The Wilted Rose

Charting Labour meltdown 2007-2010

You don’t expect baby murderers to ban smacking, do you?

At PMQs the Speaker asked Gordon Brown to use ‘temperate language’.  On this subject I’m afraid I will have to refrain from temperate language.

Yesterday, Brown made a speech about his commitment to liberty, which is a joke given his commitment to increasing the detention limit from 28 days to something like 56 days.  It is a joke, considering his Government’s policies on the liberty of the unborn child.  The liberty to be born.  The right to life.  All thrown aside for the right to a medieval practice that has no place in a civilised country.

Some campaigners, who are often the very same people who support abortion, are furious with the Government for not banning smacking.  I personally could never smack a child, but many parents do; criminalising parents would be asburd.  But do you really expect baby murderers to ban smacking?

The science proves that at 22 and 23 weeks (by the way, around 5 months of pregnancy) babies are not only fully formed, but viable, i.e. they have a chance of survival.  As the brave MP Nadine Dorries points out on her blog, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists study which Dawn Primarolo used to avoid reducing the abortion limit from 24 weeks,

“It failed to mention the Hoekstra study which demonstrates how with good neonatal intervention, 66% of all babies (that is babies born naturally because there may have been medical complications not healthy babies aborted) at 23 weeks live.

“It failed to mention how in the UK at good neonatal units such as UCH London and Hope hospital in Salford, 43% of 23 weekers live.

“Instead it chose to quote a study which averages out births at all hospitals across the UK, which puts the figure at 10 -15%.”

That makes the Labour Government baby murderers (the RCOG are anyway, and they sully the name of doctors), aided and abetted by the likes of Dr Evil Harris MP. 

What exactly happens to a baby (not a foetus, or an embryo, which are dehumanising medical words) when he or she – a potential Ben or Emily – is ripped from the womb?  If not already dead, the baby is murdered by the medical team responsible for the abortion.  We are not here talking about abortion at 5 or 10 weeks, where the baby may look less baby-like though I believe it is equally wrong, but about the killing of a viable baby in the womb (or after being forced from the womb).  Evidence from the US shows that babies feel pain during abortions.

Even Lord Steel, a man who has much blood on his hands for his Private Members Bill to legalise ‘abortion on demand’ in the 60s, is now appalled by the fact that there are around 200,000 abortions per year.  These are due to the social breakdown, and immorality, that has ripped apart the fabric of this country.  Almost 200,000 of our fellow Britons are denied the right to life, so the day after Ms Primarolo’s despicable decision is hardly a day for Brown to make a speech about liberty. 

And, frankly, it would be ludicrous of this Labour Government to ban smacking when it has given the green light to many more murders of babies in the womb who could survive, who are fully formed, but somehow are denied the right to life because they have not yet been born.  Worse still, these murdered little souls will never be able to vote but the babies’ murderous “mothers” do have a vote and that seems to be what the Government is calculating in this decision.  Anyone who cares about the right to babies to life, however, should never vote Labour.

Advertisements

26 October, 2007 Posted by | abortion, betrayal, kids, Labour Party, NHS, politics, shame, social breakdown | 2 Comments

Labour’s war on animals – now badgers must die

Labour pretended that it was the friend of animals, to get the ‘animal lover vote’, by implementing the unenforceable ban on fox-hunting.

But we all know that Labour does not care about animal welfare when it will not ban the torture of animals in laboratories for “medical research” etc, which is bad science because the physiology – and reaction of animals to chemicals etc – is different from humans.

The culling of tens of thousands of sheep and other farm animals during the Foot and Mouth outbreak in 2001, rather than vaccinating, because “it would damage the export trade” is more proof.

I was one of many who wrote to the minister, Ben Bradshaw, protesting against the proposals to cull badgers, a protected species under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and a much-loved animal.  A Government report indicated that a bagder cull would not stop the spread of Bovine TB.  95% of the public is against  a cull.

And now we have the Government’s Chief Scumbag (sorry, Chief “Scientist”), ‘Professor’ David King, proposing a despicable murder of innocent badgers and overruling the findings of the report.  Since when does one individual, who clearly harbours a genocidal hatred of badgers, have the right to overrule a report by respected independent advisers and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992?

Badgers are blameless in all this.  It grieves me to see cows having to be culled, but again – just like the refusal to vaccinate during Foot & Mouth because it would “damage the export trade” – this is all about money and greed.  The National Farmers Union should be ashamed of its support for a badger cull.

The Government must overrule ‘Professor’ King, and if it does not MPs must act to stop this breach of the 1992 Act (if not technically, at least in spirit).

23 October, 2007 Posted by | animal welfare, badgers, Labour Party, politics | 3 Comments

The TPA has won the argument, but can someone please tell Labour?

The TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA), which was only formed in 2004 by Andrew Allum, Matthew Elliott and Florence Heath “to represent taxpayers and to fight for lower taxes”, has won the argument on taxes.  The old consensus, which formed some time in the 1990s, that taxes should not be cut but in fact should be raised in certain circumstances, has been well and truly broken by the TPA.

Whilst the TPA has won the argument on tax – for example, Labour scrambled to make a pale imitation of George Osborne’s brilliant inheritance tax proposals – elements of the Labour left are still influencing Government policies.

No doubt the business start-up rate will fall, and indeed there may be a rush to sell small firms, due to the despicable increase in Capital Gains Tax from 10% to 18%.  This was a sop to the Trades Unions, who promise to fund Labour’s election whenever that is, who have been aggravating about Private Equity bosses for years.  Whilst the CGT increase means that Private Equity Bosses still pay less than the 20% lower band tax paid by everyone else, this measure has inadvertently penalised many small business owners.  We all knew that Brown never meant what he said about entrepreneurship, and ‘enterprise for all’, and in fact all he has achieved is damaging the British economy and the main creators of new jobs – small firms.

It was reported that £1.4bn of taxes are being raised by Darling’s “mini budget”, for example by robbing pension funds (again) and many other tax-raising, entrepreneurship-harming, family-crushing measures.

More gallingly, today’s Telegraph reports that a Labour ‘opinion former’, an adviser to Brown, recommends replacing council tax with a new income tax:

“Take Council Tax away from the local authorities and make it a national property tax, easier to administer; easier to administer more fairly. Cap the property tax by reference to income, to solve the problem of the asset rich, income poor households. But don’t do any of this without serious investment in public sector skills to capture the benefit of change.”

Yes, Council Tax is unfair, but if Labour were to go down this road they would risk experiencing the same slump in popularity that the Tories achieved when they introduced the Community Charge.  Indeed, this could be Labour’s own poll tax.  Brown is so risk averse that it is unlikely he would go down this road, but one never knows.

The TPA has won the argument on taxation, so it is time that someone actually told Labour that this is the case.  Their tax-raising ‘mini-budget’, and the fact that the TPA is leading the debate on policy, has already contributed to a slump in the Government’s fall in the opinion polls. 

Such policy measures may have been popular with Labour’s ‘core vote’ when it governed in 1945-1950, 1964-1970 and 1974-1979, but (a) Labour lost the subsequent election, and (b) the Labour ‘core vote’ is not the old socialist, ‘soak-the-rich’ (i.e. soak-the-middle-classes) types of generations past.  Many people who have voted Labour since 1997 are exactly the sort of people who would be damaged by such a measure.

Think again, Gordon et al, the TPA has won the argument.  If you go down the road of a new property/income tax, you will be well and truly obliterated at the following election.  But actually that would quite suit the youngsters, such as David Miliband, who can’t wait to get the top job, but by then the top job will  be Leader of the Opposition in a Labour Party that will be out of power for a long time.

17 October, 2007 Posted by | economy, Gordon Brown, Labour Party, politics, public sector, taxation | 1 Comment