Readers’ General Election Poll Results

In the best tradition of John Snow’s “just a bit of fun”, I am about to introduce readers to the results of the past week’s readers’ poll as to their voting intentions in the forthcoming General Election. It may not come as a huge surprise that the results here diverge somewhat from the national opinion polls, but one characteristic is shared by both: the unpopularity of the Liberal Democrats. If this blog’s readers were to determine the future composition of Westminster the Liberal Democrats would be wiped out, for in total, 0% of this blog’s readers voted for them. Likewise, nobody declared in favour of either Respect or Plaid Cymru.

Turning to the ‘don’t knows’, readers are rather more likely to know whom they wish to vote for than the electorate as a whole, with only 9% stating that they do not yet know which party they will vote for on 7 May. Next come four parties with 4% apiece: Conservatives, the English Democrats, Labour and the SNP. Securing the support of 9% of readers are the Green Party, which would become the official opposition in the House of Commons elected by Durotrigan’s readers. However, storming home with a landslide majority are UKIP, who secured the support of 61% of poll participants.

Thus, if we omit the ‘don’t knows’ for the time being, blog readers would return a Parliament looking as follows: on the government benches, led by Nigel Farage, would be 445 UKIP MPs, whilst leading the opposition would be Natalie Bennett with 69 Green MPs. The Conservatives, English Democrats, Labour and the SNP would each ‘boast’ 34 MPs. Somewhere, in a far distant galaxy, perhaps this will be the outcome. As for here, well, we’ll have to wait and see. Watch this space for election commentary.

In the meantime, please feel free to take part in the new readers’ poll ‘What will our Government look like after the 2015 General Election?’ which has now opened and will run until next Sunday evening. 

Green Party Immigration Policy: Reckless and Destructive

Feeling tempted to vote Green? Then think again. Yesterday, the Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett sought to grab the headlines by announcing that the Greens wish to increase spending on social housing from £1.5 billion to £6 billion per annum by 2017, building an additional 500,000 rented ‘homes’ by this year. ‘Homes’? What form would these ‘homes’ take? Would they be the ugly, diminutive battery-style units that have shot up in our increasingly overpopulated land over the past couple of decades, or something else? Where would they be built? Who would occupy them? In fact, if we dig a little further, it is evident that this policy, given the Green approach to immigration, is both ill-founded and grossly inadequate, revealing the Green Party to be anything but environmental in its orientation. Its policies actually veer towards communism rather than towards environmentalism, and if implemented would result in a marked decrease in both environmental and living standards in the UK, in England in particular. 

If one looks at the party’s statements on migration (note its use of the term ‘migration’, rather than ‘immigration’) which were last updated in September 2014, it is clear that these proposed new ‘homes’ would in themselves not meet the demands of the many hundreds of thousands, if not upwards of a million, immigrants who would enter the country if the Greens got their way, for they believe in a world without borders. For most people in the UK – who have not arrived here recently, or who do not who view themselves as possessing a hyphenated identity linking them to some other country – the Green approach to immigration cannot be viewed as appealing in any way. In fact, it is nothing short of recklessly irresponsible, being to the clear detriment of our national environment, way of life, and, indeed, survival. Am I lapsing into hyperbole with respect to their approach to this issue? Judge for yourself by viewing these statements taken from the ‘Migration’ section of its website:

MG102 We are aware that, in the 21^st century, there is likely to be mass migration of people escaping from the consequences of global warming, environmental degradation, resource shortage and population increase.

MG203 Richer regions [by which they mean ‘regions’ of the globe, i.e. nation-states or the EU, for example] do not have the right to use migration controls to protect their privileges from others in the long term.

MG300 We will work to achieve greater equity between the UK and non-Western countries. In step with this, we will progressively reduce UK immigration controls.

MG420 We will resist all attempts to introduce a 'barrier round Europe' shutting out non-Europeans or giving them more restricted rights of movement within Europe than European Nationals.

There are many other statements in line with the above, which make it clear that other than limiting population influxes into Antarctica (scarcely a popular destination for humans, but favoured by emperor penguins) and national parks, the Greens are seemingly open to the idea of concreting over anywhere and everywhere in pursuit of their open-bordered dystopia. Their 500,000-home proposal would not even be adequate to meet the pent-up demand for social housing, for there are currently 1.8 million people on the waiting list. All of these homes, and more, would be needed for a nigh on limitless supply of immigrants, from countries such as Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Nigeria, etc. As well as imposing massive strains upon the economy, public services, utilities, transport infrastructure and the environment, what would this do to an already intensely cleft and fractured ‘society’, lacking any cohering values and sense of identity? 

The Greens are utopian idealists who, if they were provided with the opportunity to actively influence policy, would bring about a deliberate and calculated massive decline in the living standards of people in this country, as well as a significant degradation of this country’s environment. The Green Party cannot be adjudged to be an environmentalist party, for its policies actively promote massive population expansion at the expense of the natural environment. It cannot claim to be a party of social justice, as it seeks to snuff out the existence of the peoples of Europe and to reduce the living standards of UK and European citizens.

The Green Party gives expression to a poisonous strand of masochistic thought in the UK and other European societies that sees our country, and other European and developed nations, as being the authors of all of the ills in the world. The Green Party seeks to punish us for ‘sins’ that we have never committed. Given this, who, in their right mind, if they happen to be English, Welsh, Scots or Irish, would vote for the Greens? If you genuinely care for the environment and a sustainable approach to population and resource use, do not vote Green. If you support the principles of democracy, and subscribe to the belief that politics, ultimately, should be concerned with the business of improving the wellbeing of the citizenry, then do not vote Green. If you believe that the Green Party will be different to all of the others because it is more honest and will not lie, think again. On 18 January the Guardian reported that Natalie Bennett had stated on the Andrew Marr Show that ‘the party did not have an open-door policy on immigration, but those who have a right to immigrate should be entitled to exercise that right. She also questioned why Germany had been willing to take 20,000 refugees from Syria, and the UK figure was in the low hundreds.’ How does that square with the Green Party’s clear and unequivocal policy statements on immigration? It doesn’t. The Green Party might look fluffy, but at its heart, lies something rather sinister, and fundamentally anti-progressive. Do not be duped!

Suzanne Evans pulls out of Question Time

This is disappointing news, that caused George Galloway to issue a tweet stating 'UKIP have pulled out of tonight's Question Time. Cowards.' Hardly fair, given that Evans is ill. Galloway was therefore forced to eat his words.

Question Time: George Galloway versus Jonathan Freedland?

Tonight’s Question Time will be broadcast from Finchley, and judging from the panel it seems that it has been set up to engineer a confrontation between George Galloway and “Liberal Zionist” and Guardian journalist, Jonathan Freedland. Presumably, Tower Hamlets would have been Galloway’s preferred London location, taking into account his ethno-confessional predilections, but instead he finds himself in rather different territory where the local residents are not likely to be so . . . how can I put this? Receptive to his message?  

So, prepare yourself to sit back and watch a lot of ranting and raving about conflicts in faraway lands which really shouldn’t be any of our concern. Unfortunately, however, it turns out that they are our concern, insofar as we now have so many millions of residents from the said faraway lands that they have brought their bigotries with them and their hatreds are being played out on our soil.  

I anticipate that Nicky Morgan and Tristram Hunt will make for very dull viewing, dutifully and mechanically trotting out their respected party lines, but quite what to expect of UKIP’s Suzanne Evans, I’m not sure, but as she has taken on Tim Aker’s policy brief for the party, I will be keen to hear what she says and reveals, if anything, about UKIP’s forthcoming manifesto. Once the programme moves away from the inevitable ding-dong between Galloway and Friedman over Palestine/Israel, I am hoping that Evans will shake things up a little. Will any members of the audience or panellists pick up on Galloway’s recent Bradford speech, in which he attacked Charlie Hebdo and effectively called for a global blasphemy law to protect Islam? I hope so. If you haven’t heard his speech, or are curious to view a summary, click here.  

Review: Digging For Britain, BBC4

Alice Roberts and Matt Williams co-hosted the latest instalment in BBC4’s ‘Digging for Britain’ series, providing viewers with the first of four regional updates relating to significant British archaeological finds made during 2014. Tonight’s episode focused upon East Anglia and the Southeast, taking in a wide variety of sites spanning from the Bronze Age to the Civil War. Sitting in the impressive setting of Norwich Castle Museum, the duo chatted to individuals who had overseen the featured excavations, questioning them as to their significance, and any specific findings that have changed our knowledge, or perceptions, of our island forebears.

The first site to be featured, and one of the most interesting, was Must Farm in Cambridgeshire, where archaeologists have discovered evidence of fishing during the Bronze Age “on an industrial scale”, involving the widespread use of wattle wears and fish traps in the River Nene, with some twenty such traps having come to light. Furthermore, large numbers of pieces of metalwork have been found, including swords, spearheads and other items. Interestingly, many swords betray the fact that they have been used in combat, through the distinctive nicks in the sides of their blades. Eight well-preserved log boats were also found in only 300 metres of channel, suggesting that the area would have been well settled at the time of their creation. An oversized ceremonial dirk was also discovered, bent out of shape, representing, it was said the “ritual killing of the object.”

Colchester yielded some interesting finds from a Roman house in the Boudiccan destruction layer, burned down during the anti-Roman revolt in AD61. Charred foodstuffs showed that the householder in question may have been enjoying – or intending to enjoy – a meal which included figs, dates, peas and wheat when the house was levelled by fire. The mistress of the house had hidden her jewellery – earrings, armlets, chains and rings – in a hoard that had lain undisturbed from the date of its deposition to its discovery in the excavation. Human remains – parts of a mandible and tibia – were discovered just outside of the house, bearing what appeared to be slashing injuries inflicted by weaponry, such as a sword. Cassius Dio was quoted in his description of what happened to the richest female inhabitants of Britain’s early Roman towns sacked by the Boudiccan rebels; their fate was gory, for they were said to have met their end in ritual sacrifices conducted in sacred groves dedicated to the British goddess of victory (presumably Andraste, although the programme did not mention her by name), involving the sort of torments beloved by ISIS militants: skewering lengthways. Then again, was Dio’s account merely Roman propaganda? At a guess, given the barbarity with which history is replete, I suspect not.

Oakington in Cambridgeshire played host to the discovery of a significant sixth-century Anglo-Saxon cemetery containing 124 graves, 30% of which belonged to infants. A number of the burials belonged to high-status women, one, strangely, being buried with the entire carcass of a cow for throwing parties in the afterlife.

Thence the programme moved on to what was “a bustling royal centre” in seventh-century Lyminge in Kent, although discovering evidence of its royal hall involved ripping up the village green and leaving it looking rather less appealing than it had done beforehand. We were then transported through a thousand years of history to the most modern excavation site featured – Basing House – which finally fell to the Parliamentarians after a two-year siege on 14 October 1645. The remains of one of the poor devils defending the Postern Gate were discovered, with his head decapitated and a large sword mark across the top of his cranium.

The programme finished, perhaps appropriately given that 2014 marked the final year of excavations in a run of 18 successive seasons at the site, in Silchester, or Calleva Atrebatum as the Romans knew it. New discoveries in a grand house in insula 3 – specifically fragments of “Nero tiles” – took us back to the period immediately following Boudicca’s rebellion, and speculation that Nero had either channelled money into Calleva either directly or through a client king, to help shore up Roman rule in southern and western Britain.

All in all, the sites featured were interesting, although none of the artefacts matched the dazzling brilliance of some of the finds made in the Staffordshire Hoard, or indeed, in the Snettisham Hoard discovered in Norfolk. What awaits us in the next three programmes of the series? Whether they should be treasures of gold and silver, or rather more humble offerings of semi-decayed wattle and wood, they will serve to illuminate further the forgotten ages of our land, and help to bring the lives of our ancestors into more vivid relief.

James Herriot turns in his grave

It’s a far cry from the cosy world of James Herriot with whom Thirsk has been associated for decades, for this is no tale of vets trying to alleviate animal suffering, but of sadistic practices in a North Yorkshire halal abattoir. Not only are animals slaughtered legally on the premises of Bowood Lamb, employing halal methods which inflict unnecessary and avoidable suffering, but a number of Muslim slaughtermen working at the facility have routinely added an additional layer of gratuitous cruelty to the process. This was uncovered by an investigation undertaken by Animal Aid carried out over three days last December which revealed:

•  Sheep kicked in the face; smashed into solid objects headfirst; picked up and hurled by legs, fleeces, throats and ears.
•  A worker standing on the neck of a conscious sheep, then bouncing up and down.
• Slaughterhouse workers erupting into laughter at a sheep bleeding to death with spectacles drawn around her eyes in green paint.
•  A worker holding a sheep by her throat and pulling back a fist as if to punch her.
• Slaughtermen taunting and frightening the sheep by waving knives, smacking them on the head and shouting at them.
• Slaughtermen hacking away at the throats of still-conscious sheep.
• There can be no justification for such maltreatment of animals, just as there can be no rational justification for either halal or kosher slaughter without pre-stunning.

It probably came as a surprise to you, as it did to me, that the North Yorkshire town of Thirsk was home to a halal abattoir. That such a business can be operating in an English market town goes some way to explaining how it is that such a large percentage of lamb in this country – some 37% last year – is slaughtered in accordance with halal practices, given that it far exceeds the percentage of the population of this country that is Muslim. It raises the question as to how many of us are unknowingly and unwittingly eating halal-slaughtered meat, when if we knew that this were the case, would be sure not to purchase the said product.

If you wish to see an end to the practice of religious slaughter without pre-stunning, then I would urge you to sign the ‘End non-stun slaughter to promote animal welfare’petition that as of this evening had garnered over 107,000 signatures. Furthermore, an additional petition has been created entitled ‘Make CCTV mandatory for all slaughterhouses’, calling upon Parliament to legislate with a view to stopping abuses such as those filmed by Animal Aid at Bowood Lamb in Thirsk. When I viewed it this evening, it had gained over 88,000 signatures. If it receives over 100,000, it will have to be debated in Parliament. 

UKIP's Call: Siren, or Clarion?

UKIP appear to have two solid policy objectives: to leave the EU, and to introduce a points-based immigration system. All well and good, but beyond that, what do we really know? Granted, these two issues are very important, and the three mainstream parties - along with the Greens, the SNP and Plaid Cymru - all possess the same policies regarding these themes:  they are pro-EU and pro-mass immigration. In this respect, UKIP is clearly the party of choice for those voters who dislike the EU political project and a de facto open borders immigration policy.  

In 2009 following UKIP’s strong performance in that year’s EU elections, Lord Pearson approached David Cameron and offered to disband UKIP if the latter would commit the Conservative Party to a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Although this never occurred, it was suggestive that UKIP really was a single-issue party. Subsequently, Nigel Farage has described UKIP’s 2010 General Election manifesto as “drivel.” So, what do UKIP stand for? 

We have yet to discover the party’s manifesto for the May 2015 General Election, so it is not yet possible to discover whether or not it should be classified as “drivel”, but a posting on the UKIP website from earlier this week, entitled ‘100 days till the election, 100 reasons to vote UKIP’, appears to forward a list of 100 concrete policy suggestions, but will they translate into policy pledges? Upon an initial reading, the majority of these suggestions are ones that I would support, but it is hard to discern how UKIP proposes to tackle the deficit and finance its pledges which involve additional public expenditure. Simply leaving the EU, slashing the foreign aid budget and ending mass immigration would not in themselves plug the budgetary black hole. Then again, nothing offered by the established political parties regarding tackling the deficit, let alone the national debt, appears to be overly credible.

It therefore remains to be seen if UKIP can successfully transform itself from a single- or dual-issue vehicle of popular protest shouting “none of the above!”, into a fully-fledged political party with a cohesive set of policies that move beyond a populist cry of frustration and discontent. From an initial reading, its ‘100 reasons to vote UKIP’ suggest that the party has moved away, to a certain extent, from its earlier Atlanticist Thatcherite bent, which is encouraging. Whether or not UKIP is offering a siren or a clarion call, well, I shall reserve judgement until the manifesto is published.

 

Interactive General Election Opinion Poll

Out of curiosity, I have decided to poll blog readers regarding their political preferences in the forthcoming May General Election. This poll is, of course, open to those who have the right to vote in the UK. Unfortunately, I have no means of verifying the citizenship of participants, so must rely upon the honesty of my readers in submitting their responses. If you should happen to tick the ‘Some other Party’ option, please feel free to let me know which party this would be in the comments section of this blog posting.  

So, the question is, which party are you most likely to vote for at the next General Election? I have of course arranged the parties alphabetically, rather than in order of personal preference. The poll opens tonight, and runs for a week. Thereafter, the results will be collated, and a fresh poll, which hopefully will be of interest to readers, will be posted.