Thursday 30 May 2013

The Marriage Alternative

The Marriage Alternative

Why is marriage needed?

Marriage is necessary because it protects both the individual as well as society. It protects them from economic hardship as resources are shared. It protects people when sick as others can care for them. It protects people from loneliness as other people live in the same house. It protects people from a world that can be very harsh as it allows people to form close emotional bonds that people want to last for life. 

In theory these things can happen outside of marriage, but they don't tend to. Instead people look after themselves because there is no guarantee or obligation on the others part to return the good deed. That is not to say that marriage is perfect, it is not. It is a human institution which means that it is filled with human failings. If marriage was only about human failings it would have died a natural death millenia ago. But marriage has not ended, in recent times it has progressively been distorted until it has started to lose it's shape, in the hope that it no longer fits us. 

But let us look at the alternative. The alternative is a life of singles and into this environment will come children. Not as something unusual but as the new normal. But who benefits from such a society?

Single Mothers: Are they the winners in such a society? They get to make all the decisions themselves with no assistance, they must either work and leave their children in someone else's care or they must rely on the Government. They cannot rely on anyone else to help them care for their children. The best that most can hope for is a series of short term relationships with periods of loneliness when there is no man in their life. For some this may be the ideal life, how many could that really be?

Single Men: Are they the winners in such a society? While they may be biological Fathers they are not in the home, they are more like Uncles. They have no regular relationship with a women, while still having the very worst aspects of a relationship. There is no companionship or comfort, only problems. Financial, assess to their own child, assess to step-children, trying to form a relationship with that child and never knowing when it will be forced to stop. Is being a Father fashionable this year or is it unfashionable, it will make a big difference. For most men constantly switching your emotions on and off is too hard and they simply stop seeing their children.  For some this may be the ideal life, how many could that really be?

The Children: Are they the winners in such a society? When marriage is regarded as obsolete then children will grow up in an environment where their mother makes all of the important decisions and all of their friends mothers make the decisions. An environment where only the feminine will have any import. Where will that leave boys and girls? For children it will seem normal, they have no other experience to compare it too. But what child doesn't worry about what will happen to them if something happens to their parents. When they only have one how much more acute is that fear. How confusing is it when every one of your brothers and sisters has a different Father.  For some this may be the ideal life, how many could that really be?

None of these people would win in such a society, while some aspects may suit at particular times, over time it is clear that this is a very unstable model. So who would win?

There would be two big winners, the first is Government, with the family so weak and constantly involved in disputes the role of the Government must be large. For those who believe in big Government, whatever ideology they believe, will see a very positive force in play. They will look for even more Government to expand solutions to the very problems their ideas have created. For those more career-minded, more Government jobs will provide them with advancement and benefits. 

Who else will benefit? The users and abusers will have a field day. Who am I talking about, I'm talking about those great moral vacuums who are the greatest of friends/lovers until the money runs dry, until times get tough, until you need the support you've been providing them. Those who get the greatest of joy from taking and not from giving. Those who believe in free-love but not love, those who think that love and lust are the same word. Those who seek out the lost, the innocent, the vulnerable, the weak as a source for their own pleasure. For them this society is without equal.    

This is the anti-society that Liberalism wants. It devalues both the male and the female, it is inhuman . We can see the benefits of such a society all around us. A world of singles with children as optional extras. A world that many are already seeing as the new normal, the marriage alternative.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

Wednesday 29 May 2013



If my brother was to be arrested for murder and I was on his jury, I would find him not guilty. His bloody fingerprints at the murder scene, his confession, even the full page ad's he took out in the newspaper detailing how he committed the crime wouldn't change my verdict. I would remain loyal to my brother just as I would expect in reverse.

You as a neutral observer would be outraged but would you be surprised? I doubt it and here's why.

You would wonder how anybody could think I would give a different verdict. In similar circumstances would you give a guilty verdict, I for one wouldn't count on it. How could justice work if every family got to decide if a family member was guilty or not, if every family got to self-regulate, in short it would not work.

But self-regulation is everywhere, how often do:

Police investigate Police.

Companies get to decide if they are wrong or right when you complain to them.

Government departments investigate themselves.

How about Finance companies being told that they should self-regulate, even after they have proven that we cannot trust them.

Why is it that self-regulation is regarded as a panacea to the worlds problems? Because it's easy. Nearly no effort required. The Authorities can hide behind self-regulation, how were they to know things were so bad!

They get to hide behind ignorance, self imposed ignorance. They get to help out their friends by saying, sometimes truthfully, "I had no idea that the right hand was doing that, I only look after the left hand". Their ignorance is meant to keep us ignorant. Self-regulation means that no legal authority is watching. Behind closed doors corruption can flourish, bad accounting practices go unreported, unethical and even dangerous activities continue unchallenged.

It is an environment in which the honest man is regarded as a fool.

So what can be done about the problem. In short no one should be allowed to investigate themselves on any serious matter. Everyone should be accountable for their actions and that includes companies and the Government as well as ourselves.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

Monday 27 May 2013



Men should show chivalry to women, but not to feminists. Let them be treated as they think they want, like men. Women do not enjoy being treated as men treat each other.

Chivalry has never been free, it has always come at a price and that price is femininity. Most men are prepared to accept the odd exception they are even prepared for the odd bad day. What they find hard to accept is the argument, everyones equal but women are special.

It simply is not logical.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

Friday 24 May 2013

Sex not Gender

Sex not Gender

Recently I signed up to receive a newsletter from the Australian Senator Cori Benardi, he is widely regarded as one of the more Conservative politicians in Australia. But while registering I was asked for  my "Gender", My what!

So I wrote off an email  which is below and waited a month. 

Dear Sir/Madam

I was a bit shocked to see a Conservative organisation using "gender" instead of the correct term "sex".

I do not have a gender, nor do you, as gender is a social construct. In short society forces us to become men or women.

Sex is our biology, we are born male or female and grow up to become men or women respectively. 

I know many use the terms interchangeably but it is simply incorrect. One is biology the other is feminist theory.

I hope you find the time to correct this oversight.

Yours Sincerely
Mark Moncrieff

It seems a month is not enough time to correct this oversight. I have received neither a reply nor a newsletter. It's a shame as Senator Benardi seems to be one of the good guys. But how many times do we see this nonsense, where gender is used as if it's real. It's not real, no one is forced to be a man or a women by society, this is something we can all safely blame on nature. 

I also cross out the word on forms and write in the word "sex", it might not change the organisation but it sure makes me feel better. One little way to strike back.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future 

Wednesday 22 May 2013

The Paradox of the Autonomous Individual and the Expanding Government

The Paradox of the Autonomous Individual and the Expanding Government

Many people have noticed a paradox, if Liberals support the Autonomous Individual how is it that each "reform" seems to give more power to the Government. Here's why:

Liberalism believes that society is made up of autonomous individuals. But everywhere Liberals look are groups of people, in families, in street gangs, in Church congregations, in Nations. People who rely on each other for support and protection. The Liberal doesn't have time for such nonsense after all he knows there is a better organisation for all that, the Government.

The Government can take over the function of them all leaving the autonomous individual free to do what ever it is that autonomous individuals do. This is why Liberalism is so hostile to the family, religion and the nation-state, even to some extent business (Left and Right Liberalism disagree on this point). Because in their heart they believe that Government can do it better, be more efficient and more ethical.

A truly Liberal world, one without Unprincipled Exceptions, would be made up of numerous autonomous individuals and one massive and powerful Government. I for one cannot see how this could ever go wrong!

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

Monday 20 May 2013

Multiculturalism: The Conclusion

Multiculturalism: The Conclusion

Multiculturalism has always been a lie; it pretends that it exists to create a fairer society. That civil society is racist and that only the Government can make it fairer. That these poor immigrants need the Governments protection from the average native born citizen. When of course it is the Governments duty to protect all equally under the rule of law, not just immigrants. If any of that was true the arrival of immigrants would stop. 

Multiculturalism is supposed to mean that different cultures can live side by side, which of course means that the native culture is now not the dominate culture to which immigrants assimilate, but just one amongst a whole range of cultures and non can be considered superior. But if non is superior all standards are lost because that means there is no longer any standards. Many have pointed this out before and the argument back is always the same “that’s racist”. 

They know they cannot defend multiculturalism because what it really means is extremely unpopular. What multiculturalism really means is multi-racial, but they do not say that because they know it would be like throwing dynamite into a fire. It would expose the anti-white racism that lies behind their own policies, the policies of multiculturalism and mass immigration. 

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

Sunday 19 May 2013

Mass Immigration: The Conclusion

Mass Immigration: The Conclusion

While each country has a different history and policies I believe some common ideas can be brought to light.

We all started with Governments that were loyal to the people of their own country. That a nation existed for the benefit of it’s own people and that if immigration existed it was mainly to benefit the nation as a whole and not just the immigrant. But slowly that policy, whether it was official or unofficial was abandoned. In it’s place was the idea that immigration was both good for the country as well as the immigrant, the nations existing population was already being neglected. Then came the twin idea’s of fairness and wealth redistribution, which became the norm. Along with the idea that immigration would be a great way to both show the world how enlightened the Government was and to help end unfairness in the world. If it wasn’t possible to make poor countries rich, it might be possible to make poor immigrants rich or at least richer.

What is also becoming clear is that when a certain aspect of immigration policy becomes controversial it is only the tip of the people’s anger over all immigration. It is standard for any person who questions immigration to be branded a racist, that you cannot tell the difference between them and Hitler himself, but of course in the vast majority of cases that is nonsense. The person is not racist, in many cases the person is not even against immigrants but simply against a certain Government policy, in this case mass immigration. It is a mistake to attack a particular people or group and say immigration is good except for this lot. It is not a particular people or group who are the problem, the problem is the policy of our Governments. A policy that places immigrants as being of more value than the nations own people.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

Friday 17 May 2013

Multiculturalism and Mass Immigration III

Multiculturalism and Mass Immigration III

In 1973 the world economy changed, the warning signs had been there but no one really wanted to notice. Inflation and mass unemployment returned to Australia after being absent for decades. Both had existed in small measure but now they became dominate features of the economy. Inflation was brought under control but unemployment become permanent, it has never left since the early 1970’s. You would think that good policy would say that as unemployment was high immigration should stop or at least be curtained. Well for a time it was curtained but it never stopped and by the late 1970’s it was bigger than it had been. The big change in the period 1970-2000 was that now immigration from Asia and Muslim countries grew strongly. What had been small populations of a few thousand grew into the hundreds of thousands. In 1989 after the Tienanmen square massacre in China the Australian Government granted nearly 200,000 Chinese citizens in Australia at that time, permanent residence overnight. It should be pointed out not all stayed and it was popular at the time. But it gives a measure of the Australian Government’s commitment to immigration.

In 2000 immigration became a very controversial issue in Australia because of boats arriving from Indonesia with illegal refugees/asylum seekers. The people were not Indonesians but mostly from the Middle East. The Australian people have always been outraged by those who arrive without the Government’s permission, by extension, the peoples approval. It brought into disrepute Australia’s entire refugee policy, if refugees can decide for themselves why should we as a nation have a policy that admits them was the question the majority of Australian’s asked. There was a very vocal minority that said this was simply racism and that Australia was a wealthy country and that we should in effect have a policy of open borders. Immigration or at least refugee immigration was controversial, even in Parliament. The issue is unsettled, it remains highly controversial with the most extreme views being expressed on both sides of the often public debate.

Australia today has nearly 1 in 3 of it's population having been born overseas, in 100 years we have gone from 98% to 66% with no end in sight. Only Luxembourg has a higher immigrant population than Australia. If things continue as they have white Australians will be as much a memory as the white Australia policy itself.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

Thursday 16 May 2013

Multiculturalism and Mass Immigration II

Multiculturalism and Mass Immigration II

The Government at first wanted only British or Irish but the post war refugees in Europe needed new homes and Australia along with other nations were persuaded to take in refugees from populations they didn’t really want. It turned out to be the thin end of the wedge as the numbers of people wanted couldn’t be supplied from the British Isles, the net widened into Northern Europe into Eastern Europe and then into Southern Europe. People from all these lands had settled in Australia before but always in very small numbers compared to the British. So they assimilated very quickly, but the new numbers were large and that created worries. People started to complain that the new immigrants were not British, how could they be loyal to our Constitutional Monarchy when they had no ethnic ties to it or understanding of it, how could they remain loyal to Australia’s heritage and traditions when they didn’t share them either. The Government replied by saying that the numbers were small and that in time they would assimilate to our way of life.  

In 1999 a referendum was held to decide if Australia should become a Republic, the areas with the most immigrants voted for a Republic. Those areas predominately Australian born voted to keep our Constitutional Monarchy, which we thankfully remain.

The post war years from 1945-1973 were boom years, there were recessions but they were short lived and then the boom times were here again, good wages, full employment, cheap houses, they were golden years, Australia really was the "lucky country". Along with that came mass immigration, the jobs just seemed to always be there and slowly the amount of immigrants increased and the number of countries widened. Slowly but steadily the white Australia policy was dismantled, there was little discussion outside of Parliament. the people were never asked their opinion it was told to them. The remarkable thing was that no matter what the immigration policy Australia had it was endorsed by both the Left and the Right, hardly any disagreement was heard on the issue. Political rhetoric was different but they mostly voted the same way on this issue when it mattered in the Parliament. 

In 1973 the most left wing Government in Australia's federal history was elected into office and it ended what remained of the white Australia policy. From now on Australia's immigration policy would be decided by things other than race or ethnicity. This same Government also introduced the policy of multiculturalism. This was highly controversial and was attacked for decades, but again, in the Parliament were it mattered, the Left and the Right voted together. To show how controversial it was there were inquiries nearly every year for two decades on exactly what multiculturalism meant, the result was always to say it was not going to change Australia's culture (English language, the rule of law, the Constitutional Monarchy) but that it existed to help immigrants keep some of their culture alive with limited Government help. If that was really the policy it would not have been nor would it remain so controversial. 

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

Wednesday 15 May 2013

Multiculturalism and Mass Immigration I

Multiculturalism and Mass Immigration I

Normally when I write I write in broad terms, to express the universal nature of the topic I am writing about. But here I am going to depart, at least at first from my normal format. I am going to use Australia’s experience to make a wider point about multiculturalism and mass immigration. At first for those of my readers who are not Australian it might appear indulgent I hope it isn’t and that you get some insight into the topic from my little history lesson.

In 1901 Australia became independent from Britain although we remained a very proud member of the British Empire. In that year immigration passed from being a responsibility of the 6 different colonies that made up Australia to the new Government of the Commonwealth of Australia. One of the first acts of the new Parliament was to pass the Immigration Restriction Act 1901, which is often called the white Australia policy. It gave a dictation test of no less than 50 words in any European language as the test of whether a person could enter Australia, in reality it was given only to people the Government didn’t want in the country, the two main reasons were race or political activity.

In 1901 about 1% of the population were Australian Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders the indigenous peoples of Australia. About 1% were Chinese, Jewish, Afghan or other non British peoples (including white Europeans and Americans) and the remaining 98% were of British origin, either born in the British Isles or in Australia from British stock. Australia was one of the most homogeneous countries on Earth, with most immigration coming from the British Isles.

While immigration was very restrictive it wasn’t totally exclusive, if a person was only going to live in Australia for a certain period of time they were normally allowed in. While immigration from Japan was very restrictive, Japanese people lived in Australia in their thousands, in fact the Government allowed Japanese companies to decide on the number of people, their character and the length of their stay. Many stayed for years and some stayed in Australia permanently, the Government was happy for the odd exception what they were not happy about was large numbers of immigrants.

The people of Australia believed overwhelmingly in the white Australia policy and so did the political parties of both the Left and the Right. Within Australia the policy was mostly uncontroversial, but not internationally. But before World War II no Australian Government really cared much about what foreign Governments thought. It was World War II that was to change forever Australia's immigration policy. During the war Australia came under direct threat of invasion, something that had not happened since white settlement. The Government and people were shocked that our military ability was so weak, that was mostly the effect of decades of neglect. But the population was only 8 million in 1945 and the Government decided that Australia needed a bigger population to defend it in time of any future war or threat of invasion. The policy was announced to the Australian people as "Populate or Perish". If we did not have the population to defend the nation then it would perish. The shock of war made many agree that this was needed.


Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

Tuesday 14 May 2013

The Second Month

The Second Month (12th April -14th May)

Well it's been two months since I started Upon Hope and I thought many of you might find a new article on how the blog is going of interest. Many of you found my article The First Month of interest and it will also allow me to explain some of the goings on behind the scene, nothing outrageous but interesting non the less.

The blog keeps growing which I'm happy about, the worst day this month was the 25th of April when only 5 visitors had a look and the best day was the 1st of May, again two days after Mr. Mark Richardson let his readers know some of what I have been up to here, that day I received 140 visitors. Making it my best day ever, it fell back again but is still higher than it was, I'm now averaging about 30-35 visitors a day. In short both days were extremes, in fact the 25th of April was the only day below 10 visitors, which is low in it's self.

My postings have been in burst's I seem to get great ideas all at once and when they are written and posted my mind needs a rest to think things over. I've come to realise that forcing it doesn't get the best results. Currently I am working on a few ideas to move things along here, while I am happy with what I have written I plan to change the direction I'm heading this month. I don't want to reveal too much now or to give a date but once I've put my ideas in place you'll be the first to know. My only clue is Conservative Future.

Last month I included a chart showing the top 10 countries in the world viewing my blog and the numbers of visitors from those countries, well this month I'm showing you two to compare, first last month and secondly the month before that.

United States
United Kingdom
South Korea

March - April
United States
United Kingdom
New Zealand
South Korea

You can see a number of things have remained the same, Australia and the United States are still my two biggest readers. Australia has increased in size which I'm very happy about. Interestingly a number of countries have nearly the exact same readership numbers the United States, Germany, Bulgaria and South Korea. 

Russia and the United Kingdom have jumped up very high, Russia has grown steadily over the month. The United Kingdom turned up after the plug on Oz Conservative, or else it's an amazing coincidence. 

Canada has done the same this month as last month, they jumped on board quickly and then jumped off again quickly. Indonesia went up in numbers but has remained at 11 for about two weeks now.

New Zealand has dropped off the top 10 but I still get visitors from there, it's just not steady.

Finally there is Romania who turned up with the United Kingdom, it was high very early and since then has had smaller but steady numbers turning up.

I have also had visitors from Ireland, France, the Netherlands, Belarus, Turkey, China, Angola, South Africa and Brazil.  

To all my readers no matter where in the world you are I say thank you for spending your time reading my writing and I am always interested to hear any thoughts you might have on the subjects I write about. 

Yours Sincerely
Mark Moncrieff

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

Monday 13 May 2013

The Loneliness Epidemic

The Loneliness Epidemic

Loneliness is a normal part of life, up to a point. 

Most of us have experienced loneliness, having no partner, leaving home, being away from friends. Some have a much harder life were they find it hard to make friends or connect with other people. Mental illness or personality disorders can of course contribute to this as can shyness or gruffness to give just two examples. But for the vast majority of people loneliness occurs at two times in their life. 

It occurs when they are young, when they develop an interest in the opposite sex and when they have not learnt the social skills and lack the confidence to deal with the opposite sex. At the same time they are trying to work out their own place in the world, a place where they fit in. It is not an easy time and it leads to much angst and worry. But for most people this ends and life gets better as they learn that the things they worried about either weren’t important or for the most part worked themselves out. 

The other time is in old age, as people get older they are not as interested in making new connections with others as they once were. For some that starts in middle age and for others at a very advanced age. The result is that the circle of friends that one once had diminishes as old friends die and non replace them. The close connection people have with their family is also stretched as children and grandchildren have their own lifes and interests. Ill health, lack of energy and the mind tricks that are a part of growing old all contribute to this sad state. And it is a sad state, for both young and old, but the saddest part is for the vast majority of us it is normal.

But loneliness in young adulthood and in middle age is less so. Putting aside the issues that I talked about above that can stop people connecting with others. This is the time in which most people are in good health with an eagerness to connect to a partner. But we see all around us a world in which people who are in the prime of life are lonely. Not for a short time or because of some unfortunate circumstance, but in what seems a permanent state of affairs. The most worrying aspect is that it seems to affect every social class and both sexes. You yourself may be lonely, I bet that you know someone who is. Someone who in theory is in the prime of life, with quirks but nothing seriously wrong with them, in other words a perfectly normal person. 

Why is loneliness such a large factor in modern life?

There are four main areas concerning why loneliness is such a big issue when it wasn’t in the past. 1) Economic 2) Societal 3) Perspective and 4) Personal

The economic reasons are many, the lack of jobs and stable employment, the two wage household, the price of housing as well as the cost of living which ties up so much of a person’s income. Long working hours sure don’t help as those with jobs find they must put in long hours while others remain unemployed. Here we can see the long term effects of inflation, most of which took place decades ago but we still pay the price even though inflation is quite low. (How long it remains low we will have to see)

The societal reasons are also many, the push for female employment at the expense of male employment, the push to promote women instead of men, the belief that marriage isn’t important, that children do not need mothers and fathers (single parenthood), that sex is about fun…why aren’t you having fun. Divorce is seen by many as a solution to their problems instead of as the start of a whole new series of problems. When a woman earns more than a man most women aren’t interested in that man. Here we see women cheating themselves by seeking greater wages. Of course I must point out in their defence, who is telling them today that it will have such a high price, practically no one.

Perspective reasons, we are given a constant and false idea about what is normal and achievable. For example our media(TV, movies) portrays single people as being able to get dates if they so choose, so if you are single you must be choosing not to date. We are encouraged to view men and women as interchangeable even though neither men or women find the result very attractive. We are also presented with the idea that we can date anyone we like as we have infinite possibilities and the only reason we don’t date who ever we like is because we lack a certain quality, money or attractiveness for example. Something entirely personal that only some type of self- improvement can solve. We are not presented with reality but with a distortion, one that has us seeing ourselves and others in a warped way. We find it hard to accurately view society as it is constantly distorted and we begin to distrust our own eyes and experience.    

Personal reasons, we change as we get older and what we found easy when young is much harder when you get older. For those who earn good money it is a case of believing that only the best will do and that you can be as picky as you like because the options are unlimited. For men it can be hard to settle down as it seems that the good times will never end. For women the criteria for a partner is longer not shorter because of her earning ability, he must at least match her wage or have the potential to, he must also be tall, a little older and a few random qualities thrown in. Near enough is rarely good enough. 

For those who work but find it harder to make ends meet, it can be hard to justify to yourself that the future exists when your circumstance forces you to take each day at a time. How do you pay to go out, date or have a serious relationship when paying the bills is so hard. In todays social environment when it can often seem as if being a brain surgeon is the only acceptable occupation to some people. It can be hard to tell people you work in a normal everyday job that doesn’t have any glamour or prestige attached to it. For those in very low paying jobs, casual jobs or who are unemployed or a combination of each during the course of a year, as well as students. All of the financial problems exist as well as a loss of confidence, how do you tell people your life circumstance when you yourself are so unhappy with it. You can lie but the reality is that unless your very good at lying it is not a long term strategy. The lack of success becomes it’s own problem as it can reinforce the negative attitudes and opinions that start to form.   

As the traditional family is eroded so we have the results and one of those of loneliness. It should come as no real surprise that at every level social stability and cohesion is being discouraged and therefore is being lost. The traditional family is still strong, it is still the base on which the entire structure sits and that is why Right and Left Liberalism continues to attack it. They want us all to be autonomous individuals and those who are lonely, they like to believe, are making a conscious choice to be that way. Liberals see it as validation of their belief. 

While we see a large hole, a hole that just keeps getting bigger, that is not what Liberals see. Their lack of ability to see the future effects of their policies mean that things will only continue to get worse as they have no desire or interest in fixing a problem they cannot even see. In a world of autonomous individuals each failure is not a failure of the system but a failure of the individual. What can Liberals do as individuals or as a movement do to help people who are so foolish. If they were smart they would be successful, their lack of success just proves that they deserve their fate. 

Liberals believe themselves to be the enlightened chosen people and those who aren't "smart" enough to survive in their world can go to hell.....and they don't even have to die to get there now.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

Wednesday 8 May 2013

Homes not Houses

Homes not Houses

I live in a house, it helps keep me warm and keeps the wind, the rain and the sun away from me. It protects my body from the effects of the weather and it protects the things I own as well. It is a marvelous creation, it is not pretty but nor is it ugly, it is my place, my rightful place, it is my home. 

That means to you and everyone else it is just a house like everyone elses but to me it is much more. A home is a house that has a soul, a soul given to it by the people who live there. Not a supernatural soul, it isn’t alive it is a place of warmth and protection, a place of comfort and a shelter. It is a port in a world that seem, at times as if it is all storms. 

A home can be rented, mortgaged or owned out right, it’s financial status isn’t as important as the relationships that exist within. It shocks me how often people treat their home as just a house. A house is just an object, no different to a car or a computer. It can be built, bought, sold, rented and discarded. A house can be a “machine for living”or an investment. What does either have to do with a home! 

I watch the news and see people talking about how good it is that houses cost more, that they will make more money from something that hasn’t changed. Something that they didn’t build nor work on, that their only contact with will be to sell it on. I have a friend who bought a house and a few years later sold it for more money, he said to me “Isn’t it great!”, I replied “no”, he replied “your mad”. A while later he said to me “I cannot believe how expensive houses are!”. 

Yes when your house sells for more it’s not the only house on the market. Nearly all houses go up in price. What are the effects of prices going up? They help two incomes buy houses and discriminate against families with one wage earner. They push women and mothers into paid work. They push the birth rate down as people question whether they can afford a larger family. They help marriage breakdown as financial pressures persist. They help push the banks into big profits. Money spent on houses is money wasted on houses. Money spent on financing houses cannot be used to finance others areas of the economy and unlike other areas of the economy, houses only create inflation not wealth.  

There is a proper market for houses but we do not live in such a market, we live in a market that believes more is better, that debt is good and that houses are just investments. I do not support such an idea, I do not support houses I support homes and the more we can do to protect homes the better off we will all be.

Upon Hope - A conservative Future

Tuesday 7 May 2013



When young people leave secondary school there are three options available to them.

1. Enter the workforce

2. Go on to higher education (normally University)

3. Join the unemployment queue

For many young people university is an attempt to avoid unemployment, it keeps large numbers distracted and helps keep their parents happy. It also helps the Government hide the fact that the jobs these people should have simply don't exist. For the unemployed the same issue exists, the jobs they should have also don't exist.

The Government and those high up in the economy treat unemployment as an individual failing, according to them only the lazy and/or stupid are unemployed. They ask how can Government or those running the economy be held responsible for such foolish people!

In fact they, through the goodness of their heart, support the unemployed, they would be destitute without their compassion. Once again we have those responsible for creating the system denying that they have anything to do with it.

It isn't just happenstance that allows free-trade to exist, it is their policy.

It isn't just happenstance that allows mass immigration to exist, it is their policy.

It isn't just happenstance that favours the financial economy over the real economy, it is their policy.

Each one of these is bad for the real economy, in combination these are all job killers. Full employment is seen as bad for the financial economy, so the unemployed are sacrificed upon the altar of Liberal economic theories. Theories designed to promote the financial economy and those who benefit from such an economy.

Apart from the financial economy there are no winners only losers. For the unemployed it is hard to do anything with little or no money, it stops the creation of families and the creation of skills and confidence as well as wealth. For the unemployed life stops.

It also costs those employed as they must support this dysfunctional system with higher taxes as well as having to live with the resultant social problems. The employed also have the constant fear that unemployment awaits them. Of course the unemployed also have to live with these social problems.

Finally the Government loses credibility and respect, it costs money better spent on other things (in the long term, not the short) and decreases tax revenue. A double blow to it's finances.

The problem isn't that unemployment exists, the problem is that it is so chronic, so constant. The problem is that it effects one portion of society to the benefit of another. The problem is that the unemployed can be without work for year after year. The problem is that it is treated as a temporary problem, 40 years after it became a chronic problem.

The Government needs to put the financial economy in it's correct position, not above the real economy but as a valued aid to the real economy. The financial economy needs to be the value added portion of the real economy.

Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future

Sunday 5 May 2013



I have just corrected Oz Conservatives address and added 3 other Traditional Conservative websites to my list of sites. If you've got the time check them out.

I have also changed the comments so you should be able to comment without needing to sign up. In the worlds of a great Philosopher "A mans got to know his limitations" that great Philosopher was of course Dirty Harry, well I know mine and it's anything technical so if that doesn't prove to be the case I'll see if I can  do it better next time.

Here's hoping it works this time.

Mark Moncrieff

Saturday 4 May 2013

Debt: The Options

Debt: The Options

Recently I was talking to a fellow Conservative about debt and he said that Austerity (in Europe) should end as it was killing the economy. I disagreed and to understand why we must look at the options available as well as the consequences.

There are three general options available to Governments when they get themselves into debt and they decide to do something about it.

1. They can honour the debt and pay

2. They can print money and try to devalue the debt using inflation

3. They can repudiate the debt and default

Each has it's own results

1. Paying the debt means financial sacrifice, expenditure must be cut, revenue (meaning tax) should be increased. Maybe worst of all future plans must be curtailed or even scrapped all together. Just to rub salt into the wound it continues for year after year.

2. Another method is to devalue the debt, the current term for it is "Quantitative Easing", it basically means printing more money than the economy needs in an effort to inflate the currency. To make it worth less tomorrow than it was yesterday even though the face value remains the same. If for example the Government owe's $100 million and they inflate the currency and it is now worth $90 million, the Government saved itself $10 million. Here is a trick exclusively available to Governments.

3. Finally they can default on the debt and start with a fresh slate. They can start spending money in a manner that both the Government and the voters find attractive.

Of course each of these in turn has consequences

1. Once a serious effort has been made to pay the debt, the debt will stabilise and then go down. The only time this does not apply is if further increased borrowing occurs. It is slow and painful but it works and allows the Governments credit rating to remain in tack, meaning that further credit will be available if needed at a reasonable price. Regular payments also increase the likely hood that the loan can be renegotiated after all few creditors want to kill the paying customer.

2. Inflation is a tax on the peoples standard of living. It is insidious as it is invisible for along time, but when it hits it hits hard. It hits the poor and those on tight budgets first, whether they be people or businesses. It destroys businesses and drives homebuyer's from their homes. If inflation is 10%, $100 now has the purchasing power of $90. Any money in the bank makes interest and loses it value, all at the same time.

3. Defaulting on the debt seems the best option and it is as long as the Government never wants or needs to borrow money again. The reality is that most Governments borrow money every day, for the simple reason that has bills it simply must pay, every day without fail, payroll, pensions, interest loans are just three of many items. But the bulk of it's revenue doesn't come in every day so to tide themselves over they borrow, just as many businesses do. But once a loan is defaulted you have announced to the world just how bad your financial position is. While they may have thought it was bad the Government has just informed them that it is so bad they have stopped paying their bills. The next question is what other bills will they stop paying?



And why should people continue to pay their debts to the Government (or anyone) when it has stopped paying it's own debt. The idea that the Government starts off with a clean new slate is a mirage, what it ends up with is little credibility and a bad credit rating. As well as a whole series of problems of it's own making.

The bad news is that there is no easy way out of debt. In short debt is bad and only by rejecting debt as an economic policy can this problem be solved.

Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future.

Thursday 2 May 2013

Debt is King II

Debt is King II

In the 1880’s Governments around the world were offered very generous credit and many took the offer. They believed something that Liberalism pushes all the time, the old ways are dead we live in a new paradigm now. It lead to a credit crash and a Depression and a commitment to not borrow so much again. Which lasted until the First World War when access to massive amounts of money were needed. 

The war changed how debt was used by Governments. Many wanted to return to a mostly debt free Government after the war debt was paid off but it was so large that it could not be paid back for decades. That gave an opening to those who wanted to fund more socialist policies, to use the growth in Government to help the poor. What was a little more debt as the Government already had so much. Then a little more and then a little more. 

When the Great Depression hit in 1929 Governments tried not to increase debt but the economy was so badly damaged that the normal efforts didn’t work. Keynes the British economist came up with a theory that Governments were already using, if private enterprise cannot or will not run the economy than Government should run the economy. Debt should be used to keep the economy running, after all the Government has the taxpayer behind it so in theory it has an unlimited ability to pay back any debt. 

We all live, no matter where we live with the consequences of those decisions. We live in an age where many believe that debt means free money, were the ability to pay back debt is seen as optional. The results are there for all to see in Europe and the United States, both will end badly because the underlying cause of the debt is being ignored. No person, family, business or Government can live beyond it’s mean, it is only a matter of time until the lender wants his money back. 

Liberalism believes in a world were money is free, but free money can be very expensive indeed.

Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future

Wednesday 1 May 2013

Debt is King I

Debt is King I

Recently I was saving money to attend a friends wedding overseas, it wasn’t cheap and I had to make sacrifices to be able to afford my trip. My bank disagreed, they were willing to guarantee me a loan worth 4 times what I had ever had in my account without me even asking for it. They sure didn’t believe I needed to make any sacrifices, this 4 years after the Global Financial Crisis, they still wanted to throw money in my direction, even though I have never had anywhere near that amount in my account. Why would a bank be so reckless? 

Because part of Economic Liberalism is the belief in progress, it may even be the defining belief within Liberalism. Any set back is only a stumble because the march of progress is relentless, it cannot be stopped it is simply unstoppable. Allied to this belief is the idea that money should flow freely, meaning that credit (loans) should be generous. 

A credit generous economy is generally a growing economy, companies can take risks because they can afford to take risks. That then leads on to another belief that if credit should be generous, debt is necessary, even good for the economy. If that is accepted than what should be a responsible level of debt? 

It seems that this is a slippery slope and we so often end up with the idea that debt can be unlimited. It turns out that economics and Human nature has something to say in this regard, because not everyone pays back the credit extended to them. This means that instead of credit paying for more credit which in turns pays for more credit, riskier credit is extended. Credit such as that offered to me. 

Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future