Last week, Question Time invited BNP Leader Nick Griffin onto the show. In my view, the show degraded politics, the audience were focusing on mauling Griffin as opposed to asking questions on current issues. A lot of controversy arisen days before the show was aired – should we allow a man who promotes discrimination against anyone who isn’t of an Indigenous White British descent?
The audience on the show believed that by openly mocking his policies it would degrade his position in the UK. This has in fact backfired. A Yougov poll concluded that over half of the British populace would consider voting BNP.
Yes, Griffin’s policies are ludicrous, but they are appealing to the people. Labour has made a shamble of our country – we are in a deep recession and immigration is out of control. Griffin’s policies are appealing to the people because there is very little else which is being offered by other parties.
We must come to our senses and see that the Conservatives (and even Labour) is what our country needs. Recessions are inevitable in a capitalist economy, it’s all part of a cycle. And yes, we have a major problem regarding immigration. But Griffin’s policies are radical and highly discriminatory, and if practised would probably lead to major controversy in the EU Parliament. If the BNP were to become a leading party in the UK, they would fail. Their policies are almost solely based on white supremacy, with little regard to the economy and international relations. If you want change, take a good look at the Conservative Party, for they will lead our country forward, not backward.
Griffin may appear on future airings of Question time; I hope that the audience choose have better decorum than the previous audience. By mauling Griffin, some feel sorrow for Griffin and somehow find good in his policies.
Economic development is what most countries seek in today’s world. It is the growth of a country’s GDP which makes them more prominent on the world stage in relation to trade and power. The top three largest economies are currently the USA, Japan and China.
USA and Japan’s economy seen great expansion in the mid to late nineteenth century, whereby their industrial revolutions occurred. This has helped the two countries become large economic powers today. However, in the nineteenth century there was no regard for our environment, thus meaning these revolutions were dirty, putting great amounts of Co2 and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. This was because there was no knowledge of alternative energy sources as there are today i.e., renewable ones. Coal, gas and oil were the primary methods of generating power, which are all fossil fuels which pollute.
Both the USA and Japan have been large economic powers for two centuries, as have other countries which had their second, technical revolution (e.g., UK and other European countries) in the nineteenth/early twentieth century. This is because they were able to dominate global trade and modernise their countries. It has been highlighted in recent decades that there is a global abuse of fossil fuels, which is degrading our environment and causing the anthropogenic greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is a natural process of our planet. However, the misuse of fossil fuels causes an imbalance of gasses in the stratosphere, which means that more infrared radiation is trapped and reflected back to Earth. This causes a rise in global temperatures, degrading our environment. Due to the concern which has arisen from this process which is currently occurring, alternative power generation methods have been founded in an attempt to mitigate against global warming. Such methods include solar, wind, hydroelectricity amongst others. These are all renewable, using sources which do not deplete once used. For example, wind turbines are erected, whereby the turbine is moved through wind power, and this movement generates power which can be transferred into electricity.
Most developed nations have adopted renewable energy sources in small percentages of their overall consumption, however, the primary method of generating electricity is through fossil fuels. To promote countries being more concerned about environmental degradation, protocols such as the Kyoto Protocol have been ratified by most countries worldwide. Countries which already have significant economic power are more inclined to be more environmentally friendly, as they have the financial backing to do so.
China currently has the third largest economy in the world. She is an emerging economic power – the second largest exporter. China is a communist state, which was under a centrally planned system from 1949-78. In 1978, mixed economy practises were adopted, which has ever since meant that China has seen significant economic growth. This economic growth, however, is predominantly heavy industry and fuelled by fossil fuels. International discussions with other developed nations have concluded with controversy over this issue. This is because, some people believe that China is entitled to its industrial revolution alike other nations two centuries ago, and others believe that because there is now knowledge of renewable energy sources, China should adopt them.
The irony with China and green policies is that she has adopted some, however, they are still degrading the environment; on a domestic scale. The largest hydroelectric dam in the world was completed in 2006, named the Three Gorges Dam. Located on the Yangtze River, it has caused great rises in river levels, displacing over one million people. It has spurred change in ecology and has increased the susceptibility of landslides in the area. This shows that not only do we need to acknowledge how to generate electricity from renewable sources, but also where to locate such plants; because solving one problem can cause another.
Portugal is a prime example of an environmentally concerned country. In 2008, 43% of energy consumption in Portugal was obtained from renewable sources. By 2010, she aims for 45% of energy consumption to be obtained from renewable sources. Portugal is a large economic power, mainly due to tourism, private investment and the development of technology. This shows that it is possible for a country to be a strong economic power and retain environmentally friendly policies.
To conclude, it is possible for economic development without environmental degradation. However, it requires significant financial backing. Countries which are becoming environmentally friendly were once reliant on fossil fuels to grow their economy through industry, to gain the financial backing to fund environmentally friendly doctrines.
Last week the Labour Conference was under way; this week the Conservative Conference passed. I have listened to the most notable speeches – Brown’s and Cameron’s, amongst others. I know that the Conservatives will serve the UK best with our choices given, however, I’m not sure Cameron will be best for the job. I believe that we need a more charismatic, more radical leader driving our country forward. Many criticise me for saying – “we need another Thatcher”, but the reality is – we do.
Labour
As I was listening to Brown’s hour long speech, I realised just how out of touch he is. His attempt to persuade me that Labour is the way forward failed – Labour is the way backward. Britain has suffered for long enough under the chains of the left – the government is too big, yet is losing sight of the main problems we face.
We need change, very soon. preferably now, however I’m going to be selfish and hope Brown waits until after January, so I can vote in the general election! As is clear by my previous paragraph – I shall not be voting Labour.
Brown decided to not mention many of his failures, he instead tried to turn them into accomplishments – which is contrary to reality. He neglected to mention his VAT decrease; which in my view was one of his greatest mistakes.
It’s a good job that this Labour conference means very little (i.e., it’s not part of his election campaign), otherwise Brown would stand no chance. However, for anyone who listened to his speech I’m sure it has been significant. It separates the gullible from the analytical. His argument was weak; it failed to persuade me into believing Brown could lead the country again. If Brown really wants Labour to succeed, he should stand down as the leader of Labour in the next general election. Other members of Brown’s cabinet are more able for the job, for example Jack Straw.
Allister Darling is clearly Brown’s puppet, as can be seen from his look of admiration for the failed Prime Minister of our time. Labour is the party of unemployment – this may have not been the case if Darling wasn’t manipulated by Brown’s economic ideologies and he was allowed to take on his own initiative.
Conservative
Cameron did not totally convince me in his speech that he is the best person to lead the country – it’s a good job I already hold him in high regard. The mediocre speech was meant for a much more charismatic person, Cameron did not suffice. His voice is not loud enough, nor does it endear crowds.
Cameron addressed more of this issues which are facing our country right now, which I’m sure will go in his favour – but that’s because he can – if Brown was to do the same he would have been slating his (uninspired) time in office. However, his plans on mitigating the issues were bland and extremely vague – I hope for our country that Cameron does in fact have profound plans on how to fix our country.
It’s been a while since I’ve posted something of political interest, I do apologise to all my readers.
I don’t profess to be the most knowledgable person when it comes to Lib Dems. In my view, they are superfluous additions to Parliament which are only useful when a party holds a small majority, thus meaning the Lib Dems can tag along to boost numbers.
They’re unnecessary; we don’t need any other parties but Labour and Conservative, there’s no radicalism, so the Lib Dems don’t even balance views in Parliament, they merely add their worthless views.
Reading the news, I found out that Nick Clegg has decided to agree to tuition fees for university fees, in spite of the Lib Dems’ view that university tuition should be free.
When I read this, I laughed. How foolish are Liberals? How can they support the absence of university fees? This would eradicate the competition of professional jobs, and in the long term would increase unemployment. Many don’t understand this, however, those with knowledge of economics will. It’s all about supply and demand. By allowing all to take advantage of degree programmes, they will become worthless.
An argument was posed to me today, stating that some high school students aspire to study at university, however, their low income background makes this difficult. I say – good. It creates competition – we are in a capitalist country; this is how it should be. Furthermore, with our leftist politics; nearly everyone is able to study at university, with the only predication being their grades. Student loans are easy to acquire, thus meaning motivation (and aforementioned, grades) is the requirement for a student from a low income background to study at university.
It’s only a short post, however, my views are clear – it’s not economically viable to allow all into university. What are your views on this subject?
For those who don’t know – my primary writing hand is my left. It has caused me discomfort for many years; stationary and office supplies are not made to be easily accessible for left handed people. However, I knew that given time and practise, the plight did not have to be a long term issue. A couple of weeks ago I decided to be pro-active and resolve the situation by practising to write with my right hand. Progress has been fast, I can now write at a reasonable speed with writing that can be comprehended. I still have to refine my handwriting; I believe this will come naturally the more I use my right hand for writing. Below is the first page of a piece of homework I decided to write with my right hand – the history of the European Union. Happy reading!
I am now no longer constrained by my choice of hand to write with, and I consider myself to be ambidextrous!
The Conservative Party, in all realisation and rationality are confident of proving triumphant in the next general election. The party, historically known for low taxes, plans to increase VAT to 20% if they become the leading party of the UK. This may seem unorthodox to many, however, I support the idea.
VAT is largely insignificant to most people, it’s been annexed onto the price of goods for many years. However, on a larger scale, it gives the government a large help with public spending. Due to the negligible impact of VAT on an individual level, Gordon Brown was heavily criticised for the December 2008 – December 2009 VAT of 2.5, lowering the total to 15%. He believed this would stimulate consumption, however, it did very little to consumption levels. What the cut did bring, though, was a cost of £12.5 billion to the government’s moneybag.
By raising VAT by 2.5% of its regular amount of 17.5%, senior shadow ministers predict revenues of an extra £10 billion. It’s well known that because of the recession, public spending is likely to drop, well, this £10 billion extra revenue will significantly help public spending. Wouldn’t you rather your goods costing a mere 2.5% extra as opposed to an increase in income tax?
It may interest you that the pensionable population has surpassed the under 16 population. We’re in the presence of a greying population, whereby people are living for longer. Sounds promising, right? There’s a greater chance of YOU living to an older age. However, not all is positive
Government’s fiscal dilemma
The government is legally bound to provide over 65s with pensions, due to the working populations’ contribution to National insurance. With people living for longer, pensions will last for longer, thereby increasing the spending which the government must pay to its pensioners. In the long term, this will inevitably push up taxes to counterpoise the increase in government spending.
Our population is not only ageing, but also growing
Statistically, the UK is already overpopulated – we live in a densely populated country. This is a problem on a national scale, but also internationally. The more people on our planet, the greater the emissions of greenhouse gasses.
Straining our human resources
The elderly need supervision and greater levels of health care. They need home nursing and meals on wheels. I ask you – how does greater levels of employment in nursing the elderly (significantly) help our economy? These jobs could be better served elsewhere in the tertiary sector i.e., banking. I believe this aspect of my argument is weaker than the two other points above, nonetheless it’s noteworthy.
To clarify, I hold no resentment to elderly folk. I just feel people should be aware of the implications which arise from an increase in life expectancy.
Is there solace?
Yes, the elderly can stimulate the economy aswell as burden it. The term grey pound defines the consumption habits of the elderly. From DIY products to gifts for their grandchildren, the government’s pension contribution is being reimbursed back into the economy.
So, why are British people living longer
? Well, it’s not only the UK; many countries’ people are living for longer on average. This can be illustrated on the Demographic Transition Model (DTM). Britain sits in stage four, whereby birth and death rates are stationary and low. This process occurs due to our ameliorating knowledge of health care, women aspiring in their careers and other contributory factors. We are a healthier and more knowledgeable nation than previous years, thus meaning family planning is widely available and the sick can be treated. Due to greater knowledge in contraception, population becomes more stable. No countries have yet surpassed level four, however, many believe population will in fact decrease.
Figures have recently been released on the rise in population in the UK. In 2008 the population grew by over 400,000 – the highest in 47 years. Talking with Brits, the common thought of a rising population is thought to be the influx of immigration. These recent studies have proved this theory chiefly erroneous. As explained above, the main reason for the population rise in the UK is due to our movement along the DTM. If you would like to read further into the UK’s large population rise, click here.
It’s been nigh a month since I have written a post, as I’ve been living the sweet life in USA! For those who may be interested, here’s what I did on my vacation – day by day. Please note that I didn’t write in a journal on my vacation, so some days may be hazy in depth.
July 20th – I arrived at JFK airport at 9.30pm, in different surroundings as I flew with a different airline than previous peregrinations. In spite of this, I found my way to passport control easily. I passed through security quickly as I rushed off of the plane, being aware of the postponement which would transpire had I have slacked the pace of my saunter. My suitcase was awaiting me as I made my way to the conveyor belt it was circulating on.
As I made my way outside I sent an sms to my dad, letting him know that I was waiting. However, after a few minutes of waiting I realised that only taxis were passing by. Aforementioned, I was unfamiliar with these surroundings being in a different terminal. A man with a strong Italian accent approached me, asking if I was awaiting the arrival of a bus. With my response annulling this; he redirected me to the pick-up point. Soon enough, I found my Dad and we was on our way back to Greenwich, Connecticut.
Despite the lengthy trip I had endured; spanning over 3,500 miles, I decided that I was witting enough to stop by to see Connor and Casey (step brother and sister, and friends), as it has been eight months since I last seen them. Following this I received the tour of my Dad’s new house (exterior shown below) – I was happy to see how he has settled in.
After a long day of travelling I was ready to estivate to revitalise myself for the vacation to begin!
July 21st – Unsure of the happenings of this day!
July 22nd – I went to work with my Dad for half a day, then later on Stan (a friend of my Dad’s) visited, and my Dad cooked for us all.
July 23rd – I did some work myself! My Dad is a housing manager aswell as working in the construction field. I met his employer, Miss Ogilvy (born as Rockefeller) and she aswell had only recently moved into her new summer residence. She was unpacking boxes and putting them into storage in her basement, with the help of Margee. Eager to help, I moved boxes, then Margee and I went to the dump to recycle boxes and paper. Subsequently we had lunch at a quaint sandwich shop on the Post Road
July 24th – My Dad, a friend of his and I went into New York City to tour The Metropolitan Museum of Art (The MET). It was a truly magnificent day out. The art shows are dumbfounding… their accessions are impressive – most notably to me; the 19th and Early 20th Century European Paintings and the European Sculpture and Decorative Arts. Due to the constraint of time, I did not get a chance to see all of the galleries I wanted to (i.e., Greek and Roman Art). It was a great day out, and I definitely want to go back in the offing to tour other galleries.
A couple, sleeping in the European Sculpture Court!
July 25th – a day before leaving to my second destination on my vacation – Los Angeles, I called my cousin, Lee, who lives there; as I planned to reside with Lee and his wife, Jill for the duration of my stay. My flight to L.A., was a connection flight, as there are no direct flights to L.A. from my Dad’s local airport, White Plains. My connection was in Charlotte, NC., the same location where Lee and Jill were vacationing at the time. I was beyond belief when I realised that Lee, Jill and I were on the same flight to L.A.! Because of this, I made plans to meet them at Charlotte airport before we boarded the plane.
At 11am, I arrived in Darien, to the residence of the Dean family. Residing here is my aunt, Karen; my uncle, Jack; and my cousins, Richard and Adrienne. As soon as I entered Karen was shocked by my height, as apparently I have grew since January 2009! Immediately on entry I was measured – my confirmed height is 5 10″.
After the excitement of my height, we became voracious. Eager to eat, we decided to head forth to Panera Bread, located on the Post Road, Darien. I cannot recall the sandwich I ate, but I recall it being good!
Instead of calling Karen for a taxi service, Richard, Adrienne and I decided to perambulate back to their residence. On arrival we decided to play Risk. Richard and I were the most enthusiastic participants, with Adrienne being more interested with her iPod Touch! The battle was of a high intensity, with Richard occupying the entirety of Oceana and North America, Adrienne occupying Africa, and me occupying Europe and South America. Richard and I verbalised a treaty, whereby we were not to attack on the Central America – Venezuela border and the Greenland – Iceland Border. As the game commenced a Cold War like scenario was present, with growing artillery on the borders where the treaty was present. Richard broke the treaty by invading Iceland, a new strategy which may have left him winning the game, however, the game was put to an end as we were going out for a meal. The game stood as a draw between Richard and I.
We went to a Japanese restaurant (I cannot remember the name of the restaurant) with a family friend of Karen, as it was her birthday. The restaurant was an experience, that’s for sure! The chef was cooking at the table; hibachi style. For the majority of the time smoke was in my face, and I was persuaded into catching a piece of chicken in my mouth as he flung it from a utensil. It was a bit too lively for a restaurant in my opinion, but overall it was drollery fun!
Adrienne and I
Adrienne (Richard in the background)
July 26th – I left White Plains Airport, connecting in Charlotte, NC. then arrived at my final destination – L.A. I met with Lee and Jill in Charlotte, which was a momentous occasion, as the last time we seen each other was in December 2006. There was only a short wait before our flight, but we very nearly didn’t get on the plane, as the flight was overbooked, meaning US Airways was offering $400 to any three people willing to give up their seat. We pondered on it for a few minutes, but then decided against it sue to the eight hour wait until the next flight into L.A.
When we arrived in L.A. we stopped by a shopping parade to purchase groceries and a movie, also we bought some very tasty burritos! When we arrived at Lee and Jill’s residence we all felt fatigued, so we decided to watch Watchmen, an intersting DC Comics movie which I thoroughly enjoyed.
July 27th – Jill went to work, so Lee and I decided to visit some close by beaches before picking up my aunty, Jeanette from the airport. We visited Zuma Beach, Santa Monica Pier and Venice Beach.
Lee at Zuma Beach
Lee and I at Zuma Beach
Zuma Beach
Santa Monica Pier
Jeanette arrived at 1.45 pm, flying in from Las Vegas after participating in a business convention. We drove back to Lee’s residence for Jeanette to drop-off her luggage, then we waited until Jill finished work. Working in Show-business, Jill is the coordinator for a group of artists which create outfits, facemasks, props et cetera for movies… interesting stuff! Before going out for a meal, Jill shown us her workplace, where I wore an upper layer outfit which a moviestar wears… it’s very tight and uncomfortable! We then drove into the Burbank Hills to eat a the Castaway Restaurant. Images below.
Jill, Jeanette, Lee and I
Lee, Jeanette and I
Jill and I
Jeanette and I. Jeanette said "pull a sullen face", I chose not to!
I’m on vacation, but I have a spare few minutes to share some views!
Recently, think-tanks have came up with the idea of charging people for consultations with their GP (£20 per visit is the proposed figure).
This is a contradiction of the basic principles which NHS was built on. Our health service is universal, bar a few charges which were implemented a year in to the NHS as the sector was unprofitable. I believe totally in individual responsibility, however I also believe in consistency. The NHS has been present for 61 years. I don’t think now is the time to be rolling back this part of the welfare state. We are in a time of economic uncertainty, and think-tanks want the government to put a price-tag on the health of the populace? This is the worst time for these ideas to be floating about. Yes, I understand their reasoning – demand for GPs is going to soar in coming months with the possibility of thousands of cases of swine flu per day. But this puts others at risk too. It could mean cancers go unnoticed as some people will be unable to afford these consultations. This proposal needs to be scrapped and forgotten, for the sake of people having trust in the government! I’m sure Attlee and Bevan are turning in their grave!
The reason for the NHS is to provide healthcare to all, regardless of their income. This has proved to work well; it both keeps our populace healthy with satisfactory healthcare, and it also provides many jobs.
I’m sure Brown will not consider these charges; as I’m sure he knows they are a grey area. But hey, Brown is becoming a grey area!
