Wednesday, 29 February 2012

Enough is Enough

I've been tolerant. I've been reasonable. Hell, I've been unreasonable. I've been ranty and shouty. But nothing has changed.

This one did it today. The Government's much-touted workfare scheme, where people on long term unemployment benefits are assigned a job and threatened with removal of their benefits, has been scuppered by the actions of a few hard-line, left-wing militants. Let it be known that THIS was the hair that broke the camel's back.

This small group of hard-left extremists are now holding the country to ransom. They can't face the fact that the Conservatives are in government. Although, a poor excuse for a government it is. A government that tucks its tail between its legs instead of gritting its teeth for the fight. A government which continues to spend MY FUCKING MONEY like it's going out of fashion. A government that taxes some of the poorest people in society at 73%. Still, I never thought I would again see the day when 'TORY SCUM' painted onto billboards was a common - even tolerated - sight.

This government is shit. Without a doubt. They're almost as bad as Brown and his cronies. Almost.

What this country needs is decisive leadership to take on the vested interests that really rule this country - the hard-left extremists, the union barons, the bankers and the FTSE 100 CEOs.

We have a power vaccum. We need someone with authority, integrity and principle to step up to the plate. We need a Pitt, or a Thatcher, or a Churchill. We need an Elizabeth I, a Henry VIII, or an Alfred the Great. We currently have Clegg, Cameron and Miliband. None of them are up to the job.

By God, we need a miracle.

I know there are some real conservatives out there - who are sick to the back teeth of this benefit-addicted, over-taxing, over-bearing, over-regulating, liberty-stealing, soul-crushing Nanny State. I also know that - like me - they've been moaning about it for far too long. Ladies and gentlemen, the time has come for action.

It was once said that all is required for tyranny to prosper is for good men to stand by and do nothing. I, for one, am tired of doing nothing.

So, today, I have JOINED the Conservative Party. And I intend to put a fucking ROCKET up their arses. I will NOT tow the Party Line if I disagree with it. I will NOT criticise other party's policies if I agree with them. I will NOT select candidates that don't support MY politics. And they WILL listen to me - they have to, I now help to pay for their electoral campaigns.

So, to all out there who profess to have some common sense - libertarians, Rightists, anti-Statists, conservatives... join me. Join me in taking back the Conservative Party, ridding it of the cowards who serve it only to line their own pockets, and ushering in a new age of freedom and liberty.

Today, I am a Tory. God help me.

Same-Sex Marriage

I've not been blogging a huge amount recently, but this one has reared it's head often enough, and needs addressing.

There's been a lot of hyperbole on both sides of the debate. Some Christians seem dead-set against the introduction of same-sex marriage, whilst civil liberties advocates seem to support it unconditionally. With me being both a Christian and a libertarian, it's a bit of an unusual one for me. But, as ever, I will try to apply some perspective.

If we're talking about people of the same sex being married, it would probably be helpful to define what marriage actually is. At the moment, both in statute and in the Christian faith, marriage is described as a union between one man and one woman, where they agree to share all they have with each other. Christianity goes into a bit more detail, clarifying that marriage is a sacrament, instituted by God to provide for three outcomes:

  • The raising of children;
  • Protection against sin;
  • For the benefit of mutual society.
As far as the State goes, marriage is simply a bit of paper that means you can share certain tax allowances. Christianity doesn't really make any provision for marriage ending - the State does, and has numerous judicial procedures to account for division of assets and care of children.

So, although on the face of it, the Christian definition of marriage and the statutory definition of marriage are actually the same, when you look at it in more detail, they are actually not.

As a Christian and a libertarian, I firmly believe that the State has no business whatsoever in trying to change the Christian definition of marriage. That should be a matter entirely for the Church. However, it is perfectly at liberty to change the statutory definition of marriage.

Next, we already have a step towards same-sex marriage in the form of civil partnerships. So, what, exactly, is a civil partnership? Well, it has no religious definition, so it's quite simply a bit of paper that allows you to share certain tax allowances.

Hang on...

Isn't that rather similar to the statutory description of marriage?

There are few differences - you can only marry someone of the opposite sex, and you can only enter a civil partnership with someone of the same sex. And you can't do either to someone you're related to. But, aside from that difference, they are effectively the same thing, assuring the same outcomes, i.e. sharing of tax allowances.

So, the argument opposing same-sex marriage generally goes along the lines of it's not the Government's business to interfere in what is fundamentally a religious matter. But I've just demonstrated that the Christian definition of marriage already differs from the statutory definition. So if the Government chooses to change it's definition of marriage, that's not interference in religious affairs, is it?

Another argument of opposing same-sex marriage is that Churches are currently obliged by statute to perform marriage ceremonies, and therefore two homosexual people could legally force a Church to host such a ceremony, in contravention of religious convictions. But again, this isn't really true - the Church doesn't have to perform all marriage ceremonies. Try getting a Church wedding if you're a divorcee. It's generally down to the attitude of the local vicar. Some Churches probably would, some Churches wouldn't.

Of course, there is an argument that, given that homosexuals already have a statutory mechanism by which they can enjoy the same privileges of marriage, why change? It's outcomes that's important, surely? I am inclined to agree with this position, but I fail to see why we need a separate statutory definition. Why can't the legal definition of marriage and civil partnership be effectively the same thing?

Any other argument is basically, we don't agree with homosexuality, so we think the State shouldn't do anything to equalise people who are homosexual. Now, this fundamentally breaches two of my principles, the first being Christian, i.e. 'love thy neighbour', and the second being libertarian, i.e. it's no business of anyone else's what two consenting adults choose to do in their spare time.

This is none of my business, and really, no business of the State's, either.

So my proposal? Abolish the statutory definition of marriage, with provision that all existing marriages are converted into civil partnerships. Extend the definition of civil partnerships to include heterosexuals, and people that you're related to - two elderly brothers or sisters living together without any other family should be allowed to enter into such an arrangement to stop the thieving State from taxing their Estates. That's not condoning incest, it's just giving people freedom of choice.

This is perfectly acceptable to me as a libertarian. And it's also perfectly acceptable to me as a Christian, as I believe that marriage is something considerably more important - and different - than a bit of paper the State gives you.

Thursday, 2 February 2012

Political Correctness

Kate Green MP has just tweeted the following:



Yes, that's right - a brand of beer is being stigmatised because it alludes to men being attracted to women, and therefore offends the feministas, who despise the fact that they are female.

Sweet Jesus.

Fine, I therefore demand that www.tubecrush.net is immediately taken down. It objectifies men, and is therefore demeaning. It's a disgrace. Oh, wait, that's somehow OK? Yes, it is, because it's a FUCKING JOKE. Just like the beer.

It does make you wonder what the Politically Correct Thought Police Brigade would do if they started serving Black Sheep Ale in the Parliament Bar. They'd have fucking apoplexies, insisting it's withdrawal from sale because it's racist. Or maybe they'd settle for it being called Ethnic Minority Sheep Ale.

Take your 'right not to be offended', and stick it right up your fucking arse. For that, you make the Gallery.

Kate Green MP - the latest twat I have identified.

Wednesday, 1 February 2012

The Benefits Cap

I've read a lovely little article on the BBC about how how awful the benefits cap is, and how everyone is going to be impoverished by it. And they've included an example of a poor family who are going to be brutalised by these savage cuts.

Time to put on the fisking gloves.

'Raymond, a former educational software writer, has been jobless since 2001. His wife Katherine suffers from bipolar disorder with an anxiety disorder and is also unable to work.'

Workless since 2001? You're telling me that you haven't been able to find work from 2001 to 2008, during the biggest boom years the country's ever seen? Especially in software engineering, of which I have a background? It's a transferable skill - there's plenty of opportunities for software development. So that's what we call BULLSHIT.

'Says Ray: "The market for my skills dried up 10 years ago - there's a total lack of work in my area of expertise."'

So, if there's no work in your area - MOVE. LIKE EVERY OTHER POOR BASTARD HAS TO.

'The couple share their home with six of their children - their five-year-old son, Raymond's twin girls from his first marriage, and three of his wife's four children from an earlier relationship.'

So, your son was born in 2007? You'd been unemployed for 6 years, your wife suffers from bipolar disorder and anxiety, you already had 5 kids, you were already completely dependent on the State for your income, and you decided to have another kid? ARE YOU COMPLETELY FUCKING MENTAL?!

Now, here's a little breakdown of Raymond's WEEKLY income:

  • £87.30 Child Benefit
  • £301.10 Child Tax Credit
  • £100.00 Jobseeker's Allowance
  • £18.00 Council Tax Benefit
  • £76.00 Housing Benefit
  • £582.40 TOTAL
Yes, you read that right, folks. Nearly £600 a week. That's over £30,000 a year. For simply breeding and staying at home.

Next, let's have a look at Raymond's weekly outgoings:
  • £18.00 Council Tax - that's right, it's wholly paid for him
  • £76.00 Rent - this too. So, no rent, and no Council Tax
  • £38.00 Energy - I'm sorry, what? It costs me less than £100 a month to heat my house. Turn the fucking radiators off and wear a fucking jumper, you twat.
  • £15.00 Water - Odd that your water bill appears to cost 3 times as much as mine. If you're on a meter, fuck's sake, use less! If not, I suspect you're lying through your fucking teeth.
  • £15.00 Sky TV - Oho, Sky. That's £15 a week, so about £60 a month, then? Wow. You're not skimping, are you? Is this a life essential? No. This can be cancelled in its entirety. Get fucking Freeview, wanker.
  • £7.00 Phone & Internet - I'll let you off on these - that's about average, when all's said and done.
  • £32.00 Mobiles - Him and the wife, and 5 kids. Sorry, pal. Get real. Give the kids £10 a month on pay-as-you-go, and you and the missus give up the frigging iPhones and settle for Android instead. £20 a month contract each, plus the £50 for the kids ought to take this down to £22 a week.
  • £20.00 Entertainment - So you go out with your mates every Friday? Have a few beers? Tough shit, pal - you've got 6 kids. You'll have to make do with once a month. Slashed to £5. Deal with it.
  • £30.00 Public Transport - Justifiable, but it might actually cost you less to run a small car. £50 a month in fuel, £300 a year in insurance, £120 a year in road tax, plus £300 a year in maintenance, and you're still coming in at £25 a week.
  • £240.00 Weekly Shopping - which includes 24 cans of lager, 200 cigarettes and a large pouch of tobacco. 24 cans of lager a week? Fuck's sake, I hate to think what your liver's like! The weekly limit for blokes is 21 units - that's about 10 pints. So that halves your beer consumption. And as for the fags - they can bloody well go. Plus you can buy fucking Smart Price beans etc. I get by with me and my two kids on £200 a month. There's no reason you can't manage on £600 a month. That brings it in at £150 a week.
  • £91.00 Other - birthdays, Christmas, school uniforms and trips, clothing, shows and white goods. All sounds essential, but you're telling me you need £91 A WEEK?! That's nearly £5,000 A YEAR. £20 per kid per birthday, plus an extra £20 per kid for Christmas. That's £280, and we'll round it up to £300. School uniforms and clothes - £80 per kid per year, that's £480, say £500. School trips - £30 a year per kid. Another £200. Shows - that can just fucking GO, pal. Jesus. White goods - what, you need a new fridge every year? Don't think so. I'll give you £150 towards that and you shouldn't need it. That's £1,150. £22 a week. Not £91. Fuck's sake.

It's called money management, and when workers and pensioners have to do it, you have to as well.

So, on a quick income/expenditure analysis, we're looking at savings of £10 on your energy, £15 on Sky, £10 on mobiles, £15 on entertainment, £90 on shopping and £69 on other. Total weekly savings of £209 - that's over £10,000 a year. Some people earn fucking less than that for working full time.

With those adjustments, and the benefits cap applied, you'd still have an annual surplus of £6,500 a year. You can fucking well save that, to get yourself a god-damned house and alleviate the housing shortage for people who are in genuine need.

So, to anyone who says that the Benefits Cap is unfair, I simply say one word: BOLLOCKS.