Security

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7877182.stm

normally I am the first person to shout and complain when a new government database is announced.  Not so sure this time though.

Probably because I had assumed it already existed.

I have no problem with this one, as long as what it stores is limited, your name, when you left and where you are going.  Then the same coming back in.  I would also expect it to be run by the police or immigration control or what ever organisation runs this sort of thing, not the 'Government'.

On the other hand I do worry about being watched and tracked, and I do not like it.  I want to be free, and I sometimes feel that I am not.

I cannot one day simply disappear and live in a log cabin somewhere in the woods, just because I felt like it, someone will own the woods, or there will be council tax to pay on the log cabin, I will have to register my new address with no end of agencies.

Don't even get me started on protesting outside Parliament and terrorism laws and ID cards.  I will never carry an ID card, I will go to prison before I do.  And if I get locked up for 42 days under terror legislation for no good reason, I will become the terrorist and take down the houses of Parliament.

Seriously, why do we need all these laws?  Not only does it go against the freedom that we supposedly stand for, but it really does not help.  Nor is it really necessary, do we really need to fear the sort of terrorists than cannot park a car without being towed and fail at driving to an airport?

I mean no offence to the security services, I am confident they are doing a great job at keeping us safe, we never hear of their successes only their failures.  I also understand that sometimes people just need to be taken out, which incidentally is what I would have done instead of setting up the whole Guantanamo bay thing, if people are too dangerous to be allowed outside just quietly take them around back and be done with them.

However then the question is who makes that decision, what about the mistakes that will inevitably be made?  Questions too difficult for me to answer on a Sunday morning, maybe later in the week.

Iran

So, I have been reading a bit about Iran recently, and things seem to be kicking off again. But I am unsure how I think about this, I do not know enough about the situation to have a proper opinion. I was extremely angry when out sailors were held by them last year, and if i were in command Tehran would be a crater now.

But I have been thinking. They want nuclear weapons (supposedly), why should they not have them? What is so special about the UK, US, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel? I agree that the less nuclear weapons in the world the better (up to a point) but what right do we have to deny Iran, or any country, the right to have all means of defense at their disposal.

Some argue that they would just use them to bomb Israel, but why? The whole point of the weapons is that if you use one on another nuclear power you will be destroyed. So then people point out that if a radical jihadist were in control they would not care, but then look at America and how many religious fundamentalists there are(both in power and not) and we have been OK so far.

So, surely is not better to let countries who want the weapons have them out in the open so that the safeguards and program itself can be monitored and made safe and secure, rather than forcing them underground into the hands of the fundamentalists.

So my point really is that if Iran, or anyone else, really wants nuclear weapons they will find a way to acquire some. So surely it would be better to encourage them to do it in the open, rather then threatening to invade if they try to gain the technology, hence forcing them into hiding and increasing the risks of an accidental detonation or some splinter group or faction getting their hands on them.

Opinions? Arguments? are all welcome.

Politics

So, I am quite interested in politics. I have even considered it as a career on many occasions, and probably will continue to do for a long time.

I consider myself a Conservative, but a slightly unusual one. I do so because I believe in the general ideas behind the party (I genuinely get annoyed when people insists on supporting something simply because of the man at the top) , lower taxes, less bureaucracy, smaller government and just generally leaving people alone. This especially worries me. I do have one grievance though, I think Grammar schools are amazing. I do not care what anyone else thinks, I would not be here without them.

So onto the long rambling points of the post.

1, Labour are now polling third, after even the Lib Dems!

2, Something that makes no sense to me...

The campaign slogan for the election Labour will loose on Thursday(?) is

"Do you want a Tory con man or a Dunwoody?"

Now this confuses me. I have read in the papers and have seen many pictures that the whole labour campaign has been about the Tory candidate coming from a well off family, hence he has inherited most of his good fortune. So the argument is that if he were not born into the family, he would not even be considering running for the position.

I am curious, how is this different than a hereditary passing of a seat in parliament from Mother to Daughter? With the only reason she is being put forward is that she was born into the correct family.......