several represent constituencies that have Grammar schools. This however is not like Clause IV. Cameron is not going to change policy, but he needs to demonstrate to his party that his policy is not an abandonment of its principles. Labour, in contrast had to persuade its members that the total abandonment of its principles was necessary if they were ever to be electable - socialism, you see, is for utter morons and destroys economies and lives when put into effect. The electorate know this, and what they got was unprincipled managerialism in socialism's stead.

The Cameron project has demonstrated to the electorate the party has the interests of the people at heart - the polls show it. It's now time for Cameron to start rallying his troops. Start loving the ancient Party he leads. His rhetoric needs now to be a little more combative against the Labour party and especially Brown. No more sucking up to La Toynbee. No more "Heir to Blair" rubbish. We hate it. The people who are going to get him elected will not work for him unless he throws us some red meat, and starts talking about what Labour have done to this country. Unless he brings his party with him, when in power, he will loose the fight with the well dug-in leftists who are currently ruining the educational chances of Millions of young Britons. Morale is faltering in the Party, just as we sniff the prospect of power, and have a fight on our hands.

Failure to talk to your own party will allow awful excuses for human-beings like Hazel "Chipmunk" Blears to accuse the party of "splits", and that's something that's punished worse than Socialism by the electorate. I Love your policies*, Dave. Hate your rhetoric.

*Even some of that Green bollocks

I noticed while attempting to download a Firefox add-on that the British English (there is no other kind - we're right and you colonials are wrong) Dictionary is slightly larger at 245 KB than its US/Canadian counterpart with just 242 KB. Bigger Vocabulary perhaps? As the Australian dictionary is a mere 193KB, does this mean that Americans are 1.2% less erudite than British people but 26% more erudite than Australians?

Who do you think has demonstrated "stronger ties with the UK" and is allowed to stay here: An Algerian convicted identity thief who entered the country illegally, or a Nepalese WWII veteran on whom this country chose to bestow its highest honour for valour in the face of the Queen's enemies?

We are ruled by moral pygmies, not fit to lick the dust from Mr Tul Bahadur Pun's sandals. The consolation is that he is aware of the British People's support for him and our deep gratitude to the tens of thousands like him who have struck fear into our enemies for centuries in service with the Gurkhas.

Gurkhas are now eligible for the British Army pension (finally!), and can be fast-tracked through immigration procedures, should they wish to settle in the UK (in that service in the Army is considered "employment" for the purposes of naturalization - I'm staggered that it could have been considered anything else) and are offered education and training if they don't. Much of their new package does not as yet apply to soldiers who retired before 1997. Natural justice demands that many of these benefits be made retrospective, and former Gurkhas should now be assumed to be eligible to remain in the UK, if they wish, and fast-tracked through the immigration and citizenship process to expedite this. Former soldiers in need especially should be offered whatever help we can give them.

The terms of service has always been on the expectation that Gurkha soldiers remain Nepalese citizens during their service, and are expected to retire there afterwards, though a great many now work in India, Brunei, Hong Kong and the UK following their 17-years in the Britsh Army. Whilst I am sure that no-one would begrudge former soldiers medical care and preferential treatment in immigration, I don't necessarily think that all Gurkhas should be given British citizenship automatically. This is not the arrangement The British Army has with the Kingdom of Nepal, in allowing us to recruit its finest young men.

Nevertheless I support the sentiment behind this petition and urge you to sign it.