"The requirements to get the confirmed cash advances are very simple. You can apply for the payday advances both on the internet or offline. You will need to meet the fundamental details in the standard application form. Details about the checking account may also be needed. The companies would end up transferring the funds to your checking account electronically. A major benefit of these payday advances is that the providers would not demand a credit rating check. A person with poor credit score can apply for these payday advances and get approved instantaneously. These cash advances are additionally termed as ""payday loans"". You would have to payback the payday loan once your paycheck arrives.

Requirements are simple!

The information are easy and the providers are not strict.

1) You must be an American citizen,

2) You should be over 18 years old,

3) You need a job,

4) You need to have a bank checking account. You could possibly get a financial savings account payday advance if you do not have a checking account. Many companies are prepared to allow borrowers without the checking accounts. The money is delivered to the banking account.

Very Important Tips

1) These kinds of cash advances are only short-term options. It is always much better to pay them once you get your check. The providers can as well get their repayments by themselves if you permit withdrawal out of your bank account.

2) The cash loans can be extended. There could be a charge associated with every 30 days lengthened. You will need to cover the fee together with the interest."

guaranteed payday loan

Well here we are again, sitting back and watching the world's governments hammer out a "deal" at yet another climate change conference.

Yet whilst this is going on, we still have significant numbers of politicians in all the big polluting states who either don't understand the science or simply wish to ignore it or worse still lie about it, sadly this includes some members of the modern conservative party.

Yesterday at Copenhagen, the talks broke down because the more economically developed countries didn't want to give up as much as they really have to in order to save the planet, and thankfully the poorer nations of the world didn't let them get away with it again. After a long night of negotiations the talks re-started today, but inevitably with far smaller concessions than are needed.

As a Geology student with an interest in the environment, it sickens me to see so many powerful people simply ignore the imperative presented by the Science, and thanks to the so-called "Climate-Gate" they have another excuse to do nothing.

Climate-gate was a farce of the highest order, with many of the self proclaimed sceptics quote mining from stolen email correspondence to try and bolster their all but destroyed ivory tower, and it very nearly worked - even convincing the COP15 negotiators from Saudi Arabia - however the scientific and blogging community acted quickly enough in pointing out the errors in the argument and it only caused a ripple in the conference, rather than a tsunami.

just to go through one example really quickly, the "hide the decline" comment that was taken by many (and forced by some) to mean a decline in temperature was not a drop in temperature, it was a drop in the proxy record for tree rings, which the scientists acknowledge that they do not understand, because it is anomalous to all other proxies (coral reefs, ice cores, geological varves etc.) AND the observed temperature record.

In the wake of this farce, all the major scientific establishments including the IPCC, the Met Office and my own native National Oceanography Centre, Southampton have reaffirmed their support of the Anthropogenic Global Warming model.

Does this mean that the debate is over? Well; in purely scientific circles it was over years ago, politically however it is raging as fiercely as ever (which is beyond me to explain). Does it mean that we will get a legally binding, effective, Carbon reducing Treaty out of Copenhagen that actually will help to save the planet?

I fear almost certainly not.

Ben Brooks

At a time when the UK is suffering from the worst recession in the post-war period NESTA (www.nesta.org.uk) asks how local economies can not only survive the down-turn but look towards growth through innovation.

Please join us on Friday 26th June, for a networking lunch and panel discussion as David Willetts MP for Havant and Shadow Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills; Jack Boyer, serial entrepreneur, Professor Adam Wheeler, Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor, University of Southampton and Ian Murray, Editor of the Daily Echo, will debate what roles universities, business and communities can play to drive local economic recovery and sustainable growth. Jonathan Kestenbaum, Chief Executive, NESTA will chair the event.

Register here: www.southampton.eventbrite.com

Date: Friday 26th June
Time: 13:15 - 14:15 (lunch available from 12:45)
Venue: Grand Harbour, West Quay Road, Southampton, SO15 1AG

** The views expressed herein are the views of one person, and not neccesarily those of the Conservative Party - Parliamentary or Constituency.**

I have just watched the BBC's Question Time in Salisbury.

From what I can gather, all three mainstream parties are clamouring to remove heredetary peers and move to a wholly elected House of Lords... needless to say I am horrified. Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and now William Hague (hopefully soon to be our Foreign Secretary) calling for the Upper House in the bicameral parliament to be made fully electable by the public.

So now we see that MP's; whilst righting the lack of checks and balances in one area (MP's Expenses) are now trying to remove the checks and balances in another.

The House of Lords exists to act as a check and a balance to the government and parliament of the day. Peerages in the past have been given as hereditary so that when the Government trys to force through legislation that is only there to "please the electorate" and not for the good of the nation in the long term, the Lords can take time to think on, reccommend changes to and if neccesary overturn this legislation without worrying that the electorate will rebel against it.

The House of Lords of twenty years ago was a righteous and respected institution. And yet, after merely twelve years of a "New" Labour government we are seeing them misusing emergency measures to push through "popular" laws (such as the Fox-Hunting ban which only really had <50% of the UK populations support) and hereditory peers are being replaced by Life Peers, and now we are apparantly considering a fully elected upper house.

I am admittedly in the minority - even within the modern Conservative Party, and I accept that the House of Lords needs to change. If I were to chose how to change it I would say that Her Majesty the Queen should chose from a list of people given to her by the Government after every General Election and that no more than 10 Lords be replaced at any one time, but an elected house will just result in more partisan and "popular" laws being passed, just one more step toward Americanisation... which I am sure we do not want. How long before everyone is calling to join a Federated States of Europe... I wonder...?

** The views expressed herein are the views of one person, and not neccesarily those of the Conservative Party - Parliamentary or Constituency. **

This past two weeks has seen both a minister and shadow minister give up front bench positions, two Labour MP's suspended from the parliamentary party, and now the Speaker of the House has resigned. What has politics come to that we are told that MP's have tabled a motion of no confidence in a man whom they elected, and that is supposed to stand above the fray?

I must admit I feel awfully sorry for Mr Martin, he has done wonders for his constituents, and has tried to do a good job as speaker, even if he did midinterpret the role. Needless to say the man resigned his post and "jumped before he was pushed." David Cameron was quick to say that he had done the right thing, but that this country needed a General Election - but do we?

Well, my attitude is that we do need a General Election. After all we did not elect the current government, and now... much like John Major's conservative government before it... sleaze and corruption has brought the government (and politics) to the edge of oblivion. This government, or more to the point this parliament, has lost it's credibility and moral authority and as such has lost what every parliament requires - its popular mandate to govern.

Could the parliament do anything to fix this without a General Election? Well yes it could but no matter what measures those in Westminster Palace take; the public will look at the parliament as a Lame Duck... too full of scheming, "on-the-take" politicians who are all too interested in internal machinations. They will view the parliament as not focussed on the matters affecting the country today; in other words TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE.

If for no other reason alone, Gordon Brown should formally request a dissolution of parliament so that those who have misappropriated funds in the extreme can be purged from Westminster, and hopefully the next Government will have regained some element of trust from the public. Gordon Brown is not Bill Clinton, Boris Johnson or George W. Bush - he cannot get away with this kind of political tom-foolery.

At least there MIGHT be a silver lining in that this whole fiasco might just remove some of the general public's political apathy, and get them involved in politics again!

Whatever happens, when the Election does occur, I will not be the least bit surprised if UKIP win seats (not neccesarily a bad thing on the EU front) and likewise I would not be surprised if the BNP or other far-out political parties gain seats - undoubtedly a disaster for democracy in this country.

This blog will be posted as two parts as the issues contained would make a single post unreasonably lengthy. Upon publication of the second part I'll post a link to the first part and vice-versa. This first part explains the situation that brought me to write this piece, whilst the second will explore the question expressed in the title.

On Sunday I watched a documentary on BBC called "18 Pregnant Schoolgirls" (You can find it on iPlayer here) which covered the story of how 18 girls at a school in the Catholic town of Gloucester, Massachusetts became pregnant in 2007, and explored the possibility that there may have been a pact between the girls to have children at the same time. The girls in question were all 15 or 16 years old (In Massachusetts the age of consent is 16 - It varies from state to state), however the ages of the boys involved have been disputed as only a few have come forward due to the risk of conviction for rape.

The programme was so focussed on the possibility that these girls had conspired to get pregnant at the same time that it completely overlooked the issue on which they should have focussed - what on earth possessed these children (and lets face it, these are just children!) to conclude that having a child was in any way a responsible choice? Whilst a grand conspiracy makes fantastic copy for a tabloid it is not the real issue at hand, we should really be concerning ourselves with the fact that 18 young girls (either individually or collectively) chose to become pregnant.

Teenage pregnancy normally results from a failure to practice safer sex (Only abstinence is truly safe sex!), though admittedly some pregnancies do arise from the 3% failure rate that contraceptive methods suffer from. Gloucester High School had a health centre where two practitioners resigned after the school board refused to allow them to distribute condoms to the student body, instead preferring to follow an abstinence only sex education program. Whilst the promotion of abstinence is worthy we have to accept the reality that teenagers will have sex, and therefore it is the duty of the school system to promote the use of contraception. Despite the schools stance on abstinence they actually provide a day care centre for the children of students, not only does this effectively legitimise teenage mothers, to me it also screams "Don't have sex, but if you do then you should be having children".

The decision to have a child brings forward a huge amount of responsibility, and I cannot even begin to comprehend the true expanse of them having not fathered a child myself. Whilst there are no specific criteria for potential parents (and I would never suggest we should have) I'm sure we can all agree that financial independence and security absolute necessity - how can someone expect to provide for their child if they struggle to get by at present?

In world politics today there is one man who is causing more excitement than any other. That man is Barack Obama, potentially the next president of the USA and if he does win, the first black man to hold the post. I felt given his current status a few comments on him are needed. However if he and Cameron should win their respective elections, what things will they agree on and will their relationship be good for the world?
Firstly both men are committed to tackling climate change. Obama is even going as far as to commit the USA to a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050.
Then there are the two major conflicts in the Middle East, Iraq and Afghanistan. Here there is a slight conflict. Obama will commit the USA to a troop withdrawal from Iraq whilst Cameron has pledged to stay the course. However I believe this is only a slight problem. Should Obama win the election, he will be in office at least a year before Cameron should get into office, so if US troops leave it will be up to Brown to withdraw UK troops which I think he would in those circumstances. Personally I agree with Obama's viewpoint of withdrawing from Iraq and putting more emphasis on Afghanistan. Iraq is slowly but surely dealing with its own issues and UK troops should be ready to leave in around 18-24 months time.
The real issue that concerns me however is the world economy. Obama has hinted at greater protectionist policies for the US economy. Bad news in these worsening economic times. On the day that the Doha World Trade talks collapsed meaning an extra $100 billion will not be added to world output this is totally the wrong policy. If the West is to overcome these tough economic times globalisation holds the key. It is well known that freer trade and economic growth go hand in hand, therefore ducking behind the parapet of protectionism is not the answer. The Conservatives believe in the free market and therefore supported reducing trade barriers at the Doha talks. By increasing protectionism Obama would deny the American economy further opportunities to grow and condemn millions of the worlds poorest people to remain in absolute poverty.
So overall although Barack Obama is an admirable man, we Conservatives should avoid being swept up too much by Obamania and think clearly before agreeing too much with his policies, especially when it comes to the world economy.
Feel free to leave comments.

ßr@$§¥

Today a green paper was launched outlining how the government intends to reform welfare payments. In February a government adviser claimed around less than a third of all those claiming incapacity benefit were genuine. So the question is how do we flush out all the bogus claimants whilst allowing those who are genuinely disabled to keep receiving their benefits?
Today's green paper goes a long way to doing this. It is sensible that from now on those who wish to claim disability benefits have proof they really need them and now they will be double checked by a GP other than their own. Some pressure groups have opposed this but what have they to fear? If someone is truly disabled I'm sure a GP will spot it. If anything these charities are questioning the professionalism of our GP's which I find astonishing.
As for the issue with claimants doing some sort of community work, I have no problem with that. As long as it is clear to everyone that these people are not criminals I think it is acceptable. It may also benefit them as it gives them a routine which may boost their confidence in applying for jobs.
When it comes to people claiming unemployment benefits long term I think we should be less sympathetic. I think what needs to be done is for job seekers allowance to be cut and the savings to be put into resources to help people get into jobs such as education, training and support. It is in effect a carrot and stick approach.
Overall I think this green paper should be supported. For too long swathes of people have been sponging off the state and they need a kick in the backside in order to either get them into work or get them off benefit. Never mind if Labour have stolen the ideas from our party. Firstly we stole the idea from Americas welfare to work program and secondly at least we know as a party that we're bringing in the best ideas unlike bumbling Brown and his buddies.
Feel free to leave comments.

ßr@$§¥

The economy is not looking great. CPI inflation at 3.8%, well above the 2% target, unemployment rising, GDP growth stagnant, the pounds losing value and to top it all off the unions are threatening strike action. What can we do about all this? We've seen this before in the 1970's when inflation and unemployment increased simultaneously, it's called stagflation, so how can we tackle it?
Well although Gordon Brown will be keen to be seen doing all he can, what he should be doing is leaving the Bank of England to do its own thing. The Bank needs to get inflation back down to target in order to stabilise the economy. This will mean rising interest rates which many argue will cause the economy to worsen, however whether the bank increases interest rates or not the economy does not look great. If the bank were to raise interest rates the money supply would be reduced, i.e. less money will be available in the economy meaning prices will fall.
If Gordon Brown is serious about economic stability then he should not give in to union demands for a 6% increase in public sector pay. This has warning signs all over it as there's a danger of a wage-price spiral. It's simple, if people get higher wages, they spend more and prices will go up further. And even if they do go on strike they won't last for long. I find it ironic when I watch the news when I see the strikers talking about how they're struggling with money and prices; if they're struggling that much how can they afford to lose 2 days pay by going on strike? As long as they're on strike they'll lose money and eventually they'll realise they'd be better off doing there work and earning some money than losing money by striking for a wishful pay rise.
And so what of unemployment? Many economist will be familiar with monetarism and Milton Friedman. He argued any attempt by government to reduce unemployment will lead to higher inflation. Not good. This is because increasing government spending will cause the money supply to increase, which means interest rates will go even higher than if the government did nothing about it. The government should simply leave businesses alone. If businesses are left alone by the government to do business, they will in time solve the rising unemployment.
Oil prices are another big problem at the moment. People are not happy about the price they're paying for petrol. This is not an easy problem to solve and I'm afraid long term the only way the price of petrol is heading is up. Its obvious as demand for oil is higher than 10 years ago due to the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) economies growing rapidly. And demand will continue to increase as their economies will continue to grow. In fact by 2050 the BRIC economies along with the USA will be the 5 largest economies on the world, ahead of Britain, France, Germany and Canada. Also the supply of oil will continue decreasing as our thirst for oil will mean stocks will diminish over time.
So long term petrol will continue getting more expensive. So what should the government do? Again I would say nothing. Just leave fuel duty at the level it already is and the market will correct itself. Eventually petrol prices will reach such a level that consumers will seek more fuel efficient cars or use alternative cheaper fuels such as hydrogen powered cars. The environmental benefits of this are tremendous and it's all because of market forces. I must point out this would not be deliberate in the pursuit of saving the environment, it is an inevitability.
After all these economic woes people are worried about the one they fear most is falling house prices. So they should be as it is the biggest asset that most people own. However this credit crunch should be seen as a blessing in disguise. Since the collapse of Northern Rock and many American banks, banks are lending less rashly. At least now we can be more assured that there will be more stability in the market as banks aren't lending to people who they know will default on their payments. In the mean time although people may be struggling to pay their mortgages they must realise this, that in the long term house prices will rise. There are always periods where house prices fall, most recently this was in the early 1990's, but give it 2 or 3 years they will start rising again.
So the big economic question looming at the moment is will there be a recession? Personally I don't think so although growth will be sluggish. There is still signs in the economy that the economy still has strength. I would simply say that the economy is cooling off after over a decade of strong growth.
And to sum this all up I will declare what I feel should be done at the moment to get us through this economic slowdown. Firstly leave the Bank of England to sort out inflation. Secondly keep the restraint on public sector pay. Thirdly leave businesses alone to do there thing. Fourthly leave fuel duty at its current level. Lastly leave the housing market to take its own path, it will recover in time.
Feel free to leave comments.

ßr@$§¥

It has been well highlighted recently in the press the amount of knife crime in our country. If you watch the news a lot you may be forgiven for thinking knife crime is on the increase and the nation is being swept by a crime wave. Well I'm afraid you're all mistaken. Crime IS falling overall. I believe the press has over hyped knife crime thus raising our fears about it. This doesn't mean however that I am not shocked by such young people dying at such young ages.
We must not forget that knife crime is rare and concentrated in small areas of the UK, mostly deprived inner city areas such as Moss Side in Manchester. In fact where I live in the South West (Bristol), there have been only 12 reported attacks from knives so far this year. 12 victims out of millions of people. For me this shows how much this is blown out of proportion.
However if we are to stop these young stabbings we must understand why people carry knives? One answer that's been circulating is that young people feel vulnerable so they carry a knife for protection. If this is the case then the most obvious way to tackle this is by increasing the number of police on our streets and getting them to have more strategic patrol areas. What I mean by that is, if there is an area with a high concentration of knife crime, the number of police in that area should be increased. If people see more police patrolling the streets they will feel more protected and the incentive to carry a knife will be reduced. Combine this with the current tougher measures for carrying knives, people will think twice before walking out the house with a knife in case they get caught.
There is also the issue of unemployment. It has been shown in the past that there is a positive correlation between crime and unemployment. Indeed you find many areas with a high concentration of knife crime also have a high unemployment rate. A lot of politicians talk about getting these people jobs and then believing the crime rate will fall. I believe it is not that simple. You hear politicians saying that crime doesn't pay. Well that is obviously untrue because if crime doesn't pay, people wouldn't commit crime. Criminals believe they can make more money committing crimes such as drug dealing than getting a proper job.
My solution to this is to take a more liberal approach to drugs in this country. I can guarantee that if cannabis was legalised, crime rates would fall. This is because immediately drug dealers would have no one to deal to as everyone would be buying drugs the legal way. The only drugs in my opinion that should remain banned are cocaine and heroin. All the others should be de-criminalised as in Holland and be strictly regulated and heavily taxed. This would put many drug dealers out of business and they would search for new work, which may be more favourable than drug dealing.
After all this I must point out that despite the statistics claiming that crime has fallen, they do not include statistics for crimes committed or involving under 16 year olds. It would be interesting to see those statistics. Despite that I think this is all blown out of proportion and we should not be so worried about crime and if we are going to tackle young people getting stabbed then we need to address why people carry knives by putting more police on the street in high crime areas, and legalise drugs to take drug dealers off the street meaning that there is no longer any crimes to commit that will pay.
Feel free to leave comments.

ßr@$§¥