MALI : WHAT'S IT TO DO WITH US ?

Now that British troops are on the way out of Afghanistan it was inevitable that our peace-loving government would look for somewhere else to train our boys. Fortunately, a handful of madmen have appeared in the landlocked and largely desert country of Mali and, despite the fact that the UK has no historic links with that country, three hundred or more British service personnel are to be deployed in support of the French who are already there.

Mali is one of those countries whose modern day borders have been determined largely by colonial powers drawing lines in the sand; in the case of Mali, that power was France which controlled the region from the late 19th century until 1960 when it became an independent nation. Ever since then, Mali has been a typical African state, dominated by famine, drought and poverty, military coups, one-party government and effective dictatorship. Most recently, the north of the country has come under the control of Islamic groups including one identified as being a branch of Al Qaeda, known as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb - AQIB - and the government asked for military help from their former colonial masters a few weeks ago.

 

The UK has no connection with Mali and, frankly, it's hard to see how a country of 14 or 15 million mostly very poor people living some 2,500 miles away can really be any threat to us. Yes, there is the suggestion that the current troubles involve nasty Islamic terrorists but what has this got to do with the UK ? If there's an issue which needs the intervention of foreign forces, by all means go to the United Nations and get a coordinated response from them; otherwise, it's none of our damn business.

 

David Cameron has gone from a position of no direct involvement to sending in 300-plus troops in a couple of weeks; in a few more it could easily be 3,000 troops and the body bags will start turning up. Then we'll get the usual nonsense about our brave lads giving their lives to protect us from unimaginable horrors when, in truth, our 'brave lads' will really have given their lives simply to massage the egos of the likes of Cameron. Why are we so acquiescent to all of this ?

HS2 MUST HAPPEN QUICKLY.

The current hullaballoo about the proposed 'HS2' railway line brings to mind a similar furore over the route to be followed by another transport infrastructure project.

 

Many years ago, I recall that my parents were a little concerned by proposals about the siting of a new orbital road for London. The suggestion was that it would come perilously close to their home and they were, understandably, somewhat worried by this. In the event, their house was not threatened as the M25, as it became known, was built some distance away and was not a problem. In fact, later house relocations found them living quite close to where the motorway was, which made some journeys easier and certainly added to the value of their property.

 

My parents were undoubtedly lucky not to have their lives disrupted by the M25 but many others did experience upheaval as the motorway construction proceeded, Houses were demolished and families moved, green fields were lost and lives disrupted but who now remembers any of this ? 'HS2' is simply more of the same and, while there will be losses, there should also be gains as Britain updates some more of its antiquated infrastructure.

 

I can well understand the unhappiness of those through whose villages the new lines will travel and of those who wish to protect, at all cost, the beauty of rural England, but are we really to hold back on vital transport improvements in order to meet the requirements of every NIMBYist complaint ? The answer has to be a resounding "NO!" 

 

There may, of course, be issues to be addressed and perhaps some small changes to the proposed  routes may be needed, but these developments must proceed. What is most worrying is that the current timetable is for work to begin on 'HS2' in 2026, which seems to be quite ludicrous. Why can this project not get underway within the next 2 or 3 years, rather than not for more than a dozen ?

 

Some people will be inconvenienced and even suffer massive disruption to the lives but, in the end, the benefits to the nation will far outweigh these disadvantages. 'HS2' must proceed and the sooner the better.

 

DON'T OFFEND THE JEWS, WHATEVER THEY DO.

A Liberal Democrat member of Parliament who represents a handful of people in the Bradford East constituency has shown the sort of courage and resolution expected from our political figureheads.

 

Having posted a 'Blog' in which he accused "the Jews" in Israel of "inflicting atrocities on Palestinians ....... on a daily basis", he has then submitted to pressure and apologized for the "intentended offence" after his party leadership condemned his "use of language".

 

Exactly what was offensive about his "use of language" hasn't been specifed but as he didn't use any foul words or other words that are considered to be blasphemous or otherwise unacceptable, one wonders what was his actual offence.

 

Israel is largely populated by Jews; Jews are the dominant political force in that country and they have been overtly aggressive ever since they stole the land from the indigenous Palestinian Arab population. The Jewish dominated government of Israel has vastly superior military strength compared with the Palestinian organisations; the slightest assault on Israeli people or property is met with murderous reprisal from their forces.

 

What part of the MP's statement was, therefore, truly offensive ? It certainly wasn't untrue and one can only assume that the reaction of his party, and others, was because any adverse comment about Israelis, or Jews, is automatically deemed to be offensive, regardless of how true it may be. The MP, David Ward, has shown himself to be pretty 'lily-livered' in apologizing; he should have stuck to his guns 

CAMERON'S EU PLEDGE JUST A CON TRICK.

So David Cameron has finally made his long-awaited speech about the European Union and the UK's position in it - or out of it.

 

Members of the Conservative party seem to be very happy with his apparent committment to hold a simple 'in / out' referendum sometime in 2018, but this date really is far too distant for Cameron's words to hold much water. There are too many imponderables raised by his speech for anyone to draw any real meaning from it.

 

Will Cameron be in a position to carry out his pledge in 2018 ? Will he still be Prime Minister or, indeed, even leader of his party by then ? Precisely what will be renegotiated ? What will count as 'success' in any negotiations ? What will happen if Scotland votes for independence in its own referendum ? Etc., etc.

 

Cameron is actually running scared of both his own MPs and UKIP and that's the only reason for his speech. He has no intention whatsoever of really giving us an opportunity of a fair unbiased vote as whatever the outcome of his 'renegotiations' he would claim a huge success and campaign vigorously to stay in this corrupt club. The Liberal Democrats and Labour parties will do the same and we'll be left with exactly the same situation as we had back in 1975 - the Government and major parties all on one side while a relatively small number of right wing Tories and UKIP would be on the other. Campaigning would be skewed strongly in favour of a vote to stay in, mainly because that is the option that most politicians prefer; after all, it is the option that offers them the chance of an alternative career and lots of 'jollies' all at the tax payer's expense.

 

Given that Cameron's chances of still being PM after the 2015 election are slim, most of the above is probably nothing but pointless conjecture. Even if he does somehow hold on to office, it's still more than 2 years to the election  and a further 3 before he would have to fullfil his committment. Harold Wilson famously said that "a week is a long time in politics"; on that scale, 5 years is an eternity. Cameron's speech has meaning for the moment and, perhaps, for the next week or two; beyond that it has no meaning other than as an attempt to safeguard his own position and we all know how precarious can be the positions of political figures.

 

For anyone who really wants to see a change in the relationship between the UK and EU, there is only one option - vote UKIP. Firstly in next year's European elections and then in the General Election of 2015. Forget Cameron's promises, he's already shown himself to be as slippery as any of them when it comes to finding ways out of sticking to them and this will be no different.

GOVERNMENTS LOVE TERRORISM

David Cameron is reported as having said that the recent Algerian hostage mess could be the start of a 'decades long battle against Islamist terrorism in North Africa'.

Not that long ago I watched a television series which was, I think, titled 'The Power of Nightmares'. This series drew attention to the way in which governments have historically created crises in order to scare their populations and make them believe that they should trust their government to save them from disaster; this latest Cameron pronouncement has all the hallmarks of such a 'crisis'.

Why 'Islamist' terrorism is any different to any other form of terrorism escapes me. Lunatic Irish nationalists, and so-called loyalists, did everything that Islamic terrorists have done except destroy the world trade buildings in New York, but then many Americans are happy supporters of one or other of the Irish positions so attacking America would not really be in the interests of either side.

In the past, we had the 'Red Brigade' in Germany which fizzled out and there have been other manic groups whose activities have always come to nought, perhaps after one or two high-profile events, but no more. Al Qaeda, the current "bête noire" of the western world, have actually done very little other than provided some countries with an opportunity to keep their armed forces up to scratch at minimal cost, while giving governments something with which to divert the attention of their people from the true horrors occurring at home.

 

That Cameron is now trying to scare us with events in places that most in this country have never heard of, let alone holidayed in, is a sure sign of the desperation of his own position. Terrorist acts in southerly parts of Algeria really are not likely to affect the UK, any more than will a war in Mali that has absolutely nothing to do with us and yet in which Cameron seems determined to embroil us. He clearly has learned nothing from the experiences of his predecessors, or perhaps he has; war is good for votes even if it costs a few lives. The lives are, after all, only those of a few pretty insignificant people who probably won't have voted for him anyway.

 

Terrorism is terrorism and there is no reason to qualify it with adjectives such as 'Islamic' or 'Loyalist'; there is also no need to pretend that the threats from disparate groups of maniacs are any greater than they really are. There is certainly no need to claim that we are in for decades of 'Islamic' terrorism; all that such claims will do is to encourage the loonies to carry on as long as possible in order to gain the publicity on which they thrive.

 

Yet again, Cameron has it wrong, or right if you're a politician rather than an ordinary mortal. 

ALGERIAN HOSTAGES HAVE ONLY THEMSELVES TO BLAME.

I find the mania about whatever's going on in Algeria extremely hard to understand.

 

Of course it is tragic for those who've been held captive or killed, and their families, but the people who have chosen to work in such isolated and potentially dangerous places do so more than willingly and are hugely well paid. This is a real case of knowing the potential risks, knowing the potential rewards and deciding that the rewards outweigh the risks.

 

When such ventures go wrong, as has this one in Algeria, it is those directly involved who must take whatever flak comes their way; it is not for governments to suddenly start bleating about the terrible situation and to move on to a virtual war footing. Responsibility does not rest with our government, it rests with the Algerians and the companies whose gas facility has been attacked; if they need the engagement of any other agencies, such as the UK government, they should pay for whatever is involved.

 

We have become far to used to our government underwriting every remotely risky element of our lives; it should not be like this. We all have individual responsibility and we should accept this; if we do risky things and they go wrong, that's our problem, not the government's.

IMMIGRATION SET TO SPIRAL AGAIN.

The organisation 'Migration Watch' has awoken to the potential dangers of vast numbers of Romanians and Bulgarians invading the UK once restrictions on their movements are lifted next year. Being members of the EU, their citizens will have the right to travel anywhere in the EU area without restriction and will be entitled to everything that the already settled populations of every country receives.

 

For the UK this will mean, according to 'Migration Watch', something like 50,000 people from these countries coming to the UK every year for at least the first 5 years of free movement; they will be entitled to free access to the NHS, free education for their children, housing, employment and benefits in exactly the same way as are all existing citizens, regsardless of the fact that they will not have paid a single penny in and quite possibly will be sending money 'home' as fast as they can.

 

That this situation is wrong is obvious. That successive UK governments have allowed it to develop is shocking and disgraceful. Governments whose first priority is to safeguard their own population seem to have gone out of their way to create a situation in which they've done exactly the opposite; we could now be heading towards a repeat of the 'Polish' problem which occurred a few years ago and which has led to Poles now being a very significant group in our society.

 

Inevitably, the ministerial response to this issue has been to ignore it. Instead of answering the concerns expresses by 'Migration Watch', they simply say that 'calculations are difficult' and 'the Home Office is working to cut net immigration'. This is no more than meaningless rhetoric and is insulting to those who elected them; these people are paid extremely well to deal with 'difficult calculations' and they and their predecessors have been 'working hard to cut immigration' since the 1970s, with very little success.

 

Surely the time has now come when our government has to cry 'Enough ! Thus far and no further !'.

 

 

 

 

BEEF, PORK AND HORSEBURGERS - YUM, YUM !

Anyone would think that the sky had fallen in !

 

Shock, horror, some of the disgusting burgers sold in supermarkets have been found to contain trace amounts of pork and/or larger quantities of horse. Our politicians don't quite know which is the more horrible revelation - the thought that some unsuspecting Jews or Muslims may have been 'forced' to eat pork unwittingly, or that others in the population may have eaten the minced up remains of 'Shergar'.

 

Both pork and horsemeat are routinely eaten in many parts of the world. To my knowledge, many Jews and Muslims, while publicly shunning pork, happily eat it in private. That horsemeat is not generally eaten in this country owes most to a cultural choice made by natives of these islands many years ago than to any inedibility.

 

Of course it's regrettable that products marketed as beefburgers have been found to have been contaminated in this way. However, do those who have made quite such a fuss not realise that many cheap products contain all manner of ingredients of which purchasers are usually unaware ? Products such as burgers and sausages almost always contain a range of extraneous ingredients and are made from parts of animals about which we would rather not know. The only issue in this current nonsense which is of any significance is that the offending items have been incorrectly marketed according to current rules.

 

Yawn.

EU MEMBERSHIP : BATTLE IS JOINED.

As pressure mounts for a referendum on the UK's continued membership of the socialist cabal that is the European Union, the big guns are beginning to make their appearance.

 

As well as the CBI recently expressing its opinion that, effectively, the UK had to remain within this egregious organisation at any cost, we now have some non-entity in President Obama's US administration saying something similar, and another non-entity at home, someone called Nick Clegg, claiming that the UK's 'value' to the US lies in its membership of the EU.

 

The CBI, the organisation for chief executives of major companies, has a long history of pontificating an all manor of subjects, always from its own narrow point of view and never from the point of view of the people of the country. There can be no doubt that had they had their way, the UK would now be using the Euro, with all the issues that would have brought us; for them to now being bleating about the necessity of us remaining in the EU tells me that we'll probably be far better off getting out.

 

What our membership of the EU has to do with the US escapes me but, of course, Obama and his acolytes are just another bunch of socialists who would rather see the UK weakened by being tied to a vast raft of anti-competitive rules and regulations than being free to provide genuine competition in the international marketplace. From its foundation, the US has never done anything that was not simply in its own interests and the recent comments about the UK's EU membership are clearly from the same stable. Again, the fact that these comments have been made makes me want to get out.

 

Clegg we all know to be an arch-europhile but for him to use the UK's supposed 'value' to the US as part of his argument for our continued membership of this crazy club really does take the biscuit. Surely, the only reason for the UK to remain in the EU is if membership is in the best interests of the country and its citizens, not in the best interests of another foreign power. Presumably Clegg believes that the US sees the UK as a useful buffer, or possibly even an advocate for it, between itself and continental Europe, but is this of any direct significance to us ?

 

No doubt there will be an increasing amount of rhetoric about the EU over the next couple of years but little of it will be honest and even-handed. The europhiles will try to terrify us with tales about the horrors that will unfold should we come out while the europhobes will do exactly the same from the other side of the argument. How people will really be able to make an informed judgement if we actually do have a referendum on the matter has yet to be discovered.

 

 

HEALTH FASCISTS ON THE MARCH AGAIN.

There was a time when governments looked after the things that the people could not - the nation's finances, nationwide transport, education and health services and defence. No more.

 

Today's governments have largely given up on these critical areas due to their inability to manage them with any level of competence. Instead, they want to manage our daily lives by telling us what we should eat and drink, what exercise we should take, how our children should be 'parented' and so on. The latest piece of nonsense, following quickly on Cameron's plans for stopping 'binge-drinking', has come from the shadow health spokesman, Andy Burnham, who wants to ban certain foods because he thinks they're unhealthy.

 

Mr Burnham may well be right in his assertion that some foods are unhealthy but is it right for people such as him to be deciding that they should be banned ? Is it not for the people themselves to decide what they like and dislike, how they will live their lives and to acept what their choices bring ? The notion that government should be constantly deciding what is and is not good for us in order to try to extend our lifespans is ridiculous. If I'm happy munching on pizza and chips everyday in the knowledge that I'll probably shorten my life as a result, is that any business of the government's ? Of course not. Where the government has a responsibility is in how and when services are provided and, in particular, whether or not all services are provided free to all people at all times.

 

There is no doubt that our health services are horribly overstretched; they are often poorly managed and poorly provided but this is a consequence of the mad notion that we can continue to provide a universally free service to an ever ageing population whose expectations also rise daily. Logically, there must be some form of rationing for general health care as there already is for dental, optical and various other elements of the service. Those who choose a lifestyle which predisposes them to illness or injury should not expect the country to pay for their excessive treatment costs rather than accepting the financial implications themselves.

 

Do we really want a situation in which unhealthy living becomes an 'under the counter' activity due to governments attempting to ban a range of foods, drinks and dangerous sports or would it be better to leave people to make their own choices ? The only issue is for governments to ensure that appropriate advice is made available regarding the implications, both in terms of health and finance, of adopting any particular lifestyle, and for them to take proper action against those whose choices are truly antisocial.

 

If we let them carry on down the road charted by Cameron and Burnham, how long will it be before they decide to invade other, even more private, areas of our lives ? How long before little Jimmy is told he can't have children with young Sally because there's a risk of a child inheriting a genetic condition ? You may well scoff, but I'd lay money on such a policy appearing before very many decades have passed unless the people call a halt now.