Tax is NOT the solution to everything

Mr. Urquhart enjoys a wee dram every so often and the occasional cherry at Christmas just like many other Britons. Also like many Britons he resents being taxed into oblivion by this wretched New Labour Government, and being patronised by ‘experts’ who hold the ear of Government.

So he reads with undisguised venom that a certain Professor Ian Gilmore of the Royal College of Physicians has recommended that alcohol, particularly cider, should be hammered (no pun intended) with tax increases to deter ‘binge drinkers’.

F.U. dislikes the view among members of the Government and the ‘experts’ that advise them that taxation is the way to correct problems. Surely there are more ways to tackle irresponsible drinking rather than slapping a higher tax price tag on booze? Better education? Not granting pubs 24 hours licenses? Apparently not.

He also finds it bloody ridiculous that responsible drinkers and consumers generally must pay the price for the abuses and excesses of a sizeable minority. Besides, F.U. asks, shouldn’t the individual be able to make his own decisions regarding his lifestyle without being subject to an overbearing Nanny State?

Prof. Gilmore speaking at a responsible drinking conference even went as far as to endorse a Nanny State. He said: "The Government is anxious about the nanny state, but I think the harm done by alcohol is such that nannying would be in order."

Mr. Urquhart is pretty sure that the Labour Government doesn’t need any encouragement to increase its already bloated nannying. How long will it be before enjoying a pint or two in your local will be simply unaffordable? Not too long if the likes of Gilmore has his way.

Another Dirty Socialist throws his hat in the ring…

Former arch-Blairite John Cruddas has thrown his grubby little hat into the ring to become the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. F.U. hopes this unpleasant turn-coat socialist gets elected so that the Labour Party can take the lunge to the Left that so many of its members are crying out for.

Cruddas is the Member of Parliament for Dagenham, and was a Political Secretary to Tony Blair up until 2001. Cruddas was, therefore, in the thick of the New Labour experiment and should take his share of the blame for ripping the Labour Party away from its ‘socialist’ roots and hurtling it towards its filthy occupation of the political ‘middle ground’. But now he has turned his back on Blairism and has embraced the need for “change”. In change, Mr. Urquhart suggests, one should read “return to a defunct socialist legacy”.

Apparently after leaving the cushy and comfortable confines of 10 Downing Street Cruddas became disillusioned with Blair and his alleged politics of “aspiration.” The streets of working class Dagenham and all the inherent hardships that come with it showed Cruddas all the people Labour had left behind. So he says.

Nevermind all the hard working middle classes that New Labour has systematically taxed to the hilt, eh? Nevermind the real backbone of the country that Labour has been killing for nearly ten years.

F.U. hopes Cruddas gets the Deputy Leadership of the Labour Party, to hammer the final nail into the coffin of New Labour. Cruddas is a crud candidate for a crud party, and F.U. wishes him all the luck in the world.

German EU Presidency looks a little like Orwell's 1984

As F.U. trundled his way to work this morning, ensconced in his filthy railway carriage, he nearly had a stroke when he read a particularly chilling article in The Daily Telegraph (2nd February 2007) detailing the latest act of subtle oppression the European Union is willing to inflict upon the freedom of the individual. See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/02/weu02.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_02022007

The ever-creeping tentacles of the EU are now hungry to clamp down on freedom of speech, expression and intellectual pursuit by tabling a new piece of legislation designed to outlaw “genocide denial”.

It will, if the Germans have their way, be an offence under EU law to question the historical validity of even the existence of various genocides, extending their vicious clampdown on anyone who denies the Holocaust. It would appear that Orwell’s prediction of the “thought crime” has become a serious reality, Mr. Urquhart notes.

The next of this draft charter banning freedom of speech says: "Each member state shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the following intentional conduct is punishable: 'publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising of crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined in'... the Statute of the ICC." So what does this amount to?

It amounts to, in F.U.’s estimation, the European Union creating an Official History. This has been the hallmark of some of the most oppressive and wicked regimes throughout history including Nazi Germany (oops, don’t mention the war), Stalin’s Soviet Union, and Pol Pot’s Cambodia. F.U. maintains that it is a fundamental characteristic of a modern and mature democratic nation to allow dogmatic orthodoxies to be challenged, analysed and reassessed, how spurious, incredibly, offensive or utterly stupid they may be. Outlawing these views will not lead to their destruction, but merely avoid them been properly demolished in the freedom of the arena of open debate.

Free and open access to the world's history, with the ability to reassess it and draw one's own conclusions is an inviolable right of any human being. Indeed, one might construe it as a right to self-determination even, which is already enshrined as an inalienable human entitlement. Through studying history and making one's own conclusions, one understands who one is, and where one came from. This is an area in which Governments, Courts, and Legislatures have absolutely no role to play, Mr. Urquhart asserts.

If this is the flavour that the already oppressive, undemocratic, and dictatorial EU is taking, then F.U. would suggest all nations that value that little ickle thing called free speech should serious consider pulling out.

It smacks of Orwell’s 1984, quite frankly, and F.U. like any other decent freedom loving Briton should be up in arms about it.

Keep the scroungers out of the casinos

F.U. is slightly taken aback at all the fuss that is being kicked up regarding the go-ahead being given to Manchester for a super casino, and for other casinos to be sprinkled across the kingdom. What exactly is the big deal?

Loads of commentators including the usually sensible Simon Heffer of the The Daily Telegraph (31st January) have started bleating on about it as though it is the end of the world. In Mr. Urquhart’s number opinion it really isn’t anything to get your knickers in a twist over.

People can gamble anytime they like in this country, and they do. This is evidenced by the thriving bookmaking business in the United Kingdom. Having a cluster of casinos won’t make much difference there.

Many of the anti-casino brigade, in desperation for a reason why there shouldn’t be casino based gambling provision in Britain, state that there is a moral case against their operation, and that the Government is at fault for facilitating gambling. Mr. Heffer struck a particularly sensationalist note by saying we might as well legalise prostitution and drug taking. F.U. thinks he should remember that the Government isn't making people gamble, it is merely providing them with the choice. Although, Mr. Urquhart does find it odd that an allegedly 'democratic socialist' government should make such an offering at the Temple of Greed.

But regardless, shouldn’t private individuals, F.U. suggests, have the freedom to decide whether they gamble or not? Hark, no! For gambling hath ruined many a life! This is true, Mr. Urquhart would riposte, but so has drinking, smoking, and the plethora of human vices, and these operate perfectly within the sanction of the law. Frankly, it is faintly reminiscent of the time of Oliver Cromwell to slap these moralistic overblown concerns over activities such as gambling.

F.U.’s only major concern about gambling and the construction of casinos in Britain is that down-and-outs, welfare dependents and the panoply of scroungers and idlers that clog up this country, never getting up off of their economically stagnant arses don’t swarm to the casinos to spend their dole more. He says “their” but actually it is the taxpayers’ money.

Perhaps the only major regulation fit for casinos in Britain would be ensuring that all of those who squander their money on the one arm bandits, blackjack, poker, and the roulette wheel are not being drip fed money from the state. Make ‘em show proof of income!

A Labour MP Hypocrite? Surely not!

Well, well, well…would you believe it, says F.U., Dr. Des Turner, Labour MP for Brighton Kemptown was nicked just before Christmas for drink driving.

So what? Mr. Urquhart can hear you say. Members of Parliament are only human (except John Prescott who is half-man half-pie), and prone to all the human vices, inadequacies and contraventions of the rules; moreover it is arguably healthy for our representation in the House of Commons to have these 'human' facets. But Dr. Des is a prominent campaigner against drink driving, and was a lead member of the “Des” – Designated Driver initiative.

In the same way that disgraced Keith Vaz MP carps on and on about 'violent computer games', Dr. Des makes his political impact by talking about drink driving. F.U. supposes Des can talk with greater authority on that subject now. Come to think of it, Mr. Urquhart wouldn't mind giving Keith Vaz a thrashing or two on Doom, or Mortal Kombat so that Mr. Vaz can comment with even great gravitas on his chosen specialist area.

Fear not, pissed up MPs won't be thundering down your street in their flash Saabs just yet, as Des only had “one or two, not that much”.

Not much? Enough to plough into the back of another vehicle, Des. Another hypocritical dipshit is on the Labour benches. Surprise surprise.

The Aussies don’t realise how lucky they are to have Howard

F.U. notes that the people of Australia don’t realise how lucky they are to have the Hon. John Howard MP as their Prime Minister.

Mr Howard is without doubt the most successful conservative leader since Margaret Thatcher. The Australians are lucky to have him, and this has come sharply into focus within the past view days when Howard slammed ridiculous suggestions that the Australian flag is to be banned from the well known outdoor rock concert ‘The Big Day Out’ because it might cause tensions. Apparently, according to these PC cretins, it might cause “racism disguised as patriotism”.

It seems that political correctness is a problem in Oz as well.

Howard was having none of it though. He said: "The event organisers should not ram their peculiar political views down the throats of young Australians who are only interested in a good day out."

The Aussie PM has a feel for the public mood, tapping into commonsense. He also said that the idea that the Commonwealth’s flag should ever be prohibited in display "is offensive and it will be to millions of Australians". Damn right, mate.

F.U. wishes that the United Kingdom had such a Prime Minister, unafraid to stick two fingers up to the politically correct liberal elite and their bizarre and offensive views.

Could another peer be joining UKIP?

Rumours are rife that another peer is ready to pack up his ermine and join the UK Independence Party. The current speculation is that Margaret Thatcher’s former Trade and Industry Secretary, David Young, Lord Young of Graffham is having his loyalty to the Tory Party tested to the very limit. Apparently Lord Young met up with the rising star leader of UKIP, Nigel Farage MEP, for ‘breakfast’. That’s one round of toast, tea and marmalade F.U. wishes he was a fly on the wall for.

Mr. Urquhart wonders how easy it is for a peer to decide to ditch the Conservative benches to join the UKIP ones, after all they don’t have the face the onslaught of the electorate, and wonders if a Member of the lower house could ever be pushed to such breaking. F.U. suspects that several MPs on the Tory benches have probably been approached. And it’s probably not too hard to figure out which ones, either. But, not for the first time, Mr. Urquhart has more confidence in the individual consciences and integrities of members of the Lords, rather than the Commons. He is not holding hid breath.

Does the UK Independence Party have a particular appeal to the titled aristocracy, one might ask? Well, F.U. says we know that Charles Manners, the 11th Duke of Rutland has held fundraising events at Belvoir Castle. Perhaps His Grace might throw his coronet in the ring the next time a hereditary peer dies, and join his brother peers on the UKIP benches. Richard Bridgeman, the 8th Earl of Bradford supports the Eurosceptic party. The same could apply.

F.U. wonders how long it will take for even more Tory peers to jump ship, and turn the famous red benches purple. Would F.U. be tempted if he were a Peer of the Realm, with no electorate to appease?

Not bloody likely. The Conservative Party is well over 150 years old, with some of the greatest leaders of the English Speaking World drawn from its ranks. F.U. might not always agree with every tone of party policy but nor would he associate himself with some of the less than admirable looneys nestled in the UKIP ranks.