A UK based leftist concedes the Left was wrong on Immigration. Quoted from the Daily Mail author David Goodhart says that he is "now convinced that public opinion is right and Britain has had too much immigration too quickly". Hopefully he isn't ostracised for speaking his mind.
Dan Whitfield discusses the similarities between David Cameron and Mitt Romney - and how this spells bad news for Cameron:
Romney, the Republican nominee for President was defeated last November, British
political prognosticators predicted that the result was a good omen for David
Cameron and a warning for his opposite number on the Labour benches, Ed
They are wrong.
It’s easy to see
why the experts made such a mistake. After
all, President Obama won reelection with unemployment hovering at 8% -
something no occupant of the White House has ever done before (the closest was
Ronald Reagan, who was reelected in 1984 with unemployment at 7.2%). Obama won in spite of the gridlock paralyzing
Washington (for which he is largely responsible), contempt for politicians at
record levels, and smoldering resentment over his reform of the American
also won despite his opponent, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney,
effectively stealing the mantle of change.
similarities to the political situation in the UK will not have gone unnoticed
by Tory High Command. That's why, on the
surface, President Obama's reelection is delightful news for Cameron. Even now, perhaps, advice is being poured
into the Prime Minister's ear, urging him to follow the path blazed by the
President. To win a reelection campaign
of his own, all David Cameron need do is remind voters of the mess he
inherited, emphasize the indicators which point to an economic recovery, and expose
his opponents glaring shortcomings.
Follow the Obama recipe, and another 5 years in Downing Street beckon.
But a close look
at exit polling should have Conservatives nervous. It shows that Mitt Romney lost for exactly
the same reasons that have damaged British Tories generally, and David Cameron
Attack of the killer bananas: Posters put up around BBC's £1bn headquarters warning of the dangers of the fruit.
Posters have been put up at the BBC's new £1bn headquarters warning staff to stop eating bananas after a colleague warned the fruit could killer her.
The posters feature a picture of the fruit with a cross scrawled over it, with the directive telling staff not to peel or eat it anywhere near the colleague, according to The Sun.
A spokesman for the BBC said: 'The posters placed in specific areas of the newsroom have been put up by staff out of courtesy for a fellow colleague who has a strong medical sensitivity to bananas which can lead to severe symptoms.'
Instituted in 1940 the George Cross, or GC, is Britain's highest civilian award - the lesser-known, peacetime equivalent of the famous Victoria Cross. The list of recipients is indeed distinguished, and apart from military personnel engaged in peacetime acts of gallantry, the next largest category is police officers from all over the UK, and indeed the Commonwealth.
But that category has been in decline of late - one suspects a permanent decline. As a former police officer myself, I am loathed to cast aspersions on the objective bravery of those who still serve, but I would submit that the culture in which they now serve is a hinderance to bravery. In fact - forget about brave and gallant acts - it's a hinderance to doing the very basics of the job they are sworn to do.
The most outrageous example is that of Simon Burgess who drowned tragically earlier this year. As horrible as any untimely death is (he was only 41), this is a death that evoked outrage throughout Britain as a veritable army of police, fire and ambulance personnel refused to enter a shallow model-boating lake in Gosport, Hampshire. Those that did seek to enter were cautioned against such rash behaviour in the terms of the occupational health and safety legislation. For more than half an hour, this group, sworn to protect and serve, did neither; rather they looked on as Mr Burgess' body floated face down a few metres from the lake's edge, and they waited for so-called level 2 certified officers from Hampshire Fire and Rescue. You see, it turns out that most of Hampshire's finest (all of whom, it was revealed at the Coronial inquiry, could swim) are not permitted to enter water higher than their ankles, and even then, not if the water is flowing.
Bravely, they negotiate a 3' artificial lake, with the aid of depth measuring aparatus and spacesuits.
So by the time the more highly qualified variety of public servants arrived on the scene - greeted, as they were, by useless a cast of thousands: numerous emergency vehicles, good-for-nothing emergency workers, a rescue helicopter that had landed, and even an inflatable tent erected for the occasion - the rescue of Mr Burgess had become what every police officer wishes they didn't have to attend: a body recovery operation.
Chris Snowdon recently labelled Australia the world's number one nanny state. And while I do not dispute his thesis - and in fact, I live here, he doesn't, so I know it's true - I will say this: common-or-garden variety police officers in Australia can, and regularly do, enter water deeper than their ankles. Every few weeks one hears of a police officer somewhere in Australia effecting an aquatic rescue (only "level 3" officers in Hampshire are actually allowed to swim). But that isn't bravery - sorry lads, no GC - it's merely doing the job they are sworn, and paid, to do.
The sad death of Mr Burgess should cast a pall of shame over all concerned; from legislators and public servants of the Health and Safety Executive (which is responsible at least for a culture of regulatory legalism that suppresses even the slightest hint of bravery), to operational supervisors of the various agencies, to the very officers involved - or not involved as was mostly the case - in the incident. And it should be a salutary lesson to all of us that increased regulations - even ones in the politically correct name of "health and safety" - not only cost basic freedoms, but cost lives as well.
Chris Ashton is a post-graduate student in arts and theology. He lives in Sydney, is married, and has a delightfully red-headed two year old daughter. He tweets @ChrisAshton.
According to the UK Office of National Statistics, bitterly cold UK weather contributed nearly 26,000 deaths last winter. Also according to the latest official figures there are over 3.9 million UK households in fuel poverty. Fuel poverty is defined as when a household needs to spend 10 per cent or more of its income on maintaining an acceptable level of heating.
Naturally, the risk of fuel poverty generally increases with age. Over half of the 3.9 million households have someone aged 60 or over.
Fuel poverty is such a big problem in the UK that a nationwide appeal is again being run by the Community Foundation Network. The appeals aim is to encourage people to make donations to help older and vulnerable people affected by fuel poverty this winter.
It means the country is in the danger zone following a ten-year borrowing binge under the last Labour government, a hard-hitting report from the Bank for International Settlements has revealed
The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) said government, corporate and household debt in Britain jumped from 223 per cent of gross domestic product in 2000, or £2.18trillion, to 322 per cent, or £4.68trillion, in 2010. That is the equivalent of £180,000 per household
In 2010, Britain had government debt of nearly 90 per cent of GDP, corporate debt of 126 per cent and household debt of 106 per cent.
UK PM David Cameron should seriously re think his commitment to phasing out the production of energy based on burning of fossil fuels as it is going to cost the UK economy at least £300 billion over the next 10 years to go renewable energy (which we all know works intermittently).
What is it with Labor and debt? They’re like junkies to a needle.
While our government debt of 15.4% of GDP is low compared to the UK, the trend is more concerning.
Craig Buchanan looks at the UK, the EU and Federalism:
The casual observer might be forgiven for thinking that Britain has been coming apart at the seams of late. First there were the parliamentary scandals – resignations by the London bus load, and Members of Parliament arrested, while luckier colleagues were forced to pay back thousands in misappropriated (taxpayer) funds. Then Scotland threatened to vote with its feet, electing the first majority government at Holyrood committed to eventual independence and the end of the Union. And now the good people of not only London, but also Birmingham, Liverpool, and Bristol, are cleaning up after riots, looting, and a side serving of recreational arson. As England mops up (and the Scots, Welsh, and Irish gloat quietly to themselves) it is tempting to paraphrase that most English of musical acts, Kit and the Widow, in punning “’Whither the Union?’ they’re asking, to which the answer’s ‘yes’.”
Meanwhile, just across the Channel, Merkel and Sarkozy are busy proposing a single European government with France and Germany at its heart, ala Charlemaigne, while Britain, once the defender of European independence, looks on through the smoke.
Of one thing there can be no doubt, however. David Cameron and his Conservative-Liberal coalition government seem committed to preserving their almost mythic Union at any cost. Unionist to the core (the full title of Cameron’s party is, after all, the Conservative and Unionist Party, even if the Union in question harks back to the Irish Union of 1801, long since defunct, and beloved of almost no one), they have pledged to fight to preserve what they have in the face of all comers. But are they in danger of allowing those who wish to see the break-up of the United Kingdom the upper hand? Exactly what sort of Union should the Unionists be looking to save, or perhaps to salvage?