Transatlantic Tory

So, Lord Mandelson reckons that Bob Diamond is the unacceptable face of banking.  Why should a director at Barclays be singled out for criticism in this way?  After all, Barclays is one of only two major British banks which has neither required support from the British taxpayer, nor been taken over by the Spanish.  I suspect that is Mandelson’s real problem – Socialists prefer businesses that fail.

So what was Bob Diamond’s crime?  Mandelson lays two criticisms at his feet – that he is overpaid and that he doesn’t benefit society.  Has Lord Mandelson ever taken a look in the mirror?  His current non-job as “Secretary of State for Business and Innovation and Skills” and previous employment as “European Commissioner for Trade” are surely two of the greatest non-jobs in history, with extortionate salaries, expenses and administrative costs, born by the taxpayer.  If anyone is employed to “push pieces of paper around”, Lord Mandelson is he.  By contrast, Bob Diamond has successfully generated substantial income for the UK economy and, via taxation, the treasury.  He has helped to secure the high-skilled jobs that any worthwhile Business Secretary would support and encourage.

The future of British Business and Enterprise looks pretty bleak with the likes of Mandelson and his comrades in government – particularly those many unelected Socialists who sit beside him in the House of Lords – at the helm.  Thank goodness the election is only a month away now.

We all know that Africa suffers from a lot of troubles.  Economically deprived, chronically corrupt, ravished by a seemingly endless string of wars and political upheavals with many lacking access to basic amenities like food and clean water, let alone things that we take for granted in the west, such as education, health services and electricity.  In some African nations, HIV infects the majority of the population.

With all those problems to deal with, you’d think that world leaders would have their hands pretty full.  Apparently not.  Today, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband have both waded into the row about abortion in Africa.  The Ignatieff’s Federal Liberal Party of Canada seems to think that offering all African women access to baby-killing services should be high on the international agenda.  Sensibly enough, PM Steven Harper has refused to do so at the forthcoming meeting of the G7, which he is due to host.

So why is it that the Leftist governments of the States and Britain and equally opposition in Canada view killing unborn babies as such a panacea for Africa’s many problems?  Shouldn’t they be focusing on bigger issues, like ensuring that the children who are allowed to be born have access to clean water, education and peace, so that one day Africa may be able to enjoy the western lifestyles?  It may be a long way off, but some countries such as Ghana, Zambia and Botswana are already making real progress.  They should be upheld as beacons of hope for Africans suffering under the despotic regimes in DRC, Zimbabwe, Darfur and elsewhere.

I believe that there is a simple reason why the Left is kicking up such a stink about offering all African women abortions.  Without it, the media may instead focus on the failures of so many western governments to deal with the genuine problems in Africa.  Anything that keeps Darfur off the front pages will be welcomed in the White House and Ten Downing Street, who have stood by as genocide has taken place, despite claims by both governments that they have embraced new ethical foreign policies.

With the forthcoming general election in Britain set to see one of the nastiest campaigns in history, as a desperate Labour government seeks to cling onto power, we can expect a lot of “Baby-eating” accusations flung at the Conservatives there – by the Trots at the Mirror and the Labour Blogs.  The Labour Government’s support for these baby-killing plans could come back to haunt them.

So much for the special relationship between Britain and the US.  After years of laying down British lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, isn’t it time for some support back from the States?  Yet Obama doesn’t even feel able to offer words of support when the Argies try to blockade British territory in the south Atlantic.  Instead, he declares his country to be neutral.

It was understandable when the Marxist Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chavez, declared his support for Argentina.  He has never shown any interest in democracy, so I wouldn’t expect him to give a damn about the opinions of Falkland Islanders, who don’t want to be taken over by a corrupt Argentine regime.  Whilst Obama may share his Marxist ideals with Chavez, one would have hoped that the leader of the Free World would have had some regard for democracy.

Sadly not.

Join Keep the Falklands British on Facebook

h/t Telegraph blogs

At today’s AGM of the Calgary Centre Conservative Electoral District Association, Lee Richardson defended the decision to prorogue Parliament.  The decision has proven controversial, and has been blamed for the drop in Conservative support in recent opinion polls.  I have to admit that I was none to keen on the decision, it being an alien concept to me given that it never happens back in the UK.  However, I certainly thought that Lee made a good case.

In summary, he said that it was quite normal for Parliament to return from the Christmas break towards the end of January, and that it normally rises for the Olympics, when attention is elsewhere.  That would have left only two weeks between restarting Parliament, before then closing it again and it would have been impossible to do anything in that time.  Instead, the Government has been able to spend time talking to Canadians across the country.  Normally, MPs are able to spend a considerable amount of time in their constituencies, talking to the general public, but that has been difficult in a hung parliament, which has required MPs to spend more time in Ottawa in case a tight vote arises at short notice.

Meanwhile, prorogation is not an unusual situation in Canadian democracy.  Parliament has been prorogued 105 times since Confederation, with the average duration of a session standing at 122 days.  The last Parliamentary session was actually longer than average, at 138 days.

Finally, there was the difference between adjourning and proroguing.  The former involves suspending a Parliamentary sessions, whereas the latter ends the session.  The advantages of the latter are twofold.   Firstly, it saves taxpayers’ money.  When Parliament is adjourned, the committee chairmen continue to receive their allowances.  In a prorogued parliament, there are no committees, so no chairmen to pay.  Secondly, prorogation resets the committees.  That means that the new committees in the Senate will reflect the new balance of power, meaning that the Liberals will lose their inbuilt majorities and the associated opportunity to filibuster.

It’s worth noting that the legislation that was not passed before the prorogation will not be lost.  A simple vote of the House of Commons can restore the Bills to their pre-prorogation status and pass them onto the Senate to debate.

That all being said, the CPC really needs to improve its PR operation.  The Opposition got a real jump on the government in the propaganda war on this one.  It’s time to learn from those mistakes, or we’ll never see a Conservative majority government in Canada.

The European Union makes much of its position as the world’s largest single market.  Europhiles decry British Eurosceptics as “Little Englanders” determines to cling to the Britain of old in the face of inevitable progress.  They simply can’t comprehend any other reason why we might object to handing our hard-earned freedom and national sovereignty to an unelected regime in Brussels.

Well, maybe the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom will clear things up.  The second free-est nation in Europe is Switzerland.  That oasis of independence in a sea of EU-induced bureaucracy, which continues to hold out hope that Britain may one day enjoy an independent future once more.

Most startlingly, one area that EU states fall down is freedom of trade!  That great trading block that developed out of the European Economic Community, aka the Common Market, restricts international trade more than independence loving Switzerland.

So, can I once again point out to the Europhiles, that they are the inward looking (if not backward looking) ones, while those of us they decry as Little Englanders are often freedom-loving internationalists.  Why else do they think that so many Brits now emigrate to Canada (7th free-est) and Australia (3rd free-est)?  Canadian trade regulations are amongst the least restrictive in the world, and it’s no accident that the Canadian economy is also amongst the world’s strongest.

Pauline Hanson is in for a shock!