"I prefer liberty with danger than peace with slavery."
— Jean-Jacques Rousseau
"If we don't learn from history, we are destined to repeat it" so thats why this 16 year old is looking at Peel for answers
Ask me anything
August 31, 2010
August 26, 2010
"I am a conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few."
— Benjamin Disraeli
August 4, 2010
correcttheleft-deactivated20100 asked: I am 17 years old. I am trying to get my blog started up. Do you have any tips? Also would you follow my blog?
write about stuff you know
July 22, 2010
New Evangelicals
There is no problem with people having faith. In this nation with an established church church especially. However, in recent times evangelicals in the UK have been seen as similar to that of the pentecostal church in the US, with some negative consequences especially in right wing circles. As seen clearly at the end of Emily Nomates piece on a similar subject.
The church has long had a role on society on all sides of the house, whether bishops in the lords, Methodism in Kier Wallaces time, Wilberforce or (my personal favourite) Spencer Perceval. Yet, the plight of new evangelicals is viewed upon as different, I suppose mainly as it is seen as a far-right US import.
However, it is not simply a cheap imitation of an undesirable stance (red bull to Sainsburys blue bolt springs to mind). Instead its roots are different, and therefore is a different kettle of fish. US Pentecostals derive out the black baptist movements, conversely the UK evangelically movement derives out of Methodism and traditional baptist Churches. Now this to the lay man may make no difference but it does. The US movement comes out of one formed out of oppression predominantly by black slaves being forced into presbyterianism and rebelling into the baptist or ana-baptist circles, this no doubt was suppressed by slave owners. Now, the natural reaction to oppression intentionally or not is to gain control over the oppressor. I’m not saying that they are intentionally doing this it’s just a natural progression look at the suppression of the Bolsheviks in pre-1917 Russia for example. You may argue that this is tenuous, but it is in a movements infancy that its key themes and velocity is formed. Conversely, the UK movement is formed out of a Wesley-ian thought of free will, the idea of freedoms and liberty. It was not suppressed, in fact gained popularity in parliament with Wilberforce being counted amongst them, its political ideas are based on influence not control, and of freedoms not oppression.
Some will say that these new christian rising in the conservatives party are dangerous. They see them as illiberal and authoritarian, anti-gay and pro-life. Yet their theology means that they should think differently. They believe in freedom of chioce. Yet, the majority of these issues are misunderstood, by on large the majority of this new generation are accepting of gay people, although seeing what they do privately a sin they realise that they also sin and therefore cannot judge, it’s a similar story with abortion.
Overall, this new evangelical (not pentecostal) generation in the conservative party are more liberal than many give them credit for. Lets cut them some slack, I mean no one goes this Crazy over Widdecombe becoming a catholic over the women and gay issues in the Church of England. Yes, there will always be odd ones out, like Enoch Powell was with racism. But the majority, although privately opposed and shying away from doing particular actions, do not wish to remove the freedoms, or if given the opportunity, legislate against what they see to be freedoms ordained from god. After all these new tories do stick to Dieu et Mon Droit
July 21, 2010
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves"
— William Pitt the Younger
July 20, 2010
To Cut Or Not To Cut?
Cuts. Or the C-word of politics. For some unbeknown reason, the mention of the word sends shivers down the media and the publics backs.But is the reason due to scaremongering and an emphasis on now and not tomorrow.
Labour have lived up to their reputation as staunch Keynsianists. Repeatedly spurting out the dogma of continual investment causes economic grow especially in the public sector. The idea is as follows:
- Invest more money, especially in the public sector, during a slump or depression
- This causes higher employment
- Therefore more people have a higher proportion of their income as expendable
- People therefore will spend this extra money they are now receiving
- This causes a spiral effect leading to economic growth, with higher employment than before and more sustainable economic growth.
Now lets be honest, this has its benefits after all employment in a slump is great and so is sustainable economic growth. But (and this is a big but) it has gaping flaws. For example the last time we put this into practice was during WWII. We loaned money due to liquidity problems concerning the UK treasury, we finished paying this loan back to the US in 2006, that’s roughly 63 years! Also lets not forget the dire state we are currently in, the euro is collapsing around us ( I won’t be surprised if the euro falls apart before 10 years pass) and we have a deficit larger than Greece. Moreover thanks to “Our Great Leader” we have no gold reserves, and the IMF is warning us that our status as AAA maybe downgraded to AA if we don’t cut back. This is what happens if we do a Keynes right now:
- We loan even more money
- We then have to pay a higher percentage of money brought in on paying off these loans.
- We will eventually become more risky to invest in due to the high proportion of income relying on loans
- Our rating is downgraded from a AAA rating to a AA rating
- Interest rates on our loans saw
- We have to make gigantic cuts to fund the repayments and the electorate n is neglected just to stay afloat
- Due to no money in circulation we hit a slump at least on parallel of the 1930’s
(By The Way, just in case you don’t understand that is the worst possible result)
So the opposite, or maybe more logical thing to do would be a more Friedman-esque approach. This means, unfortunately we cut. By doing this we survive. See below:
- The government cut, and lower taxes
- Due to the Laffer curve, government income increases naturally
- The Government invests the money made by cuts and lowering of taxes to pay off debts and reduce the deficit
- This then gives the private sector a boost as the markets gain confidence increasing liquidity and the availability of loans
- This allows a boom, leading out of recession and back to a level of prosperity previously seen pre-crash in a sustainable fashion.
Therefore we see that this double dip or feared W recession is only available under a keynsianist way of management. Yes, cuts are harsh and preferably avoidable, but lets look at history. Thatcher did it,and yes it hurt, but 1997 we had the largest growth ever. It hurts but not as much us the opposite option, its like losing a gangrene infested foot so you don’t loose your life.
In conclusion, we all don’t want cuts, but cutting the public sector is not, as some would make you believe, taking money out of the economy. Moreover, in the end its better we take the brunt of it now, then postpone it for my generation or generations after me. So, stop moaning, grit your teeth and man up! We won’t die if we cut, we just take the hard choice now to have easy choices later.
July 19, 2010
"I’m not a republican because I grew up rich. I’m a republican because I didn’t want to spend the rest of my life poor waiting for the government to rescue me."
— Mike Huckabee
July 19, 2010
Rascist tory?
I once had a woodwork teacher named Mr pinder. He was black, I say this just to ephasise my point. He supported labour. He claimed the conservatives to instatutionally rascist, and claimed the tories and the BNP are 1 and the same.
He had an argument, and I must grant him that. His argument has that due to Enoch Powell, means the Tories are rascist, siting Blake “1 dead child is sad, 2 is a coinsodence and 3 is murder” His point is because some people have been rascist it means the tories are rascist.
Why is this wrong well, 3 reasons:
REASON 1: In Blakes time the average familly had about 12 children, so for 3 to die would mean 1/4 have died. Therefore, following his logic that means that out of the millions of members and voters 1/4 are rascist. What poppycock. so lets say the tories have only had 10 million members, that means 2.5 million rascists, that cannot be true.
REASON 2: The conservatives are ideologically opposed to this and historically also. Afterall, a rascist party wouldn’t let a Jew (in a time of very previllant anti-semitism) lead them… but o wait there was a guy called Benjamin Disraeli. Moreover, they wouldn’t have fought so hard under Pitt (younger) to end the slave trade after the french revolution. They wouldn’t have pioneered ideas of equality, not on pay or social standings which logistically cannot work, but in the only way which can legally. Afterall a party with roots in Liberty (see previous post) can’t be rascist surely, it’s illogical.
REASON 3: Do you remember what happened to the numpty who woke up in wolvehampton and decided in that hotel he would rip up his parties reputation. He was sacked as shadow health secretary the very next day and removed from the party. The tories do know this misattributed stigma exsists. Afterall i do believe the Labour father of the house who retired in 2005 claimed Blair was leading a “jewish rabball”, moreover Moseley was in parliment under the labour whip for 3 more years than he was under the tory whip ( he went red as no-one would follow him in the Conservative party)
What I want to say is that, all parties have radicals and extremists in their midst but we should remember that a party who has a history like the conservatives do, is not rascists and anyone in the party with these views is actually not a tory in a but membership which will be terminated like powells upon discovery.
Therefore I conclude the Conservative Party is not rascist
July 19, 2010
Liberty
The other day, I woke up to a certain Mr Humphreysfinishing an interview with labour leadership candidate, Diane Abbott. What I seemed to be hearing took me by suprise, her claims that nationalising railways is “not a left wing policy, it’s just common sense”. She then preceded to say “somehow we became right of the Tories on civil liberties” to which I laughed at.
I laughed due to a lack of understanding the left has of the right. In the media and on the left, it’s perceived that the right are these evil power thirsty racists, who want everyone to live under there big brother-esque regime, exercising fascism with utter joy and glee. This is not the case. For some unbeknown reason all good attributes of political ideology is placed on the left, and all bad on the right.
This is just false. Yes, there are bad elements to the far right, but also to the far left, and everyone forgets this due to the rose-tinted glasses people see the communist “utopias“ through. Therefore, I wish to explain why Abbott was wrong, labour never went further right than the Tories on liberty, but labour just went further left.
If we look at the ideologies of Labour and of the Conservatives, we see a difference, and realise that liberty is right wing. In actual fact anarchy is not far left, but far right; and vice versa with fascism.
The father of modern conservatism is often said to be Burke. Now Burke supported the french revolution. He did this because he saw it as liberation of the people. He supported America in the wars of independence, as he saw this as liberation. He believed in local-ism and people making their own decisions. He saw liberty as the key, not a problem. He thought less state control was beneficial because like Rousseau, he saw liberty as freedom and well freedom is what makes us happy and the point of government is to let the people be happy. In Rousseau’s own words “let them eat cake”. The conservatives although traditionalists supported reforms concerning women’s votes, concerning the abolition of the slave trade, and the repealing of the corn laws. They supported laws concerning individual freedoms and local-ism, and against those that attempted to repeal these freedoms. I suppose what my laboured point is, is that Conservatives are the home not enemy of liberty.
What amazes me is labours claim to be the freedom fighters of the average man, continual fighting this upper class toff-bot to liberate the nation from the scrooge of the people. Well what is labour? It is a party founded out of unions in 1900 by Keir Wallace, with the aim of installing democratic socialism into the heart of the nation. Now what does socialism mean? Does it mean totally equality? Does it mean equality in pay? Does it mean everyone is happy? Well, Yes (in theory). See, the issue is the in theory. Everyone is meant to be happy, but they aren’t free, so they’re not happy. They don’t have freedoms, due to the control of the economy. After all they aren’t free to quit or find a better job. They are suppressed with a low wage, as no wealth is generate in the economy due to lack of competition. Therefore everyone is equal, just equally poor. People are unhappy, even though all is provided. And I’ll tell you why; THEY AREN’T FREE, they can’t do what they want. After all, the government is generally caused by a coup or revolution so needs to vet everyone to stop another revolution (remind you of a certain fascism). For goodness sake how can a party claim to be that of liberty when they opposed the emancipation of Women.
Look, Liberty is right not left. Therefore as anarchy is total and utter liberty to do whatever they so wish, anarchy is right wing, somewhat ironically. So this is why Abbott is unfit to be labours leader, she cannot even identify what’s left or right.
May 31, 2010
Reform
The UK’s general electorate is consistently barraged by the left with consistent calls for electoral reform and that of the houses of parliament. Now we as a country hear these pleas and many are convinced, while only having heard the one side off the argument. Harriet Harman says “we will be an effective opposition”, and they already have been having caught the public’s imagination along with the Liberal Democrats, while the Conservative have forgotten their role to promote the “other House” and our electoral system.
We need the house of lords to be kept similar to its current state and we need to keep first past the post, but we do need reform. I feel its appropriate to quote Peel at this point that if we adopt these reforms we will “live in a perpetual vortex of agitation”. This is true, for the reason below:
1) First past the post provides a simple easy system, which is representative of constituencies. This propaganda that its not fair to have safe seats, well why not? If the majority of people or at least the largest proportion of the electorate in an area, are of one particular political persuasion then what is wrong. Isn’t this just sour grapes? Moreover with any other system instead of having a strong mandate as with FPP, we end up with weak 2nd and 3rd place choices, now that is not fair. Also, with some notable exceptions since 1900 only the two elections in 1911 two in the 1920’s, 1974 and 2010 we have had strong and stable outcomes, compared to Israel or Germany whereby there has been a Co-allition for the last I don’t know how long. So yes it failed six times in 110 years, so what we’d rather that then n election every year or so and half of that political wrangling. The lefts main argument for PR or AV is that it is fairer and means peoples votes actually count. But this is null and void, what about those who want to save there local hospital who do they turn to when the council is against them? They don’t as they have no representative. Representation is beneficial as we hear local voices and laws to the detriment of local communities can be opposed with their voices aired, instead of brushed under the carpet so as to allow the bureaucratic juggernaut to progress mercilessly. Furthermore, won’t this lead to a death of the independent, the people who truely hold governments and oppositions to account, free of the whip and under no pressure of that other than the constituents, and move towards a more proportional system will wipe out any hope of there election. In conjuncture with that these new systems lead to a rise in the power of fringe movements like the BNP, and apart from the 1/2 a million who like Hitler in the Uk they in no way shape or form represent the views of this great nation. Do we really wants thugs in parliament? I don’t think so. So if there arguments are so weak why do we listen, if you ask the people if they want a local mp they’ll tell you yes and no other system than FPP can provide that properly.
2) The lords. Currently it is perfect. Why? well it holds the commons to account with little party influence, as the whip in the lords is massively ineffective as the lords cannot be reprised for actions rendered. Moreover cross-bench peers have a large influence and represent like the spiritual the actual needs of normal people not an ideology. However an elected house, wipes out the lords spiritual, cross-bench peers, and re-politicise the house. Party lines will be towed and the independent voice of the people is strangled into another politic water mark flooded not by Digby Jones and other GOATs, who think for themselves and have no particular allegiance, but by a new generation of political numpties just rubber stamping the commons.
These 2 things should be held dear by our nation not changed under the guise of improvement, when it’s just change for changes sake. We have the mother of a democracies why violate her in such a way
RSS feed: http://peelsprotege.tumblr.com/rss
