gdp's Comments

The Tory Diary : Cameron claims minimum price for alcohol could save 9,000 lives over next decade

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:24:46 +0000

I would like the Prime Minister to explain to me why I, as a responsible drinker, should be forced to pay more to account for the irresponsibility of others. Raising the price of alcohol will make virtually no difference whatsoever, as the reason people who binge drink do so is to get drunk. They're not particularly bothered about how much they spend. All this will do is punish the responsible majority. If the Prime Minister wants to get a handle on binge drinking, then he should look at the pubs and clubs which engage in sales practices which encourage it: selling shots on two-for-one offers just before closing time, heavily discounted alco-pops, continuing to serve people who are visibly inebriated etc.

The Tory Diary : Has Cameron's EU veto died?

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 09:17:55 +0000

It's relatively simple. Do we uphold international treaties to which we are not signatories? And do we tolerate breaches of treaties from countries which are signatories? If the French and the Germans use EU institutions for their fiscal union, it is a clear breach of international law, in the form of the Treaties of Maastricht and Lisbon. If they are doing to disregard those treaties, then so should we. Make it clear to them. If the EU does not continue on membership terms which are favourable to us, then we will cease to be members. END OF. Grow a backbone, Cameron.

http://www.oldholborn.net/ : Do as you want, or do as you are told

Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:16:52 +0000

I have already written to my MP, reminding them that I will not vote for them again if they don't vote the right way. I have also urged everyone I know to do the same. I am sick of these despicable traitors. It's time to get rid of them.

http://www.oldholborn.net/ : Get out of that castle, Englishman, others need it

Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:44:24 +0000

I have to admit, I am surprised that they didn't get retrospective planning permission. But still, if enough locals object to it... and it's their community that's going to be affected by it.

http://www.oldholborn.net/ : Get out of that castle, Englishman, others need it

Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:23:16 +0000

The travellers at Dale Farm are being evicted because they constructed properties without first seeking planning permission. Those properties need to be demolished in accordance with the law. There is an argument that you should be able to do what you like with your own property, but there has to be some recognition that what you do to your own property may have an effect on others. Planted a 20-foot hedge in your front garden may improve your privacy, but it could result in problems for your neighbours. That's what the planning system is for - not to restrict what you can do with your property, but to allow people who it will affect to have a say. I agree that it's not perfect, and probably needs changing, but we can't make an exception for the travellers. The law is the law, and it must be applied as it stands.

http://www.oldholborn.net/ : Untouchable Corruption

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:45:25 +0000

If some tinpot African or Middle Eastern dictator passed such a law, it would be roundly condemned by them all, but it's OK for them to do it. The hypocrisy is literally eye-watering. Who will rid us of this turbulent EU? (apologies to Shakespeare)

http://www.oldholborn.net/ : You wanted equality, you just got it

Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:20:35 +0000

If you're earning less than £25,000 a year, it already isn't. Much cheaper to just hatch a sprog.

http://www.oldholborn.net/ : Round them up.

Thu, 25 Aug 2011 08:45:23 +0000

I sympathise with your point, OH, but however distasteful the concept of a State is, humans really do need some sort of construct to guarantee the rule of law. I agree that our current State goes way, way, WAY beyond that, but the absence of a State effectively means chaos and anarchy. That said, I fail to see why these people being rendered 'stateless' is a massive problem. Surely, with the existence of a State, there is an implicit contract between the citizen and the State? Which basically boils down to: we, the citizenry, agree to obey the law of the State, in exchange for having a say in making it. In exchange, the State agrees to guarantee our fundamental rights, and protect us from enemies. And if we break that contract, we are punished. Fair enough - although as an aside, it would be an interesting debate as regards as how the State would be punished for breaching its side of the deal. My point with this is, if these people have broken the laws of their previous States to such an extent that their States have effectively disowned them, why the hell is that our problem?

http://www.oldholborn.net/ : Majestic Silence

Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:22:20 +0000

Regardless of whether he's a Prince or not, he's a soldier. Is that true of all of them? I wouldn't fancy doing the job myself, so I'm not going to belittle anyone that does do it.

http://www.oldholborn.net/ : God told me to do it...

Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:50:27 +0000

To put it another way, if you really, in good conscience, do not want to mutilate your son's genitals, then God, if and when you eventually meet Him, will understand. And if He doesn't understand, then He's not God. So it doesn't matter.

Tangent Reality : Atheism, or Christianophobia?

Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:46:26 +0000

This is precisely my problem with him. I have no problem with him being an atheist, but I do have a huge problem with him presenting atheism (which, like any religion, cannot be proven, and is therefore simply another belief) as the only logical choice. In other words, he presents it as fact, when it cannot be demonstrated as such, and then perpetuates ad hominem attacks on people who point this out, as do his overzealous followers.

http://www.oldholborn.net/ : The bottomless pit

Wed, 18 May 2011 09:07:58 +0000

I don't have any problem with a healthcare system that provides care free at the point of need. I don't have any problem with it being funded by general taxation. But what I fail to understand is why it has to be so crucifyingly expensive, considering the average service we get, and why there is this ingrained refusal to even countenance private sector involvement. The biggest advantage of contracting NHS work out to the private sector would be that it would likely become significantly cheaper. But the politics on envy gets in the way. You see it on Question Time: 'there should be no profit in the NHS!' they shout shrilly. Really? In that case, we should nationalise all GP surgeries and pharmacies then. They are private companies, whose sole client is effectively the State. They're the ones that pay. According to that splintered logic, we should also be nationalising the major pharmaceuticals, who, in this country, sell most of their drugs to... the NHS. At a profit. And the equipment manufacturers. How dare you invent machines to more accurately diagnose critical conditions, and expect to GET PAID for it! Those disgusting capitalists! SHOCK! HORROR! People making money out of healthcare! What the hell does it matter if people make profit out of healthcare? As long as the NHS provides good healthcare at a low cost to the taxpayer, I couldn't give a damn about whether some speculator is making a mint by building a hospital. In fact, I'd encourage it. The NHS should take whatever form it needs to in order to provide the best quality healthcare at the lowest possible price. I strongly suspect that, for an organisation to accomplish this, it would bear virtually no resemblance to the thundering behemoth that we currently worship.

http://www.oldholborn.net/ : Beware - Starving Beast lashes out

Sat, 7 May 2011 21:06:43 +0000

If Greece, or Ireland, or Portugal, for that matter, decide to default on their debt, it does exercise their sovereignty. However, the consequences will be felt all over the world. When a company defaults on its debt, it is declared insolvent, and creditors have first choice of its assets to satisfy their debt holdings. If a country were to default, creditors would have no such protection, as a sovereign nation is not going to effectively bankrupt itself to satisfy its creditors. Government debt has been traditionally regarded as one of the safest types of investments, because it is virtually impossible for a country to default on its obligations. The problem with the euro is that it makes the possibility of default much higher. If investors suddenly twig that losses on government debt will be passed onto them, and they don't have traditional creditor protection, they will treat government debt as considerably higher-risk. Which means that they'll want to charge more interest on it. If we see Greece default, which is looking increasingly likely, followed by Ireland, this will have a massive effect on government bond markets across the world. I fully support the Greeks, the Irish and the Portuguese in exercising their sovereignty, but it should be borne in mind that if they do, it will not be just them who have to face the consequences.

http://www.oldholborn.net/ : The Birthplace of Democracy

Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:54:06 +0000

In principle, I agree - if the Greeks are insisting that their Government should default on their debt payments, and effectively bankrupt the country, then they should do that. But the consequences of this - not just for the Greeks, but for everyone - need to be carefully considered. It has been a general principle of credit investment since Roman times that, if you default on a loan, your assets are confiscated as collateral, up to the value of the debt if possible. This happens today as well - if you refuse to pay your credit card, the bailiffs come round. If you don't pay your mortgage, the bank repossesses your home. If a company is declared insolvent, its creditors are the first in line for the spoils. If a country goes bankrupt, this precedent would dictate that the country's assets - anything in State ownership - should be sold in order to satiate, at least partly, the country's creditors. If Greece does default, I find it unlikely that it will then begin the process of selling off its national assets. The result of this will be that investing in sovereign debt - ALL sovereign debt, because if one country can do it, then others can as well - will get a LOT more expensive. Because if a country defaults, then you've got no comeback - the country forces its creditors to take the losses whilst hiding behind the cloak of sovereignty. Investors won't like that one little bit, and will hammer the sovereign debt markets. Sovereign bonds are currently regarded as one of the safest investments - if creditors are forced to bear the full brunt of losses, that perception will change, and they will be regarded as significantly higher risk. Which means they'll want more premium for their risk, and so they'll charge more to lend to sovereigns. I support the Greeks in their right to self-determination - if they want to go bankrupt and dodge their liabilities, using sovereignty to pass the full losses onto their creditors, then that's up to them. But it won't just be the Greeks that have to deal with the consequences.

http://www.oldholborn.net/ : What Elephant?

Thu, 14 Apr 2011 22:32:18 +0000

As usual, you're right, OH. Immigration isn't a cause of the problem - it's a symptom. The benefits system pays people not to work, and then immigrants come along and take jobs because getting paid minimum wage over here allows them to live like kings in their own countries. Asylum seekers flock to us because our benefits system is a soft touch, and they know they can milk us for everything we've got. I genuinely have no problem with people coming in this country to work and pay tax. But I would like them to speak English, for I would not dream of moving to another country without being able to speak the language. I also expect them to be tolerant of British culture, as I am whenever I am abroad. The problem we have with immigration is that: a) some immigrants make no effort to integrate, developing insular communities that sit alongside others in a kind of virtual apartheid; b) some immigrants are basically only here to claim benefits, which are paid for by everyone else; c) because of the politically-correct 'equality' bullshit perpetuated throughout the legal system, many ethnic minorities, which are often synonymous with immigration are perceived as having more rights than someone from the ethnic majority. All of which adds up to lots of negative sentiment. It's not that immigration is bad. It's that politicians have refused to even acknowledge that it might have disadvantages.

http://www.oldholborn.net/ : Do as I say, not as I do

Thu, 7 Apr 2011 12:29:48 +0000

Breach of Magna Carta. Traitors if they pass it.

http://www.oldholborn.net/ : Bumper Harvest, Tractor Production UP

Sat, 19 Mar 2011 23:18:47 +0000

You miss the point. I can't speak for everyone who comments on this blog, but I don't personally derive any satisfaction from seeing people suffer. The point is, Comic Relief and any kind of Western-style 'fund-raising' does absolutely FUCK ALL to alleviate poverty in Africa. Did Live-Aid change the world? No. Does Comic Relief lift the continent out of poverty? No. Because the abject poverty that many African nations are stuck in is not caused by a lack of money. Indeed, some African countries have a higher average wealth per person than Western countries! The problem is that it is always a select few at the top who drive around in solid gold Mercedes cars, while the rest of them scrabble around on rubbish heaps for their dinner. The number one cause of poverty in Africa is corruption. Throwing money at them just makes it worse. But charity 'efforts' like Comic Relief employ emotional blackmail techniques to make people hand over money in the mistaken belief that it will help. The reason? So that all the sentimental idiots feel momentarily less guilty about their lifestyles, before they go right back to buying sparkly bits of rock dug out of the ground by African slave labour because they 'look nice'.

Tangent Reality : What to Do About Libya

Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:58:16 +0000

A moral society would consider the lives of its own citizens first. But incidentally, we don't live in a moral society - the real reason that intervention is being considered isn't because of the humanitarian situation, it's because Libya is an oil producer, and we don't want that to stop. Intervention in Rwanda and the Congo could've limited the genocide, but it could have stirred up a whole load of unforeseen trouble. We can't say for sure what would or would not have happened. Isolationism is not impossible. It simply requires the political will to see it through. And that is the difficult part, because politicians of all colours and nationalities are often seduced by power, influence and ultimately, money.

Tangent Reality : What to Do About Libya

Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:41:58 +0000

The alternative is simple: do nothing. Don't get involved. Stay the hell out of it. Don't arm the opposition, don't arm Gaddafi. Refuse to engage with him on any level. Break off diplomatic ties, stop the shipment of anything to or from Libya with the exception of humanitarian supplies. Isolate him completely and utterly. If he tries to leave Libya, arrest him. Should we have intervened in Rwanda and the Congo? No. Should we intervene in Zimbabwe? No. We don't have to fight fire with fire all the time - but neither do we have to engage with such despots. At all. No trade, no diplomatic ties, nothing. Total international isolation. They wouldn't last long.

http://www.oldholborn.net/ : 2011 Census

Mon, 7 Mar 2011 21:36:16 +0000

I've got to admire your guts, OH. Top notch! I have filled mine in, much to my chagrin. I'd love to simply shred it and return it in the envelope, but given that I'm sharing custody of my kids with my ex-wife, the despicable justice system of this country would jump at any chance to deprive me of that, so I have to keep my nose clean. Which means wretched compliance with everything the bastard State demands. I will not be answering the voluntary questions, needless to say. Perhaps filling the religion question in with 'piss off', or the traditional 'Jedi' if I'm feeling polite. But out of interest, how do you plan to defend yourself when the census man comes a-knocking?