Is Nick Clegg Another David Cameron?

Haider Ali

22/2/10

Well clearly it has to be considered a silly comparison by any stretch of the imagination. Many see Nick Clegg as a fresh-faced, bold and perhaps to some degree a black sheep amongst the three main leaders of our national parties.

Parallels have been made between the two: they are both in their forties, married men; have a polished appearance, unlike the moping and desolate man that cuts a figure known to many as Gordon Brown. But is this enough to constitute a comparison?

The problem with this is the media in Britain, much like its counterparts in the United States are far too interested in an image of a person as opposed to the policies the party and indeed the man leading the party are offering. Recently in the press, David Tenant (the recently retired  Dr. Who), stated that he would never vote David Cameron above Gordon Brown: “I would much rather vote for the cleverest man in the room than the man who looks the best”. These sentiments accurately convey what the problem with David Cameron is, lest not forgetting to mention the recent advertisements of his face being plastered around billboards in Britain, the picturesque pose clearly demonstrating the amount of touch-up software used to clear up face. A waste of money if you ask me, but the lengths some people will go to is truly shocking just to impress some voters.

However I digress. Nick Clegg is impressive not because of his clear and defined appearance, because of his policies and defiance of the political norm. Clegg wants to change things for the better, whereas all David Cameron wants to do is point out the continual flaws with the current government and place “much needed” emphasis on “cuts, cuts and more cuts”. It’s bad enough that we are in a recession, but at least point out what alternatives we are going to have as opposed to the persistent negative prognosis he almost spews with glee in order to score further “Brownie” (pardon the pun) over Gordon. Cameron has a long and healthy relationship in the PR business, clearly illustrating the mans more style over substance.

Clegg, due to the lack of party clout that the Labour party and the Conservatives share, is often cast aside. But given a chance I think he would offer true change.

Change that would see the party with a majority in parliament cut via the proportional representation system, accurately portraying the power that each political party should be allocated. A change that would see the House of Lords requiring an election every five years in order to determine who should be our lords instead of it being hereditary, the basic things that were promised to the electorate in 1997 under the banner of Tony Blair.

That’s another issue. Were Nick Clegg elected, would he follow in the same footsteps? After all power is an aphrodisiac that many love to enjoy, and few love to share. Blair and Brown can both attest to that. Only way we can find out is if we ever elected him.

But the chances of that happening are the same as seeing a Liverpool side win the Premier League under Rafael Benitez, completely null.

Nick Clegg: Anti Semitism On The Rise?

Haider Ali (19/11/09)

In June of this year, Nick Clegg delivered a speech contriving the notion of “anti-Semitism” being on the rise again. Delivered via a lecture at European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism, he promptly stated it “was on the rise” and taking the form of “new guises” because it was a “dangerous prejudice continually mutating”.

Now what I completely understand is the cause for any person in the position of authority to address the issues of racism and prejudice, especially as the timely criticism came just after the British National Party gained their first two ever seats in the European elections. Nick Clegg rightly criticized them, as they are a bunch of mindless thugs in suits and louts hell bent on racially purifying the British Isles of any peoples that aren’t considered “indigenous”. But one must address this issue with detailed facts. Nick Griffin until recently was a holocaust denier, but changed his mind after he discovered how “the state of Israel hold in high esteem similar western values” even supporting the Gaza offensive as recent as January 2009. The BNP made European gains not because of their racial policies because of the delusion within the main political frontline parties and their diabolical efforts to deal with the economic crisis.

Another important fact is since 2006, anti-Semitic attacks or forms of abuse have been on decline as a poll conducted by the Community Security Trust with attacks being few and far between, only going up as recent as this year because of Israel’s Gaza offensive. So one must clearly question the motive of Nick Clegg’s timely speech. One must not forget that despite France being the only western state with attacks above the average amount, mainly due to its Northern African immigrant inhabitants that take offense to the treatment of their Arab brethren in Palestine, it has substantially declined since the Second World War.  What has risen significantly is the Islam phobia and I don’t think I need toi state the obvious reasons why, mainly since the September 11^th attacks, animosity between the West and Muslims has rapidly increased.

Though Nick Clegg raises the issue of anti-Semitism, he paradoxically nullifies its appearance by stating it takes the form of “guises”, if such was the case, wouldn’t it be more apparent and evident? I don’t doubt that anti-Semitism still exists, but I personally think its exists in pockets around Europe. Also to the credit of many Jews, they have successfully assimilated into western society thus making the case for an exacerbated form of anti-Semitism existing in this day and age void.

Nick Clegg also takes offence to those who hold old Jewish stereotypes “Citing examples such as throwaway remarks about Jewish wealth and influence”. I don’t understand what is wrong with examining such questions. Norman Finkelstein, an expert on the Palestine-Israeli issue and the son of a holocaust surviving parents himself states in an important lecture at Berkley University in California “American Jews have surpassed WASPS (White Angelo Saxon Americans) as the most successful ethnic minority in terms of economic gains” such daunting facts clearly emphasize that with economic leverage comes political clout. So is it really a stereotype or does it become one, when a person researches financial institutions, political parties or corporations that are supporting Israel, be it whether they are fundamentalist Christians or ardent Zionists? There has to be room for debate, another criticism that I have of Nick Clegg’s speech.

To his credit, he did criticize Israel over the Gaza massacre in January of 2009 stating the use of force was disproportionate and stated that “exactly the same way that we must be able to speak candidly about Israel without fear of being labeled anti-Semite”. This is what I want to hear more of, open discussion and debate backed with fact and reason. One can’t exacerbate aspersions such as “anti-Semitism is on the rise” without the use of concrete data.

This back peddling is a tendency of Nick Clegg’s and I’m not a fan of it. Mr. Clegg should not have to make speeches for the sake of making them, if he wants to make a mark on British politics, he has to speak form the heart and candidly about issues like anti-Semitism, which is often considered a taboo subject, worse still a subject not even open to discussion unless somebody has to be put back in their place for going against the grain, so to speak.

Haider Ali (17/11/09)

At the Lib Dem conference speech Nick Clegg stated, bearing in mind I am paraphrasing, “Labour policy in Afghanistan is failing, so we must reach out to the moderate elements within the Taliban regime”.
Now, one must wonder why I am bringing up an event that happened a few months ago, but it’s significant particularly within the context of the war as it’s entering perhaps one of its most crucial and critical stages since it began in 2003.

I personally think that the idea of reaching out to any form of the Taliban is simply ludicrous. They are a tribal people, with beliefs and an ideology based on “Sharia” law, not even in essence in accordance with Islamic law, but I digress. The only people that can defeat the Taliban is the Afghan people themselves, a point paradoxical within itself as it was the British and the Americans who helped impose the vulgarity of their kind on the Afghani people just to score points against Communist Russia, which the record shows flourished for a number of years as women thrived in a free and far more open society then the one that has collimated from the poisonings of seeds no doubt planted by those “who wish to see democracy thrive”.

But it irks me to the point of desolation. Is Nick Clegg really offering a different policy on Afghanistan? Say a British government did reach out to “moderate elements” of the Taliban regime, a compromising deal would consist of a dictatorship equally as oppressive as the one that had preceded it before it was ousted by the western alliance and of course the expected subjugation of women and televised killings of “enemies of the state” something the Taliban were notorious for in their prime-ribbed days. The British government barely has a say as it is, with Barack Obama as the main commander in Chief still mulling over whether or not he should commit more troops to the unhinged state (Dick Cheney as a result stating the man was dithering under pressure), but again I digress.

Here is an opportunity for Nick Clegg to really pull away from common thought and state he intends to pull the troops out. The war is unwinnable and no country in history has been able to conquer Afghanistan, not Alexander the Great, nor the might of a modern day superpower in the form of the Soviet Union who were up against a group of people who were equipped with nothing more then 1980’s Kalashnikovs and home made explosives, with the cost equivalent of an old man’s pair of slippers for pities sake.

It’s certainly a missed opening by Nick Clegg and surely one can interpret that he is really offering no real alternative from the two mainstays in British politics. The Labour Party will follow the Americans, the Conservatives will continually use Rupert Murdoch and the Sun newspaper to exploit the lack of weapons and other equipments thus further highlighting inadequacies, all the while the public will lose focus of the main objectives, the safety of our troops, the abolition of the Taliban and the capture of Osama Bin Laden, which I thought what the war was about in the first place.

This part of foreign policy will only highlight Nick Clegg’s own faults as a leader, the chance to break ranks, to divert attention from the press who state how similar he is indeed to David Cameron and offer the Liberal Democrats for the first time in years a real chance to be the alternative party. But Despite figureheads such as Sir Ming Campbell and reliable stalwarts like Vince Cable, its key men are being nullified and unfortunately some serious political talent being frittered away by another naïve leader.

British National Party:  Party of Hate or Fact?

Haider Ali (27/10/09)

I’m sure that Nick Griffins’ recent appearance on question time sparked furore amongst many contingents within the audience and his political peers. To those who state he should not have been allowed to promote his message of abhorrence and revulsion of other races is simply fools. We are a democratic society and the moment we start to kill free speech, will be the day that we slip from a free pluralistic society into an authoritarian regime.

Now, the show should have been set up as a debate, instead what we witnessed was a lynch mob baying for the blood of a plump school child; Let’s face it, he played the sympathy card well. But more to the point policies should have been discussed, failings in the current government should have been outlined and the “Nick Griffin” show should not have become the “rumble in the jungle” it did because in my eyes it papered over the cracks of what Britain is, a state in decline.

We already know Nick Griffin and his cronies are a bunch of mindless thugs suited and booted assuming a new political manifesto replacing words such as race and hate with “indigenous” and “security”. The first and most important was the issue of immigration. It’s stated by 2060 by national statisticians that the country will become overpopulated to the extent of seventy million people, due to a number of contributing factors, the main one being the influx of asylum seekers. Despite Jack Straw mentioning a new points system that will weed out the weak contributors to British society from the strong, he couldn’t not answer the fact that the country is being overloaded with illegal immigrants and vast amounts of asylum seekers.

Another key issue was the policy of race. Nick Griffin stood accused of racism and rightfully so, but many of his quotations were misrepresented as were his associations with David Duke, an ex-member of the Ku Klux Klan, a non-violent one, I must conclude after thorough research on him and his contemporary views on current affairs. But he did manage to rebuke the comments via stating clear facts, that it was this current British government in cahoots with the Conservatives that voted into a war with Afghanistan and Iraq and supported Israel against Palestine, all three being Arab Muslim states.

But what really irked me was the association of Winston Churchill with the BNP party. The panellists all stated that they were disgusted that they could associate such a “great” man with a party promoting the very ideals that Churchill opposed during the Second World War; how the paradox fooled many on the panel, the audience and David Dimbely himself is beyond me. The association between the BNP and Churchill could not be more symbolically truer then the earth being round. All of those who are historically aware  of Churchill will know of his inferiority complexities towards many races that were under British colonial rule. Churchill referred to Palestinians as the “dogs in the manger” in regards to them being inhabitants of the holy land. “Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live”, is how he described inhabitants of Sudan following Kitchener during his campaign, whilst writing in “River Flow”  The list of degradation continues in various Churchill readings, yet you had imbeciles like the Liberal Democrat MP Chris Huhne who said “Churchill would be rolling in his grave” and “Churchill was never a fascist” speaking within the context of whether Winston would associate himself with the BNP. Fact is Churchill was a fascist and to a greater degree a racist. Then you had a black woman on the panel, whose name I can’t bothered to mention, state “Churchill’s mother was an American who had Red Indian family traits” as if that had any bearing on Churchill’s perspectives on race. Hitler had a Jewish grandmother; did that make him any less anti-Semitic? The families of those who lost relatives during the holocaust would gravely disagree.

To conclude, I by no means am trying to exclude and excuse what Nick Griffin stands for. Those who are politically enlightened already know. But the fact that a debating show was hijacked by mongrels who claim to be our political representatives to avoid delicate issues such as immigration and also by morons who proclaim Churchill to a great man; are simply out of touch with History. You have to deal with facts and truth and ironically it was the racist, homophobic and ridiculous excuse for a politician Nick Griffin, who at least had some testicular fortitude to air his perspectives, no matter how wrong they may be.

Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel?

Haider Ali (20/10/09)

Many parties have members of lobbyist organisations and are allowed to exert pressure to a great degree, however should lobbying be allowed by British born citizens at the expense of their mother country?

Such a question has arisen since 2004 when Baroness Tonge stated in an interview, if she was living in Palestine “she’d become a suicide bomber, or words to that affect”. This led to her immediate step down as children’s spokeswoman. Further controversy ensued when she stated that the “pro-Israeli lobby had got to grips with the financial world in the west, and even her own party.” The comments led to scathing attacks by Sir Ming Campbell. Even leading to pathetic charges of anti-Semitism, which of course were not true, but were nonetheless made, led by members of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel group. Morons like Gavin Stollar, who couldn’t tell you the difference between a Zionist and an anti-Semite if he was a Jew living in Israel.

But because Israel is a subject that many in Parliament consider “kryptonite”, perhaps because, lobbyists exist on Israel’s behalf in each of the three main political parties, one must really ask, are these parliamentarians afraid to speak their minds? Or is it in some cases even acting as agents on behalf of another state?

One must look at the objectives of the LDFL. The first and most important on the list is stated as being “To maximise support for the state of Israel”. Bearing in mind that Israel is an occupying state and in direct violation of resolutions 242, which states “land seized during the 1967 six day war must be returned to indigenous peoples”. I question should such lobbyists be allowed to be our parliamentarians, because their view is so twisted. The question of patriotism and nationality must also come into play here. Are these ministers more pro-Israel then they are pro-Britain?

Another clear objective of the Liberal Democrats Friends of Israel party is to develop the relationship of mutual trust between Liberal Democrat and Jews only. Why not of other races? Such segregationist tendencies only isolate those other ethnicities from politics, and as a leading party in a free and democratic society, I believe this narrow minded and belligerent practice should be abolished from politics; otherwise we’ll be living in a throwback society of Nazi Germany in the late 1930’s.

The influence that these members have is not so great to the extent of complete control over foreign policy, but they do have great control. The fact that every year, the leaders of the three parties Gordon Brown, David Camera-on” and Nick Clegg give speeches to their respective Israel supporters within their own parties should clearly be evident of such a fact.

To conclude, I simply believe that the influence that some of these members of the Liberal Democrat party have, should be diminished and support for Israel curtailed altogether due to the constant human rights violations, the treatment of the Palestinians in what must classed as an absolute disgrace, all academic ties should be cut off along with other ties such as political and economic. If the Liberal Democrat party is going to be a party of the people and for the people, it must recognise the difference between right and wrong, Zionist remarks and anti-Semitic remarks and must be committed to change, not only here within domestic politics, but within their own party; an aspect that clearly needs reform.

Tax Realism: Lib Dems keep it real.

Haider Ali

For too long now the British electorate have lived in the pockets of a nanny-state: taking our hard earned cash, frittering away the money taken from ninety per cent of tax payers on wasteful spending leading to the “boom-bust” policies of Gordon Brown taking us into a recession.

This binge-lending has led to negative equity and constant repossessions in the country and the loser’s have been us, the middle to lower classes, that have not only been kicked out of our own homes for falling behind on payment, but now shunned by the very banks that we have saved with our own tax money, oh how the irony brings tears of laughter to many eyes.

Well enough is enough, and the time for change is now.  Alistair Darling’s family tax cuts and personal tax allowances are like puting a band aid on a stab wound – the simple truth is it’s too little too late, and Mr Darling is on a sinking ship. The mere fact he was a former Trotskyite should alert him that he was batting for the wrong team.

The Conservatives on the other hand are simply the snakes in the grass, waiting to pick up the mantle they left to the Labour party to carry on the same economic tax policies they set out as a guide. George Osborne, like his comrade in arms David Cameron, are in another class with their heads in the cloud. This doughy faced mercenary isn’t simply offering to alleviate the struggles of the majority of the electorate but instead to exacerbate problems. That is what he will end up doing if his policies on taxation are allowed to pass through parliament. They are offering a two year freeze on council tax, which will eventually be made up via higher taxes after the two years are up. They are going to give tax cuts to those in work, thus cutting benefit for those unemployed, enforcing even more stringent measures upon those looking for work. We cannot be allowed to fall for the same foolhardy policies of the past because that is what all this rhetoric amounts to. The Conservatives aren’t offering a real alternative, just economic hogwash styled vocabulary in order to con voters into electing them, which at the moment they are treating as somewhat of a privilege and not something they should earn.

The Liberal Democrats on the other hand are offering a real change. Some claim a socialist change, and are critical of it – but remember this: was it not a socialist governing styled intervention that saved the banks? Was it not this same socialist styled governing that saved the capitalist system and for once started to think about the majority that were paying more tax then the elitist fat cat bankers and corporate owners? The new tax proposals offered by Nick Clegg gives every Tom, Dick and Harry the chance to save on tax. Yes, it’s true- perhaps not on a financial parity with the rich, but more so then we would under the current government and what is perceived as their main opposition. Nick Clegg has pledged that “no more will hedge fund managers be able to present their income as capital to secure them an 18% tax rate, while their cleaners pay 31%”.

One has to realise, during the current economic climate where most families are hard pressed for floating cash, we must save on what we can. The Labour party got us into this mess, the Conservatives are hell-bent to help the rich further and keep us in this mess and the Lib Dems are offering some form of real change.

If you want change and believe voting for the Tories will make this happen, I’m afraid you’re living in a dream world.