Friday, 3 July 2015

Twitter

Friday, 12 June 2015

Tell Cameron And Osborne that TTIP and the Asset Stripping of Britain is Unacceptable!

In other countries usually the IMF step in in times of crises and force a fire sale of the country's assets
through enforced privatisation. In the UK our government are willing partners. They are facilitating the
robbing of the nation to enrich their corporate allies.Please sign the petition against TTIP after watching
this brief animation that summarises some of it's negative implications for people in Europe and beyond.

Friday, 8 May 2015

Cameron Sweeps to Victory at the Expense of the United Kingdom

Cameron's victory most resembles Major's victory in 1992. Somewhat against the polls and leaving him with an emboldened backbench to undermine him on Europe. As parliament fills up with a new generation of 'bastards' the Scottish army have camped across the aisle. It's difficult to imagine a parliament lasting 5 years where the SNP don't get everything they want whether they play the short or the long game. They now probably  have the representation in parliament they've always deserved. Cameron's election tactic was as cynical as it was dishonest. A house price bubble which was instigated to chime with the election cycle has been passed off as an economic recovery. Of Course as any economist worth their keep will tell you its wages that matter. Unfortunately the last round of quantitative easing (ie. printing money only it's not just printing money and the difference is what causes all the problems) was channelled into the housing market. If it had been channelled into the productive sector of the economy i.e.making wind turbines we may have seen Real growth not nominal growth in the economy. However since 97% of money creation is done through the five biggest commercial banks (RBS,Lloyds,Barclays,Santander,HBOS) they would much rather lend and charge interest on asset backed loans rather than risky business loans. So when Liam Byrne left the Tories a note that proved to be a perfect prop saying 'there is no money' that is in fact not true. There is plenty of money to give to the banks to lend to you for mortgages thus increasing the money supply further but no money to scrape a few billion for the NHS. So our only hope is that the promise of austerity has been a lie by the Tory government and to actually save the economy they will return to Keynesian sanity and spend on the productive sectors of the economy. Alternatively you can continue under-investing in education and hope you have an electorate that grows up to vote for a PM and Chancellor that essentially work for the banks. If QE is continued to be done in such a fashion we are all heading for a very bleak economic future.Please pay attention to economists such as Ann Pettifor (her latest offering Just Money is a damn good read) or follow the activities of Positive Money who campaign on this issue.

Saturday, 21 March 2015

Twitter







Monday, 16 March 2015

Action against Banks

ACTION CALL OUT

HSBC Wanted Campaign3

Election season is upon us. For the past four years we’ve been fighting the coalition government’s savage public sector cuts and exposing their lies and hypocrisy. Labour and the coalition promise more cuts to come. Join us on Saturday the 21st March for a national day of action to send a clear message to the political parties: reverse the cuts!
The government told us they’d “protect the poorest and most vulnerable”. They said “those with the broadest shoulders will bear the brunt of the cuts”. And what have we seen? Dismantling the NHS and wrecking the welfare state. Cutting schools, youth clubs, sure start centres, domestic violence refuges and libraries. Slashing local council budgets. Attacking disabled people with inhumane ‘work capability assessments’ and cuts to vital benefits. Removing access to justice through legal aid cuts. Allowing the big six energy companies to push people into fuel poverty. Cutting jobs, wages and pensions. Selling off social housing and moving people away from their communities. Driving hundreds of thousands into food banks and making families choose between heating or eating.
Angry? Join us on Saturday 21st March on the trail of one of the most obvious crimes of all time: the Great British Tax Robbery.We’re targeting the governments’ favourite tax-dodging bank, HSBC. David Cameron says we can’t afford funding for the welfare state. But the deepest and most brutal cuts to our vital public services have been enacted whilst big banks like HSBC who caused the financial crash pocket billions in tax avoidance and help other companies to do the same.

George Osborne thinks it’s “not his job” to clean up corrupt tax-dodgers. So it’s up to us to show HSBC for what it really is: a crime scene. On Saturday 21st let’s send a clear message to the government and HSBC that what they’ve done is CRIMINAL.

Dress as your detective of choice or as a tax-dodging robber with a bag full of public service swag. Turn your local HSBC into an ‘active crime scene’, cordon off the area, take ‘witness statements’ from passers-by and get set to expose the crimes against our public services.
The government talks about ‘benefits scroungers’, but we all know who’s really scrounging off the state. It’s time to bring the REAL CRIMINALS to JUSTICE.
Go to the actions page to find an action taking place in your area, or organise one yourself! Information here on how to organise an action. If you need any help get in touch on ukuncut@gmail.com.
Use the #taxdodgingistheft hashtag on the day and to get planning.

Let’s come together on the 21st and take a stand against austerity.

See you on the streets!

Friday, 20 February 2015

Have Your Say


Have Your Say


For The First Time Polls Show That The Majority Of Christians Won't Vote Tory


It would seem that the Church of England is the 'Tory Party at Prayer' no longer. Tom Hawksley,
a Conservative Christian and regular contributor sums up this tension and sense of alienation
in the article below:


At the election there is little choice for Christians: it's time they had their own party.
Traditional Christians have been disenfranchised
It is difficult for a Christian to vote for any established political party in the 2015 General Election. For all the main parties are hostile to Christian family values. In effect traditional church-goers – Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Evangelicals, Pentecostals – have been disenfranchised.
This is a watershed in British history. From the earliest days of our parliamentary system the main parties never campaigned against Christianity or the traditional family. Nor did they threaten to use the levers of state to make the views of Christianity illegal. So, spared the howling winds of Europe's anti-clerical revolutions, the UK has never needed any church party as they have on the continent. Until now. This May any vote a Christian gives to any of the main parties means voting for political leaders who are all committed to a fiercely liberal secular agenda and are ready to use the powers of the state to oppose the teachings of the church. This is almost certainly the case for the Conservative Party.
The Conservative betrayal of Christians
The Tory leaders have treated their loyal foot soldiers with contempt. Many of the thousands of ordinary hard working Conservative supporters who have knocked on doors, stuffed envelopes and hosted tea parties in their spare time were Christians. Like the rest of the country, nobody asked them whether they supported the abolition of traditional marriage. Despite thousands of protest letters from Conservatives to their MPs, the rank and file of the Tory Party were ignored, and, as if in a nightmare, the pragmatic party, the 'steady as it goes' party, the men and women who are the backbone of middle England watched aghast as their liberal aristocratic leaders vomited out of Westminster an Orwellian social experiment that would have made the pigs in Animal Farm blush. The experiment is now on the statute book, and one word sums up how ordinary Christian Conservatives feel: betrayed.
And it was arrogant betrayal. Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary, said on TV there was no demand for destroying traditional marriage in parliament; and no demand in the country. He was right. But arrogance – a quality aristocrats are not unfamiliar with – did not need the support of ordinary people. Assuming they were born with the right to rule, the Etonians arrogantly forced radical legislation onto a public who had never seen any mention of it in the Tory manifesto.
Abortion and Pornography
There are other reasons why Christians should feel uncomfortable supporting the modern Tory party. Though there has been plenty of talk, there has been no robust attempt to deal with the deeply anti Christian practice of abortion. In early 2015 a healthy baby was born aged 23 weeks. If the mother had wanted an abortion this baby could have been killed, because the legislation which in power this Tory party has tolerated, allows abortion up to 24 weeks.
And though there has also been plenty of talk about the danger of pornography, when David Cameron was asked to support the campaign to take nudity out of the Sun newspaper, he refused.
The gap between the rich and the poor
Another aspect of the Tories that has always made traditional Christians uneasy is that Tories tend to team up with the very wealthy. This unease has rightly intensified in recent years as the gap between the rich and poor in the UK continues to widen. There are thousands of people working in full time jobs, but because of low wages they have to rely on food banks. This has happened under the Tories.
And while few doubt that change to the welfare system was needed, as the reforms have been unveiled genuinely vulnerable people have suffered. And worse, the Daily Mail reading Tory supporters have been sold a narrative about the 'undeserving poor'. This whole notion is inimical to Christianity. Yes, there is the Biblical expectation that everyone should work; but the underlying emphasis, vividly portrayed in Jesus' teaching about the Good Samaritan, is that when people hit rough times they should be given a helping hand, not asked whether they are deserving or not.
The Bible and church teaching insist that the poor must be treated with compassion. This is not an obscure doctrine; it is a part of the church's DNA. Christians must remember the poor. And so Christians should vote for a party that will do the same.
In one area the Tories deserve praise from Christians. They have followed the Bible's advice and tried to get the country out of debt and into surplus. And this has led to economic growth, creating the money that is needed to help the poor. The question for Christians is whether they are getting the balance right between creating growth – and protecting the vulnerable.
While the Tory's economic policy needs to be treated with discernment, it would be harsh to suggest it violates a Christian's conscience. As stated above, what violates a Christian's conscience is the contempt the Tory leaders have shown their party members members; their unprincipled attack on conventional marriage; and their continuing support for abortion. It is this that makes it difficult for a traditional Christian to support the modern Tory party in the coming election.
Labour, no friend of Christian teachings
It is equally difficult to support the Labour party. The vast majority of Labour MPs supported the abolition of ordinary marriage. Indeed their support for the traditional family is very suspect, proved by their tax policy. The party opposes any tax breaks at all for people who marry and work hard to bring up a family. This leaves the UK in a situation where you are better off if you don't marry and have children.
Harriet Harman has said that families in the UK now come in all shapes and sizes. Social workers wearily agree, and one reason for the chaos is that socialist enemies of Christian morality have designed a benefit system that gives money and bigger houses to girls who sleep around and get pregnant. People who never leave their leafy neighbourhoods would hold up their hands and cry that this is an attack on single mothers; people dealing with some of the single mothers know this is exactly the situation.
While there are quite a few Tories who oppose abortion, in the Labour party it is almost a tribal chant. Every mainline Christian church from the Greek Orthodox through to the Anglicans and of course the Roman Catholics oppose killing the unborn. It is condemned in Scripture and church tradition. But it is fervently supported by Labour.
And like an old painted pagan clinging to a pathetic idol, they are unwilling to even acknowledge that all the science, all the research, points to this killing of the unborn as murder. Modern technology gives us close up pictures that clearly shows that there is a little human being in the mother's womb; the same technology tells us that these little human beings can feel pain; and modern medicine now delivers healthy babies at 23 weeks, even though, as stated, UK law says that same baby can be murdered inside the womb at 24 weeks. Endless studies also prove that women who have abortions sink into depression.
There were nearly 200,000 abortions in the UK in 2013; nearly 550 every day; nearly all funded by our taxes through the NHS. Many have deep unease over this. There is none with Labour. In 2011 a sensible bill was introduced in the House of Commons by Nadine Dories which would have made it mandatory for a woman seeking an abortion to see a professional advisor who was not in the pay of the abortion provider. Dianne Abbot's response for Labour was disturbing. With lethargic arrogance she told the House that abortion had been an accepted practice for over forty years.
In other words – we have worshipped sex without responsibility for forty years, and while this god demands the unborn to be sacrificed, this is settled, because – Animal Farm again - it is settled. Diane Abbot made no attempt to deal with the actual issues that gave rise to the bill. There was no intellectual energy, no engaging with reason, just a lethargic and arrogant dismissal. Even though science has long dismissed the notion that the foetus is a part of a pregnant woman's body, and so the spurious claim that she has the right to do what she likes with her own body, still Labour supports the killing of the unborn.
Another reason why a Christian might be wary about voting Labour is their poor record on the economy. As with the Tories it would be wrong to condemn the party out of hand for this, but nevertheless Christians believe in careful stewardship, and the Labour record does not always shine with this. The appalling deficit left by Gordon Brown being an obvious example. Historians will have to decide whether this deficit was caused primarily by the 2008 banking crisis or careless spending, but in the meantime Christians have a responsibility to be discerning. The idea of socialism has nobility; but often the record seems to be that money gets wasted by amateurs who are probably out of their depth.
It is difficult for traditional Christians to vote Tory with an easy conscience, difficult to vote Labour, and certainly difficult to vote Lib Dem.
Lib Dems – well deserved reputation for secular amoral humanism
There are a few Lib Dem Christians, but generally the party has a well deserved reputation for secular amoral humanism. Well deserved because Nick Clegg, the party's leader, has said he is not a man of faith; and for most decent people, with his public boasts of philandering, he is amoral about sex.
It would seem being amoral in the area of sexual morals is something of a tradition for liberal leaders: Jeremy Thorpe slept with rent boys, and was accused of trying to have one of them murdered. Cyril Smith abused minors; Paddy Ashdown betrayed his wife; and Chris Rennard (a former chief executive of the party) has faced multiple accusations of behaving with women inappropriately. Not surprisingly several female Lib Dem activists have resigned.
The reputation for secularism is also well deserved because one of its senior figures, Nick Harris, is deputy leader of the British Humanist Society, a group committed to tearing out the church's influence in Britain. And also well deserved because Sir Ming Campbell, one time leader of the Lib Dems, when asked about faith on Question Time said all religions were the same to him. In other words the man aspiring to be prime-minister actually thought that it made no difference whether you were a Muslim, a Hindu, or a Christian: quite extraordinary. And Sir Ming bleated out this nonsense with a nauseating smugness as if he were a superior being because he was so very clever for coming to his conclusion. In fact he showed that he knew less about religion than all the fourteen year-olds up and down the country who take Religious Studies at G.C.S.E.
The Lib Dem reputation for its hostility to the church is also well deserved because its policies are inimical to traditional Christianity. This party has been the most fanatical about tearing apart traditional marriage, and now boast of their success on their web-site. Not satisfied with spreading the misery of their confused sexual morality on adults , they now want to inflict it by force on children as young as seven. Most people believe it is the job of the family to teach their children about sex; and so, quite rightly, parents can bring their children out of sex education classes if they wish.
But if the Liberal Democrats have their way, this opting out will become illegal. Only Big Brother State can be trusted to teach about sex and 'relationships'. This is where the church and the state will have a head on collision. For the state, to the delight of Lib Dems, have abolished traditional marriage and so now can only talk about 'relationships'. Nobody knows what precisely this relationship is meant to mean, but one thing is for sure, that the state will not be teaching that sex should be kept for marriage, a union between a man and a woman. This is the approach of the church and it is the teaching that brings security for adults and children alike, but, by force, the Lib Dems want to teach some alternative half baked sexual morality that had its untimely birth in the 1970's when Jimmy Saville and others were making the most of the liberal establishment's attack on Christian morality to hone their predatory skills.
As for the killing of the unborn, all have been legally murdered because of the Abortion Act of 1967, the creation of the then leader of the Liberals, David Steele. As with Labour, killing the unborn remains a tribal policy for Liberals and Nadine Dorris pointed her finger straight at a Liberal MP, Evan Harris, when her previously supported bill to make sure the providers of abortion did not give the counselling was dumped by David Cameron. The Liberals had forced the prime minister to change course.
How can a Christian vote for the Liberal Democrats knowing they despise the sanctity of human life, are fanatical enemies of traditional marriage, and now want to infect by force the thinking of every child with their twisted views about sex and 'relationships'. A vote for the Liberal Democrats would be a vote for more of what the UK has been suffering ever since the likes of David Steele and others unpinned our country's attachment to Christian morality and ushered in the specious alternative morality of the 1960's. Glance back over forty years and here is what this alternative morality has given us: the break-down of the traditional family, the most disgraceful gap between the rich and the poor in Europe, and a lot of anger building up in the younger generation who have been denied a proper family to grow up in.
It is difficult for traditional Christians to vote Tory with an easy conscience, difficult to vote Labour, difficult to vote Lib Dem.
And extremely difficult to vote for UKIP.
UKIP – undertones of racism and weak under pressure
There are at least four reasons why it is difficult for a Christian to vote UKIP.
First of all there is an undertone of racism in UKIP. Yes, officially they state they are not racist, but in a survey of their supporters over 50% believed that immigrants and their children should be 'encouraged to leave' the UK. That's ugly racism and wholly contrary to the Christian stance that practises hospitality to strangers. This has been commented on so much there is no need to dwell on this dark side of the party further. This by itself should put all decent Christians off UKIP, but there is more.
Secondly they are – of course – anti Europe. That in itself is not anti Christian. Christians can be pro or anti Europe. What is wrong about UKIP's policy is that there is little explanation as to how the UK is meant to proceed once out of Europe. Most of our trade is with Europe, our serious foreign policy (e.g. negotiating with Iran) is done via Europe, and our defence policy for the last sixty years has been formed on the basis of peace in Europe. UKIP are telling the passengers that the ride is bumpy and shouting for them to jump. But they have no idea where the passengers will land. This is irresponsible. The Bible is full of warnings about hasty action, evidence should be pondered, alternatives carefully considered. At present just a casual observation tells us that if the UK leaves Europe we risk economic melt-down, loss of influence in foreign affairs, and an unacceptable defence risk. The cheering to leave Europe might sound intoxicating in the night bars of Ramsgate; but in the early morning dawn there would be a horrendous hangover. Jesus told his disciples to think ahead. That is not what Nigel Farrage and his party are doing.
Thirdly they are a party with no convictions; a harsher word would be to call them cowardly. It is obvious from their tweets and off the cuff remarks that UKIP people are no supporters of gay marriage. On the 18th June a query to their head office regarding UKIP's policy on same sex marriage received this reply:
UKIP is totally opposed to any attempt to "redefine" words from the dictionary and believes that David Cameron has enough important things to do rather than causing an unholy row without any justification.
And in an official statement the party says that it 'opposes the move to legislate for same sex marriage'. This paper is titled – 'Gay marriage is illiberal.'
It's a no-brainer. UKIP were anti gay marriage in 2012. But now in 2015 the party has changed – very easily – and supports gay marriage. One would have thought that a subject like marriage deserved more loyalty than just a few months exposed to the pink winds of Westminster and the BBC, but when UKIP was tested, there was no backbone.
This shows us that UKIP at the end of the day are just the same as the establishment they are thumbing their nose at. They only want power and they're not too concerned about loyalties to the principles they support to get them there.
And finally, when you get any where near to UKIP, there is a hint of oddness, eccentricity, instability. So in response to a question about same sex marriage, this was the reply from an aide in Nigel Farage's office arguing that the problems of the UK and Europe were due to a global conspiracy to create a world dictatorship.
The email is dated June, 2012
It (same sex marriage) is a part of a global agenda, known as the "New World Order", which has been set by a clique of supranationalists (including "our" government) working through an immense array of taxpayer-, and big-business-funded organisations, to create dictatorial, world-government.
Yours sincerely
Andrew S. Reed
Office of Nigel Farage, Brussels
In the initial enquiry there was no request for Nigel Farage's office to set the question of same sex marriage in a wider context, but here an aide does just that. And that is eccentric. Christians are to elect into power level headed people with their feet on the ground who know how to get things done; not people who believe in fanciful conspiracy theories.
It is difficult for traditional Christians to vote Tory with an easy conscience, difficult to vote Labour, difficult to vote Lib Dem, very difficult to vote for UKIP, and also very difficult to vote for the Green Party.
For Christians - better a drunken and whoring Tory than a Green Robespierre.
Regarding freedom of opinion around the matter of same sex marriage and hostility to traditional marriage it is well known that the Greens are wholly authoritarian. So the Christian, Christina Summers, was expelled from Brighton's Green Party for refusing to support same sex marriage. In the Green world, there is no room for church people.
More dangerous still, the Greens want to encourage homosexual teenage sex. They want the age of consent to come down to 16. No Christian could ever support this invitation to every homosexual paedophile in the UK to legally abuse children. This dangerous policy comes out of the naivety that so easily buys the unproven allegation that sexual orientation is just the same as race, and so all discrimination is wrong. Only the simplistic think that sexuality can be equated with race, and that dangerous simplicity is on full display in the Green Party.
They have other policies that are also very dangerous. It would seem that they reject the Christian idea of a fallen world. So just because at present the UK has no enemies who want to invade us they propose dismantling the UK's defence system. Christianity and history points to a world where the strong will always exploit the weak and so most people believe that the first duty of the state is to defend its citizens. A vote for the Greens would be a vote to make the UK vulnerable.
Perhaps most alarming of all about the Green Party is that they proclaim lofty words, which, when pinned down, are nearly meaningless. They use words like 'sustainability', 'equity', 'devolution'. Who is going to define what these high sounding concepts mean. Well, the Green Party of course. It's like the French Revolution. Those high minded idealists had their slogan – 'Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity' - but, like the Greens, only the revolutionaries could define what those terms meant. That is ominous, especially when you think about what happened to Christina Summers.
Christians have been the victims of these sort of parties who ride to power on the back of big undefinable concepts: think French Revolution; the Russian Revolution; Hitler's Revolution; Mao's Revolution. There is no reason why the Greens would be any different. They think they are the saints who can save not just the world, but the whole planet. That makes them dangerous, indeed for Christians, better a drunken and whoring Tory, than a Green Robespierre.
What about the Christian MPs and Christian members of the main parties?
This persuasive argument that it is difficult for traditional Christians to vote for the major parties this May raises an obvious question: what about the committed Christian MPs in these parties. Are they to be accused of having dull consciences?
No – for at least two reasons.
First of all when they joined their parties it is likely they had no idea that their leadership would end up bringing about the abolition of normal marriage. Indeed the Conservative party, especially under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher, had a reputation for supporting family values.
Secondly they have decided that the most effective way for a Christian to impact policy is to work within the system, even if these means compromises. For joining a main party has been the normal way, almost the only way, for not just Christians, but anyone wanting to have an impact on national politics.
This is still a strong argument.
These Christians can rightly claim that their witness is making a real difference. For example these Christians have been campaigning – with others – to bring down the abortion limit from 24 weeks to 20; they have been active in ensuring that the vulnerable are not treated too harshly in the benefit reforms; and they are keeping an eagle eye on any moves by the state to threaten the freedom promised to the churches to maintain the Christian definition of marriage.
Christians in all the main parties deserve the respect of other Christians for what they do, the witness they bear, and the decision they have made that staying in the party system is the best way to be effective.
Is it time for Christian MPs to leave the secular liberal parties and join a Christian party?
Christian MPs deserve our respect, but the sad truth remains that they have been powerless to stop the secular liberal assault on the church. As insiders they have watched their parties refuse to deal with abortion, refuse to challenge pornography in the Sun newspaper, legislate for the abolition of traditional marriage and create an army of equality enforcers to harass schools.
Christian MPs in the main parties are like crew members of a ship who wanted to sail to America, but on the deck the captain and his officers have suddenly decided the ship must go to Russia. It is then not easy to get off the ship, especially when you have a position and a certain status.
Nevertheless given the inevitable storms that undiluted secular liberal legislation will cause, perhaps the time has come for these committed Christians to consider whether they should go on supporting their party leaders who have been so hostile to the traditional church.
Maybe it is time for the fourteen or so committed Christians in parliament to leave the ship. If they did so, they could have an historic impact on the future of the UK. For they could stand as independents or, even better, as members of a fledgling Christian party. With their reputations for being fine MPs, combined with the support they would attract from the very many Christians (there were 33 million in the last UK census) who feel betrayed by the main parties and the fact that the churches tend to have massive contact lists, it is not fanciful to argue that these Christians MPs would have a fair chance of keeping their seats. Put this another way: if defectors to UKIP can retain their seats, why shouldn't traditional Christians be able to do the same?
These Christians would then sit in the new parliament able to speak out for Christian values – which cover all policies - free from always having to look behind their backs at the party whips who take orders from liberal secularists. Even if just one Christian MP won a seat, this would then give traditional Christians the voice they have so long been denied.
The Christian narrative in politics deserves to be heard
And, crucially, if there was a Christian party with a Christian MP in parliament, this voice would then allow the public to hear the Christian narrative for the UK. Now they never hear that narrative. They hear the UKIP narrative (blame the immigrants); they hear the Green narrative (blame big business and pollution); and they certainly hear the secular liberal narrative, adopted by the three main parties (believe in education and varying degrees of regulating capitalism.)
But the public never hear the Christian narrative because the Christian MPs are submerged in a sea of secular liberalism in their own parties. If Christians had their own well supported party, the Christian narrative could be heard. This is a narrative that acknowledges the tendency for fallen man to side with sin, so the need for laws that restrain evil. But also a narrative that believes in the unique value of every individual and their potential for goodness, so the need to always 'seek the common good'. It is ultimately of course a narrative that believes in redemption, for people to have a second chance, and so all laws must be tempered with mercy. And much more.
It is a narrative that is well worth telling, not least because in the past this narrative has served many countries, including the UK, so well. A simple test for this is to ask which countries in the last hundred years have refugees fled from, and which counties do they flee to. Refugees have fled from political systems that are anti Christian (communist, fascist, Islamist), and fled to countries shaped by the Christian narrative (USA, Canada, Europe, Australia).
But, as said, the Christian narrative is not heard, because all the Christian MPs are serving in parties where liberal secularism is the dominant ideology.
It would seem that May now stands as 'such a time as this' for these MPs. If they left their parties and joined a Christian party, the fight back against the secularists could begin. Nobody could accuse them of disloyalty. They have been betrayed by their parties, especially the Conservative MPs. Surely it is time for their leaders to learn that one always reaps what one sows. Their leaders have spat at the church and embraced Stonewall. The question now for any Christian MP is this: why stay with these leaders?
The Christian People's Alliance
These Christian MPs could start their own party; however there already is a fledgling Christian party that could well deserve not just their support, but the support of millions of Christians in the UK.
This is the The Christian Peoples Alliance (CPA).
It's a broad church Christian party that is ready to ally with all those who support Christian values. This is worth unpacking. The words 'Christian Peoples' tell us that this is a group that exist to reflect the views not of a particular church or sect but of Christians in general. In essence the party is 'broad church', seeking to represent mainline Christendom.
And the word 'peoples' underlines this. It is an important reminder that Christians in the UK are made up of different ethnic groups. Christians are not just white middle class English people. There are many Christian peoples in the UK - Carribean, Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, Iranian, African, and some of their churches are growing at a phenomenal rate. And none of them subscribe to the wishy washy morality that some of the white middle class declining churches support. They are firmly behind traditional Christian morality.
Unlike the main parties which are controlled by a small white elite who all went to the same sort of schools and have done the same sort of jobs in the Westminster village, a party for Christian peoples would be many coloured and full of leaders from wildly different backgrounds: yet all bound together by a basic commitment to traditional Christianity.
The words 'Christian peoples' is good for the UK, and so is the word 'alliance'. This does not only mean an alliance among Christian peoples though that is important. This also means the party is open to work with all groups who support the basic principles of Christianity. It is a party that in its essence wants to work with others, regardless of their creed. A party of co-operation, rather than confrontation; a party that wants to build with others, rather than just smash down what others propose.
Hearing about a 'Christian' party, people of other faiths and those with none can wrongly assume that such a party would oppose their interests. The word 'alliance' blunts this fear, as does the fact that the party reflects traditional Christian values. And those values have always sought to look after the interests of all, even the enemies of the church. As for Muslims and Jews, they would be the natural friends of the Christian Peoples Alliance party. Many of their parents and grand-parents came to this country when the UK was still ruled by a general Christian consensus – and under this consensus they have prospered. These faiths now face the same threat from the harsh valueless secularism of the main parties as is also endured by Christians. As the Big Brother inspectors crash into Muslim and Jewish schools demanding that seven year-olds learn about same sex unions, this attack on decency demands an alliance. And that alliance can be found with the Christian Peoples Alliance party. It is not just a party for Christians, it is a party that believes people are happiest when the state supports the ethics of the Christian faith, and rejects the new morality that despises traditional marriage and the family.
The Christian Peoples Alliance party also has decent policies. They respect Christian values, but are valid for all Britons. They are not pie in the sky spiritual fantasizing, but well thought through no nonsense statements about how Britain should be governed.
So on the economy, the CPA are absolutely for balancing the books, and while not anti wealth – as the Bible is not anti wealth – the CPA wants the rich to pay their fair share of tax. On employment, the CPA would put up the minimum wage to the living wage and cut out all the zero contracts. On foreign policy, the CPA is pro European and pro NATO, and on foreign aid focuses more on dealing with unfair trade agreements rather than just giving out dollops of money. On social policy, the CPA are all for putting the family back at the centre of things in the UK. So they are pro traditional marriage and opposed to the sex without responsibility mantra that gives rise to the murder of the unborn.
And much more. All the polices can be read in detail on their website. The point is this: these are down to earth sensible policies for ruling Britain. They are not eccentric; not wacky; not weird – indeed when you think of the Lib Dems wanting 7 year olds to have sex education, or the Greens promoting gay sex for 16 year olds; or Labour's insistence on killing the unborn on the advice of those getting paid to perform the murder, or Boris Johnson thinking that marriage can 'evolve', it is these parties that will look like dark forces intent on cutting up normality to future generations.
No need for a Christian party to stay small
While many Christians might well want to have their own party, there is a natural hesitation because it is assumed that small parties can never make a difference in the UK. The assumption is wrong, especially if Christian MPs leave the parties that have betrayed them and join the CPA. With the prospect of a hung parliament, small parties can make a massive difference; and, if all main line Christians took the logic of this article on board – that we Christians must have our own party – then the Christian Peoples Alliance Party would not stay small. As said there are over 30 million Christians in the UK. The Tory Party only has 134,000 members; Labour 190,000, and the Lib Dems just 44,000. If just 5% of the UK's Christians supported a Christian party that would give them one and a half million members. And, as said above, it is important to remember that churches and Christian groups have massive contact lists. The constituency is already there. Once a church gets behind a Christian party, then the email lists are there, ready to be used by campaigners. Despite all the liberal talk of church decline, Christians are still a huge force in the UK. So, there is absolutely no reason why a Christian party should remain small. A well run Christian party could easily become a serious presence in Westminster.
'Enough is enough' – why should Christians give their vote to the enemies of Christian morality?
As said at the start of this article, historically there has been no need for Christians to have their own party in the UK. Sadly that is not the case today. There is an urgent need for Christians to have their own party, because for far too long the liberal elites in Westminster have treated their vote with contempt.
For years and years Christians have been voting for the main parties using the argument that it is best to influence these parties from within. But what has actually happened. Nothing. The killing machine of the abortion industry crunches on; the killing machine for the elderly is being prepared; marriage has been destroyed. The strategy has not worked. So why should Christians give their votes to those who despise what is closest to their hearts?
Surely it is time for ordinary Christians and Christian MPs to say, 'Enough is enough', the arrogant liberal elite of Westminster whose actions have shown their contempt for Christians have had my vote and support for long enough. Let it go elsewhere, let it go to a party that reflects the values of Jesus Christ.
The church has the numbers and the networks – all that is needed is a strong determination to take action and vote for men and women who are willing to stand for Christian values in Westminster, and fight against the poisonous secularism that has wrought so much misery in our society. T.Hawksley

Tuesday, 30 September 2014

UKIP Converts explain their anger


I hope you can understand why having been promised a brighter future it appears that nothing has changed:-
“Osborne’s four myths mean he hits the poor and helps the rich”
 But beneath the hyperbole and soundbites, a divisive philosophy underpins the chancellor’s economic narrative. The wealthy and rich need to be better off through tax cuts as an incentive to work and save, while the poor and disadvantaged need to be made worse off and suffer welfare cuts as an incentive to work. This will only increase the current high level of inequality in the UK ,
As usual, the chancellor repeated the mantra that: “We are all in it together”. We are not. And the policies of this Conservative government as laid out by the chancellor will lead to further divisions and rising inequality.

David Cameron interview: those who work hard will be rewarded

David Cameron set out some of his priorities for 2012 on a train journey back to London from the North West.

So in 2014 having trusted his promises this is what has really happened
skandia1
This is what represents a lifetime paying full contributions and illustrates how this penal tax system really works.( 16 –65)
1) you will be stuck with a “K” prefixed tax code,(One that nobody wants)
This means that although my income is only £27000 I am taxed at 30% to claw back my age allowance,which I would have thought would be a fair reward for a lifetime's contribution.
Theses are the facts that make the UKIP ideas more palatable.
Yours sincerely,
B and M Miller

Monday, 9 September 2013

Syria- A Failure of the UN

Campaign Against Arms Trade 'die-in'
   Once again footage of  helpless civilians being subjected to chemical attacks has humbled viewers
and commentators alike. The disgust is not just at the perpetrators of this evil but in humanity itself.
Our failure is collective in not demanding that our international organisations act as the immune system of our communities rather than provide palliative care for terminal cases. The real blame lies with the self serving states that continue to undermine the authority of the UN and continue to underfund it into a state of hapless futility. After 100,000 civilians have already died the use of chemical weapons has it seems stirred up the need for intervention.
  There is much talk of 'Syria' not being 'Iraq' but what's frightening is the remarkable similarities.
We have a nation state that is divided along sectarian lines that is likely to fragment even further
if the oppressive dictator is removed. David Cameron has been left to look impotent on the
international stage not because he bowed to the will of parliament but because he chose the
wrong motion to champion. You cannot 'bomb for peace' in the very same month as you are
holding one of the world's biggest arms fairs at the Excel arena in london. What
started off as Cameron's ill judgement of the  'war weariness' of the very MP's who he
had asked to back him on the vote for action ended up as Britain's public humiliation
on the world stage. First Kerry unceremoniously snubbed Britain and then Cameron
had to fend off 'little island' jibes from the Russian political hierarchy. What we can
rightfully be proud of is that around 500 or so protesters  risked life and limb by throwing
themselves under articulated lorries and trucks to disrupt the ongoing arms fair (DSEI)
at the Excel centre. It also restores one's pride in humanity that the moral conscience of a
few are acting as the immune system that the government must heed if it is to avoid future
conflicts and carry the moral authority which would merit a seat on the security council.
  In the latest developments it seems that the Russians have put forth a possible solution by
asking the Syrian government to put their stockpile of chemical weapons under international supervision. This may have outmanoeuvred the Americans who are awaiting congressional support for strike action.
  What we can conclude is that if the UN is not empowered to apprehend those who have broken
international law whether it be Tony Blair or the president of Sudan, however fanciful
that may sound in the present, future conflicts are bound to thrive, leading to a greater need for arms, and more arms fairs. Leaders and corporations will allow wars to start and continue  if they feel that
the international legal framework and the bodies that support them are too weak to bring them to
justice. Reza Sobati

Monday, 5 August 2013

The Scandal Of The Current Banking System Articulated

After three years in office Cameron has done absolutely nothing to clean up the banking system
and not a single banker has been put behind bars. The tired excuse that politicians and bankers
cannot be held to account because 'no laws were broken' is as big a lie as the fact that we need
this financial thievery as it is too great a part of our economy. Existing laws of fraud and even
jeopardising national security have been violated there is just a failure of the political class to
act. Also the more reliant we become on a false economy of nominal money on computer
screens the more the real economy suffers. The current state of affairs is a gross betrayal of
the Nation state and UK citizens who are striving to make a living without destroying society.

Cameron faces backlash on Internet Porn

Cameron's Pr fodder on internet porn reveals a disturbing lack of understanding on how the internet
actually works. At internet security conferences most of the experts agree that the current set up
where police actually monitor existing sites have proven to be the greatest success in breaking up pedophile rings. Whilst we now know that privacy on the internet is a myth, There is a suspicion
that the government may use false security arguments to impose a de facto tax on the internet for
UK citizens. It's attempts so far through various quangos have failed largely due to the backlash
in the internet community. The video response below articulates some of the anger at the stupidity of
Cameron's position




Tuesday, 4 June 2013

Protest Against G8 and the Scandal of Hunger

All across Europe there are mass protest movements against austerity and it's consequences which are imposed on nation states by the IMF. The 'Drop the Debt' or 'Jubilee campaign' highlighted that in
fact this has been the main cause of hunger in Africa in the last century. Namely a concerted effort on the part of creditor nations to keep Africa in a state of debt to get their natural resources at dirt cheap
prices. The world bank and international banking system have been complicit in this by extending massive loans to successive corrupt leaders. After a few years in office they were allowed to flee
abroad with billions of dollars in Swiss bank accounts while being allowed to put this stolen money as debt on their country's balance sheet. This has resulted in many countries being in a state of 'debt slavery' whereby they are spending more per annum on illegally accrued debt interest repayment than education, health and welfare combined. This crooked system is now beginning to resonate in Europe as the IMF is essentially following the same formula. By voicing your concern at the G8 summit in Belfast on the 15th June or in Hyde Park on the 8th June you can shine a light on the corruption of politicians and the banking system.



Saturday, 1 June 2013

Cameron's Britain- This is what democracy looks like

In 2012 Crudass who is worth £850 million with a house in Monaco 'selling access' to David Cameron
and George Osborne for £100,000 in Sunday Times Sting.




In 2013 it's not just still going on it seems to be the modus operandi...

Thursday, 2 May 2013

Open letter Captures The Sense Of Anger And Betrayal Among Voters



     Having just spent a week in London with my grown-up daughter who is highly qualified and professional and in her late twenties,  I can  come to no other conclusion but that for my children's generation, the U.K.  nowadays is nothing more than depressing. As a parent, some aspects appear to me to be nothing short of an outrage.
     Over more than two decades ago, we saw the fall of the Berlin Wall which signalled the demise of socialism  and less than a decade after that, capitalism was shaken to its very roots as a result of greed and malpractice owing to the loophole of a fundamental lack of regulation of the global financial system.  Gordon Brown thus made the working population shoulder this ailing sector by means of a national debt the likes of which  has not been seen since war-time Britain.     
    Basically, we experienced within a short space of time the failure of both socialism and capitalism.  The continuity of the latter was assured by beleaguering a whole generation with few prospects on all important fronts such as property ownership and job security which for my parents the war-generation and for my generation i.e. the post-war generation were the norm. 
      'An Englishman's home is his castle' - well, all that is sadly now very passe!  The vast majority of this generation have no prospect of getting onto the property ladder whatsoever thanks to the iniquitous practise of the banking sector which has  used monies advanced by income earners and none other to underwrite their own securities and interests and pay out inflated bonuses to bosses.  Just where are the politicians because this has nothing to do with democracy - 'demo' - I understand as representing the people?  In my mind, the people going out to work to prop up this sham have every right across the entire political spectrum to bring down a Government over the issue.  How do they get away with it? 
     Just how many young people can put down the required deposit to begin owning their own property without major big-time financial assistance from their elders?  Better still,  just what percentage of parents can afford to help them to the required level today? Justifiably and without further ado, banks should be subject to massive state intervention  in order to oblige them to aid and advance their sole benefactors or creditors i.e. the people.  Just who do the politicians think that they are fooling?  Both my parents and I became property owners and  today, we are coerced into thinking that progress is being made with Government performance and this whole austerity programme with the lamentable set of statistics given recently.  
     The situation in London compels this generation to rent at inflated prices with very little security in terms of tenure  at the mercy of an unscrupulous capitalist doctrine with many other hangers-on the likes of which my generation thankfully have not experienced.  Furthermore, this extends well beyond the London boundaries:  I, who during the seventies and eighties climbed the property ladder on the south coast and was able to establish a good family dwelling for my wife and children, could nowadays no longer get started.   Shame on the system which now only allows a small privileged minority to do the same! THIS SHOULD BE A MAJOR ELECTION ISSUE.  Not only are my children's generation forced to give up the right to own their own property, they are faced with an ever mounting tide of a lack of job security and performance appraisal pressure and I am talking about professional people with degrees from top Universities.  The ever increasing amount of bureaucracy created in the state  sector in education, health-care and policing renders their efficacy severely weakened while investment in business has dried up owing to a lack of funding on the part of financial institutions. On all these  fronts, entire volumes of fundamental 'critique' could be written.  It is high time politicians were appraised on their performance.  It is indeed very debatable whether Japan is not demonstrating a better alternative in terms of economic recovery which is far more beneficent towards its people.  
     Any student of Keynes knows that this austerity programme is not working.  Just how can we pay back a debt long term by reducing income and spending power in terms of both the private and state  purse?  Comparing entire national economic policy underpinned by the  skills of a whole generation with a private household budget is indeed a facile argument.  The entrepreneurial esprit has been not just stifled but made almost extinct.  
      A  change is well overdue and I am not talking party politics but a fundamentalist  review of what democracy is supposed to mean.  The current scenario opens up deep cracks in this respect and I as a retired parent but still a parent, am acutely aware that politicians are failing my children's generation.  A whole new political agenda  in terms of what Governments are obliged to deliver is urgently required.  They have been left unchallenged for far too long and the only super-governmental body other than the   ballot box to which we, the people can turn in terms of crisis (and for this generation of young people, it is indeed just that) is the Constitutional Monarchy! Her Majesty would do well in her constitutional role as protectorate of the salient features of our democracy if She were to insist that such issues be placed at the top of the agenda of the three major political parties.  Indeed the time has come that pragmatic solutions were sought. Enough is enough! 
       As it is, the system is failing our young and I on their behalf, feel utterly deceived, disillusioned and let down.  
      Recent headlines serve well to illustrate the injustice being meted out to the British populous:   Michael Gove's recent proposal that we should lengthen the school day and that teachers should be prepared to forfeit more of their holidays. Well I know  that I am right in saying that within Europe, British teachers remain amongst the most dedicated with the smallest amount of holidays.  Ask parents around the world who send their children to English International schools and they will tell you that English-trained teachers are more willing to give freely of their own free time than teaching staff in their own country.  Furthermore  why should we ape a system in far-flung parts of the world which have nothing to do with the social background and context of modern day Britain? Do they have a history of democracy like ours?  More relative to the educational debate however is just why after endless controversial headlines in the media concerning this present Secretary of State for Education do we have such an incompetent, farcical, self-infatuated, pouting figure who looks more like an ageing, slimmed-down Billy Bunter directing pupils' education in the State sector and the teaching services in the 21st century?    May The Lord give me strength!  
        Then, there is the matter of Mr. Iain Duncan Smith's attempt to take the moral high ground by urging better-off pensioners to relinquish their free bus passes and winter fuel allowance i.e. from people who in the majority of cases have paid into the public purse throughout their entire working  lives.  He aims no doubt to swell Government funds by a few measly coppers!  No Mr. Iain Duncan Smith why don't you request the banking sector to return some of the ever mounting debt which they owe the public funds or even turn to some of the royal hangers-on who seem even today justified in asking for more?
       As for the statement made by David Cameron's adviser Jesse Norman that the likes of Eton prepares you so much more for public service than other educational institutions, I have never read such smug nonsense in my entire life.  Just to remind him, Mrs. Thatcher, whose service to the public at large resulted in her moving the whole political infrastructure to right of centre in consequence of the mayhem created by militant trade unions  was the product of a STATE GRAMMAR SCHOOL.   Ostensibly, she created New Labour headed by Tony Blair.  Her  educational background afforded her an innate understanding of what the wider public in terms of their aspirations hoped to achieve and her legacy is still appreciated by many both left and right of centre.  How can these elitist institutions like Eton which are populated by none other than the offspring of those who can afford to pay large sums of money possibly know what the wider public is all about in order to realise their endeavours?  That is surely what real public service is all about in government.  From early childhood, they are  protected from such exposure and such an institution can only pay what amounts to lip service to this end.  Just what percentage of the pupils from Eton have parents who are local shopkeepers or have small businesses i.e. those who today cannot advance and progress one jot because of Government policy?   The likes of Eton  are there to serve  and protect their own which reflects exactly what is happening in Britain today.  The fact that ex-Eton scholars populate the Cabinet explains all too well why income earners are burdened with  shoring up the City's major financial institutions without any recourse or advantage from their hard earned investment.  Those with large funds behind them are  reassured without further ado  and can carry on as normal and are not  affected and what is worse,  in some instances, they are better off!  
       If the intentions of voters who identify themselves today with middle-ground politics and vote for David Cameron put such shiny-suited, mealy-mouthed ex-public school tricksters into power, then I think the electorate should re-assess what they hope to achieve when they put their cross on the ballot paper.  Under Harold Wilson and Ted. Heath some of us, being products of State Education were privileged in the sixties to be awarded first-class scholarships to the best of higher education and we can see crystal clear just what is going on.   
       I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that this young working generation would undoubtedly be better-off in the new world.  Especially if they are well qualified.  They may have to pay for private health insurance but being young, in most cases this would be easily affordable as would be setting themselves up in their own home and taking care of the next  generation i.e. our grandchildren.   As it is, they have been made scapegoats in the U.K. for propping up a system which demonstrates increasing levels  of corruption and which represents  in some respects a flagrant breach of what democracy is intended to deliver to the people. 
       The media in The U.K. seem to lack a real sense of what I can only refer to as 'Zeitgeist' and the sooner some of these Public School brethren are shown the door, the better it will be for the majority of those who are daily footing the bill for the country's continued stability.   
David S.

Wednesday, 17 April 2013

Thatcher Dead But Thatcherism Very Much Alive

The most interesting aspect surrounding the debate after the death of the former PM has been  the reason behind how polarising a figure she was. I suspect that much of that is because of the increasing erosion of political identity among the British electorate that have had to endure an evolving but diluted version of Thatcherism for the past 30 years. Under Thatcher people could still define themselves by their politics in a way that is no longer possible. Under Thatcher you were either a socialist with a capital 'S' or subscribed to the 'nasty' party which was very much winning the ideological battle on a global level given the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the context of the Cold War, politics was very black and white. If you had any romanticised notions of the merits of Marxist ideology,
you could just visit East Berlin and enter a deprived parallel universe where the people's desperate
and poverty stricken lives begged for the very clothes you walked around in. Those days are gone
and so too with it have the justifications for the most intolerable aspects of Thatcherism. In economic terms Thatcherism was the implementation of the teachings of Milton Friedman and the Monetarist school of thought. Britain was the first major industrialised country in which this experiment was conducted and its legacy much like that of Thatcherism is the failed catastrophe of unrestrained capital markets that have led to the current economic mess. Thatcher's standout error was to assume that heavy industry could be replaced with a service economy without any long term consequences.
Deregulation was a mere consequence of trying to make the financial sector more attractive.
With greater dependency came greater deregulation and the opportunity for a kleptocratic elite of financial institutions to privatise profit and socialise loss. Market manipulation suited Thatcher's short term approach as it allowed her to manipulate highs and lows in the economy to suit the British electoral cycle. This manipulation got hijacked by big financial situations to such an extent that they could buy out British and American politics to a large extent with the vast profits that they were accumulating.
 In Thatcher's time 'The hallowed ground of the centre' in British politics due to Labour's intransigence
was only occupied by joke parties such as the SDP. Changing times and the evolution of Blair blurred everything. Socialists took the bait as well as everyone else in a way that no socialist will feel comfortable voting Labour again probably in the same way that no conservative or liberal will feel comfortable voting Tory or LibDem again after the current lot are voted out. Why? Because people now see politicians for what they have become; a glorified civil service to meet the needs of the corporations, banks and any other lobby that will indulge them in their self advancement at the
cost of society.


Sunday, 7 April 2013

Working People (Skivers) Are Bearing The Brunt For Cameron's Financial Sodom And Gomorrah

As the MP's are considering whether to ban the 'HBOS 3' who managed to lose the bank over £50 billion through bad lending (not even casino banking) the punishment for those who had nothing
to do with causing the financial mess is stigma, shame and in some cases suicide. Somehow  MP's
do not see it fit to bring criminal charges against these bank bosses as part of what can only be described as a feudal pact. George Osborne's muddying of the waters by somehow linking the Philpott tragedy with the welfare bill is a prime example of instant headline politics with no respect for the tragedy or the facts of the case involved. Perhaps Cameron would like to hear from one of
our reader's Steve. Steve is not in the cabinet but he makes a damn good case about how people
in his predicament are being maliciously and grotesquely misrepresented by the coalition.
The only punishment for these 3 HBOS financial gangsters is they may not get a job in the financial sector again

Good afternoon sir,
I am a skiver.
Although, in fairness, I don't actually feel too much like a skiver.
I'm married with 2 sons (17 and 22, thank you for asking, one at uni and one at college), I'm 51 with a disability. I work (2 jobs) for 33 hours a week and care for my 80 year old father who has cancer and is housebound. He lives an hour away and I'm the nearest to him.
I only earn £13,500 p.a and don't qualify for any disability benefits as I am not disabled enough (?)
However, I am a skiver - I DO receive Child Benefit, Working Tax Benefit and Child Tax Credit.
According to your mouthpiece, the press, I am lazy, addicted to drink or drugs, not really poor(!?), cheat the system, have an easy life(ha ha lucky old me) AND I've also caused the deficit!
I wish I had something more than a 20 year old car to show for it, maybe a 2nd home or a duckpond!
As a lifelong supporter of your party I've defended the cuts and the rhetoric from this coalition as something we have to live with due to the last governments mismanagement.
However, after listening to the rubbish coming from Mr Hague and the ill informed comments from my local MP, Mr Ruffley, I've decided to say farewell.
This will mean nothing to you, it's just one vote from a skiver, but I just felt that I needed to let you know.
I don't expect a reply,
Time to go and cheat the system again, oh no I'm can't I busy at work. Maybe another day.
Yours
Steve

Tuesday, 19 February 2013

Cameron still allowing banks to run havoc with the economy

There is a fundamental malaise with the UK economy. It is dangerously overdependent on a financial sector whose influence essentially has our current crop of politicians in their pockets. The reason why there isn't widespread panic at our current state of affairs is that the figure for our national debt is at a number so large that most people cannot comprehend it. Even Cameron is having trouble coming to grips with it. He had promised to bring the national debt down and had the cheek to go on a conservative party political broadcast claiming to have done so. One can only guess that he holds
the intelligence of the UK electorate in such low regard that he had hoped we would confuse the deficit
(amount borrowed within the year) with the national debt. He was forced embarrassingly to apologise
for this error. It's an open secret in policy circles that economic policy under Osborne has been nothing
short of catastrophic. So what you may dare to ask is  Cameron betting on for the recovery?
Printing more money and his master plan is to allow the financial sector unfettered to carry on with it's
casino like tactics to balance the books. In short he is operating the U.K's economy the same way
Fred Goodwin ran RBS which together with the other major UK banks perpetrated the biggest
financial fraud recorded on the British people. the Long term solution is to start providing goods
that the expanding markets of the Far East require very much like Germany. Unfortunately the short election cycle and the fact that the BBC is complicit with the government by under reporting the extent
of the crisis means that the outlook is bleak. Our first task is to ensure, given financial services account for such a large part of our GDP, that Bankers are operating with the interests of their corporation rather than their personal fortunes. Panorama did an 'expose light' on Barclays showing that regardless of
performance their CEO was raking in £120 million in 6 years! This bonus basically is what dictated the fact that they wouldn't accept government bailout and they even went begging to Gaddafi to rescue them. They are still under investigation for having potentially bribed the Prince of Abu Dhabi Sheikh Mansur for rescuing them using his country's sovereign funds under his own name.
  Hence for recovery we must pressure the government to address this corrosive banking culture. It would be a good start to read and consider signing the petition below organised by the pressure group Avaaz.




Bankers are lobbying hard to keep their big bonuses at our expense. But the EU is trying to crack down. If we push George Osborne to stand by a sensible plan to cap bankers bonuses -- the very greedy payouts which crashed our economies -- we could finally beat the banker lobby! Sign the petition: 


Sign the petition! 
The banks crashed our economies, causing a wave of unemployment, evictions and cuts, but bankers are still raking in massive pay cheques. We have a chance to end this madness in 24 hours, but the British government stands in our way. 

Bankers run outrageous risks, driven by the lure of big bonuses. EU plans to stop bankers getting bonuses higher than their salaries are now being ambushed by George Osborne. Public pressure now can push our finance ministers to take a stand against the bankers’ greed that caused the crash in the first place! 

We have 24 hours -- the bankers’ lobby is massive, but our politicians know they can’t get re-elected if they favour friends in high finance while our jobs and services disappear. Sign the petition to George Osborne and other EU finance ministers now-- which we’ll deliver to Osborne's door and via the media on the day of the talks -- and share it with all your friends across the UK! 

http://www.avaaz.org/en/uk_bankers_champagne_on_our_tab_a/?bWrujcb&v=22076 

Banks like Barclays keep paying out bonuses worth billions. Many politicians talk a good game about reining in the banks, but then fold as soon as bankers pressure them. The European Parliament has agreed proposals that would prevent banks paying bonuses that are more than their fixed salary, unless shareholders holding two thirds of the bank's shares attend a meeting and agree to override that. Tuesday will see a needle negotiation between the Parliament and EU government representatives. It’s behind closed doors, but right now the UK is trying to get other governments to side with it to block the bonus ban. 

Banks caused the financial crisis and have been caught out in scandals over interest-rate fixing, product mis-selling, and evicting people from their homes. It’s time to get the public policies we need to ensure these outrages can’t happen again. Banks threaten to move abroad if rules are tightened, but this is a bluff, as no global bank can afford to leave the EU. And UK banks say they are changing their culture -- changing their pay and incentive schemes is a necessary part of that. Other, more respected, professions trust their people to work hard without the lure of tripling or quadrupling their salary -- bankers can, too. 

We have just 24 hours to get George Osborne to back off the banking lobby and agree to bring sanity to bonuses. We'll deliver on the day of the meeting, when enough people have signed. Click below to add your voice: 

http://www.avaaz.org/en/uk_bankers_champagne_on_our_tab_a/?bWrujcb&v=22076 

We’ve done it before - getting the EU to agree to put criminal bankers behind bars. Let’s now go further to tame bankers’ animal spirits. 

Monday, 4 February 2013

Gay Marriage. Civil Rights, Semantics or the Politics of Distraction?

Open Letter By Revd. Andrew Smith

Dear Mr Cameron
I am writing to you to urge you to vote against any forthcoming legislation which seeks to redefine marriage. As an ordained minister in the Church of England, I am coming at this from two points of view. As a Christian I firmly believe that marriage is a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman, and would argue that any move to re-define it undermines this. As a minister in the Church of England, I am aware that although there appears to be the desire to build in safeguards that I will not be  ‘forced’ to undertake a same sex marriage service, I am extremely doubtful that this safeguard will stand up to the scrutiny of the British or European courts. I have already raised this with my constituency MP, Mr Norman Baker. My main arguments against this proposal are:
Mandate or otherwise for redefining marriage
I acknowledge that you have recently championed the cause of same-sex marriage (although noting that on the 3 May 2010, just three days before the last general election, I understand that you said publically on TV that you were “not planning” to change the definition of marriage). I believe that Nick Clegg and George Osborne have at various times spoken in favour of it,  and that all three major parties in the House of Commons are now seeking to redefine marriage in such a way as to allow same sex marriage to take place. Notwithstanding this, none of the above gives the coalition government the right to proceed with a substantial piece of legislation that will fundamentally alter a significant pillar of our society, namely that marriage is understood as the union of one man and one woman for life, without first testing this with the electorate, via the ballot box. Pronouncements from politicians, however senior, do not of themselves set policy. Within the British democratic system, major legislation initiatives are set out in the party manifesto before an election in order that the electorate know for what basket of policies they are voting. I would contend ‘redefining marriage’ would fit into such a classification. Although clearly not an identical situation, a good case in point for this is the British relationship with and within the European Union. I understand that you are seeking to get a re-negotiated position in the EU which you can then (quite correctly in my view) put before the electorate at the next general election, with the view to testing this by way of a subsequent referendum. There is no reason why legislation allowing same-sex marriage should be rushed through this parliament. If the major parties are so sure that this would be the will of the people, then they should clearly articulate the policy in their next election manifestos in order that the electorate can make an informed decision, and adjust their voting behaviour accordingly. As you are well aware, underpinning the fundamentals of British Law is the Judeo-Christian heritage and tradition, from which the major planks of the law are derived. Neither Jewish nor Christian scripture or doctrine, understood in an orthodox manner, would support any attempt to redefine marriage.
The campaign against discrimination
I am a firm believer in the freedom of expression and, “a fair, free and open society…… in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity” as the Lib-Dem party (your coalition partners) constitution so eloquently puts it. However I do not see how re-defining marriage accomplishes this. Equality under the law for either hetero- or homosexual couples is provided for within the remit of a civil partnership and does not require a re-defining of marriage to achieve this. I am sure that you must appreciate that one must make sure that one persons ‘freedom’ does not then become another’s ‘infringement’. My concern is that, in order to appease a tiny minority of the population who will avail themselves of a same-sex marriage, if offered, a significant number of others may be adversely affected. I attend to the matter of the “quadruple lock” below, but would say that I would not be prepared to undertake a same-sex marriage (which is my ‘freedom’) in order to satisfy the perceived freedom for another. This is a matter of conscience above all. If one were to extend this argument further then Muslims (a significant religious minority) in this country would have a case for including sharia law into British law, or to take an absurd and ludicrous example, those in prison could argue that their imprisonment infringed their personal freedoms.
The ‘protection’ of the quadruple lock
Unfortunately I do not believe that the proposed ‘quadruple lock’ will provide any protection to me as a minister in the Church of England. As you know very well, an incoming government of any political hue could repeal this protection if ‘encouraged’ so to do by the attentions of a minority but vociferous pressure group. The ‘security’ of the quadruple lock has not been tested in the British courts nor indeed can we guess what the result might be should an appeal be made to the European Courts. I believe that this protection is vacuous and that should the proposed legislation to ‘redefine marriage’ be passed, in the fullness of time ministers within the Church of England will be forced into a position where they will have to face the choice of undertaking same-sex marriages or the consequences of prosecution under the law.
I have been a lifelong supporter of the Conservative party, via the ballot box, and by membership of the Federation of Conservative Students when at University. This proposed legislation is challenging me to change my party allegiance to one that supports religious freedoms and the traditional role of marriage. Although the three main parties do not offer me thisopportunity, it would appear that the United Kingdom Independence Party will do so, and so I am minded to give UKIP my vote at the next electoral opportunity.
Yours sincerely.
Revd. Andrew L. Smith