Friday, 30 April 2010

The Final Countdown

With the final banal media show called 'the leaders debate' having passed, we are now well and truly in the run up to the election. If Brown gets 4% of the vote, it will show that people in Britain have an intelligence not shown before and vote for those best able to help the country and its people. More than that and we have the same indoctrinated Labour voter with a cross turning out. (I was amazed frankly, at the clapping on QT last night when the repugnant Balls mentioned inheritance tax. Are people so misled by years of Leftist propaganda in schools and the media, that they cannot think for themselves at all?)

Still, the debate. You know, at times Brown could sound like a good politician if you didn't already know that he is fiscally, emotionally and politically inept and an inveterate liar. So, nil points there. Cameron seemed to take an age to remember to be a Conservative (and strange how his rating goes up when he does -I still dream you know, see below). And Clegg? Oh Clegg, what to make of the man. He managed to rise on the tide of popularity that is the norm for the reality TV watching mob. Now an 'important player' he and his party were ignored no more and Clegg really didn't like the scrutiny. He is almost as ill at ease with it as Brown! But what was Mr Popular's strategy going into the last debate? 'I'm not them'. No really, Clegg seemed to think that not having any ideas on anything would be fine as long as he convinced people he wasn't either Brown or Cameron. Hence his constant reference to them 'points scoring'. I think his people remembered hearing in previous elections how people wanted a box on the ballot paper for 'none of the above', to show disgust with all those standing. So Clegg's LibDems become the 'none of the above' party and he bombed. Pillock.

I particularly loved the point when Dimmers asked the 'leaders' what made them different, a soft enough question and went to Clegg first. After doing his best goldfish impression Clegg scooted of in a different direction, maybe answering a question he wished he'd been asked.

We know from seeing his notes before that Brown arrives with what he thinks will be brilliant interventions and soundbites. I don't think endlessly saying 'inheritance tax' and 'tax credits' was ever likely to be a killer punch. Just listen to yourself Gordy. Even if Cameron was giving something of substance to '3000 people', that is such a tiny number as to be irrelevant. And perhaps someone should explain to the great unthinking mob that tax credits means the state takes money off you (for which they employ someone), then reviews your situation (and employs someone to do that) and then hands some money back (a third person). Any idea where waste might exist in Gordon's Soviet state? How about not taking money off people in the first place?

Don't need to say much about Cameron. He believes too much 'modern' stuff and appears to lack the ability to understand and discern (itself a highly modern trait). But when Brown makes him particularly angry, as appeared the case towards the end, then he suddenly becomes more traditional and his stock with people who want things to improve, soars. It's called Conservatism, David.

Wednesday, 28 April 2010

Wouldn't It Be Great

Wouldn't it be great if, elected with a majority, Cameron stepped up and said "I am the heir to Blair. I too have lied to achieve power and now I have it, I'm going to do just what I want to do, just like Blair. This time however, it will be for the good of the country. AGW is rubbish and wind turbines stop today. All green taxes will be abolished and we will look instead at promoting energy efficiency for it's own sake and cut emissions because they are noxious. The EU will be tested in a referendum, but I'm for saving money, sanity and Britain, so I'm for pulling out. All illegal immigrants will be deported immediately and British citizenship will be cherished and not handed out lightly. Welfare benefits will be for those who participate but are temporarily struggling. Decent people will be treated as decent people and criminals as criminals (a major policy difference between Conservatives and Labour). We will reduce the scale and scope of government which will be the driver behind reducing the deficit and by encouraging business, reduce the debt. Policing will be considered effective when it has reduced the occurrence of crime, rather than how often they are seen ostentatiously rushing to crime scenes. They will concentrate on crime, not fund raising for the Treasury. Lastly, those in authority who are incompetent, negligent or corrupt will henceforth be sacked, not excused. and that goes for the PM too".

I can dream, can't I?

Self Interest

If you are like me, one of the things that will have infuriated you in the MP's expenses scandal was the way they kept saying they hadn't broken the rules and then we found out they hadn't. The fury was over the rules they themselves wrote for themselves. The reasoning was always 'well, you wouldn't expect us to have to....' and they then went on to justify expenses for things you have to pay for in your life, like commuting. What was really going on of course was a dispute over how you look at things. For instance, if your employer gives you a car to help you do your work, it becomes a 'benefit' and so, taxable. If they pay your phone bill, it is taxable. Gordon Brown really does rake in the tax every time we move. However, he gets a free house and he not only has a company car, he has a driver too. None of this apparently is a benefit. MP's get money to fund a second home and this also, is not a benefit. If everyone had the same rules as MP's applied to their employment, the country could not function. It is something we need to get very angry about and it needs to change. This does not mean giving them a pay rise either. Like it or lump it, the same as the rest of us.

Tuesday, 27 April 2010

And again

After the guesswork on crime called the British Crime Survey, we have the Met Office (already famous for guessing what will happen to the world's weather in the long term) deciding that it would be perfectly OK to guess at the movement and density of the volcanic ash cloud from Iceland. This, despite the consequences of their utterances. It just goes to show that this country is completely out of control, leaderless. Supermarkets, utility companies you name it and you find that companies in the UK (particularly big ones, with inherent monopolistic situations) make bigger profits than overseas. No wonder so many of our utilities are foreign owned. There is the never ending clamour to tax us more heavily in the name of non-existent Global Warming. The police aggressively pursue crimes that attract Fixed Penalties. Such is the nature of our oppression.

Based on the need for self-preservation, New Labour has introduced a creed of no responsibility, no accountability. No matter what goes wrong, no one in 'authority' must ever be held accountable, there is always an excuse. So nothing ever gets better when bad practise is uncovered, pumping money into public services is to largely throw it away. It is why Sharon Shoesmith feels so aggrieved that she should be regarded as in some way responsible for the department she was in charge of; no Minister ever accepted such a rule under New Labour. Indeed, it would be unthinkable. Shoesmith was sacked not because of her careless attitude, though in the real world that was precisely the point, she was sacked because otherwise the blame may have moved up to Ed Balls and he is damned sure he is not taking responsibility for anything.

Corporate executives now casually sign contracts that entitle them to huge bonuses whether they succeed or fail. When the company does well, it is due to their leadership, when it doesn't it isn't their fault, they can't be held responsible for everything that happens.

Parliament clings to the etiquette that no member can accuse another of lying in the House. However, actually lying or committing fraud are not considered a problem at all. This all, these things spoken of here, have come to coalesce around the New Labour Project. A project to win power for it's own sake and to exercise that power by ignoring traditional rules and conventions, because they had no teeth, they were, to all intents and purposes useless. Lying to the House used to be a resigning matter, yet Blair has on many occasions, most spectacularly of course over Iraq and yet what has happened to him? Nothing. Nothing while he still held power and nothing since, despite his criminality.

Thursday, 22 April 2010


Crime is down. You can just hear Brown crowing about it, in his usual 'I saved the World' way. But where does this opinion come from? The British Crime Survey. Launched under the Tories, it was not their finest moment, but a Godsend for the likes of New Labour; it could in fact be called (more accurately) the Comedy Crime Survey. Ever supportive of their left-liberal bias, the BBC trumpet the output from this survey to prove that fears of crime are just moral panic and not real. But they don't mention the Surveys' parameters.

The British Crime Survey asks a tiny percentage of the population their 'experience' of crime. It doesn't include crimes committed by under 16's and serious crimes like murder. It is not based on established fact. Shall I use the same methods on the BCS? I don't know anyone who has ever been asked their 'experience' by the BCS, therefore the BCS doesn't exist. No?

We saw recently the release of accurate, comparative statistics for recorded crime that showed a steep rise in crime. Which, strangely accords with the belief of the general public. Imagine that, we now have a government who have bettered lies, damned lies and statistics and it is called The British Crime Survey. You'll find it in your library under fiction.

Monday, 19 April 2010

Lib-Dems? Really?

In the usually complicated world of British politics, it seems Labour getting the least votes could still mean the most useless Chancellor/Prime Minister ever, could get back in. So, do the Tories attack the Lib-Dems to try to steal their share? Or would that backfire and give them more voters? As is customary, Brown's fate lies in others hands; he doesn't have a role to play in this campaign so should just keep quiet. He won't though, because he has no understanding of the real world.

Acknowledging that there is also leakage to independents and minor parties, it is the irritating habit of the British people as a herd that is causing the problem. In '79 the Tories managed to get the country to elect a woman and despite being more educated and serious times, it was clear someone had to clear up the mess Labour (as ever) had got us into. But all too often the British think 'oh, let's give the other lot a chance' in a spirit of fairness. It clearly is what happened in '97 as the Tories had been in for 18 years and although the ERM debacle (that any party would have gone along with, being European politics of course) caused a recession, the Tories had more than got us out of it by the time we, apparently, thought a snake-oil salesman was the best thing for Britain. And it was clear he was a conman from the off. Now however, 'the other lot' is the Lib-Dems as Labour and the Tories get lumped together, or possibly, hopefully, Labour are being written off. Do I mean Labour, New Labour or the Trades Union Party, which is what I think Brown has signed up to?

I'm not convinced by Cameron I have to say, but I don't think Clegg isn't up to it and Brown has proven he isn't.


Volcanoes, what can you do with them!? Damned inconvenience all round. The current difficulty as Jeremy Clarkson put it in the Sunday Times, is that the ash cloud is bad enough to bring down airliners but not enough to actually see. So where did the decision come from to close British airspace? From history, from previous occurrences. Alarmingly a 747 plunged tens of thousands of feet when it flew through a volcanic plume and all four engines stopped. Scary enough? Volcanic ash is highly abrasive and will destroy engines and abrade glass making being able to see to land a challenge. Naturally the thinking stops here. Had the 747 mentioned above been told of the volcano, they would have avoided it. Did the authorities close airspace after taking samples thus averting damage to aircraft and possible tragedy? Apparently not, instead they saw the wind blowing the ash this way and that was it. As with AGW and so much else, what interest is there in facts and observation, when theory has it covered. I'm sure the 'experts' would warn us that they wouldn't be thanked for not being careful and then a plane comes down. Maybe not, but a default 'guesstimate isn't what we expect either. Ex-spurt='ex' is a has been and 'spurt' is a drip under pressure.

Friday, 16 April 2010

Leadership Debates

Well, hardly a debate. All arrived with soundbites and put them in. Brown developed a talent for giving his opponents something to beat him with and Nick Clegg relished his role as 'the one with no chance of being PM'. I may be biased, but I still think there was only one of the three who could credibly be Prime Minister and that was Cameron (and I include in that statement the incredible fact that Brown is the PM).

This was pointless TV and yet you had to watch, just in case someone lost it; Cameron could have laid into the bottomless pit that is the ineptitude of New Labour and Brown in particular. Brown could have dropped the facade and become the angry, incoherent imbecile he is away from the cameras you suspect (and hear) and Clegg could have said what he would really do as Lib Dem PM and scared people witless.

What was disappointing (viewed through the lens of QT later) was the depth of the lack of understanding in the general public. Now, the BBC may be reckless with regards impartiality in selecting the audience (and it does seem clear they allow Labour to place activists, who then get to speak), but even normal people seem to have become statists. I think it is almost a refusal to think maybe more than conditioning, which is what I used to suppose, but this bovine attitude and behaviour seems to be everywhere. The common herd has become convinced in the god-like power of experts. Any mention of science and people switch off their brains and wait for instructions. Hence the AGW scam. Doctors, teachers, judges all are 'experts' and must have their way. Judges in particular have adopted the left-liberal stance of considering themselves, because they adjudicate the law that this in some way elevates them above the lawmakers. They ignore their impact on society because they are above society.

So, when Cameron mentions voluntary effort, he is suggesting something that works on many levels. It could in fact be a very strong force in society, to cancel out the selfish, me,me,me that arrived with Tony Blair (and he and his left-liberal cronies have successfully convinced the unthinking was Thatchers child, instead of the increased opportunity she really brought). But the audience at QT seemed unnerved at the prospect of volunteers and John Sargeant very eloquently undermined it with his belief in the innate goodness of 'experts'. Eloquently that is, until someone queried it. Our society has multiple fractures and its ability to hold together is in no way assisted by Browns immigrants and the undermining of British culture they bring and Brown forces upon us. People like Victoria Coren talk about Britain's historic tolerance and use that to justify immigration. But unfettered it destroys that culture, Derr!

To sum up, Brown has to go and Cameron is the only alternative. Here is what is basically the problem with Brown. He had £10 and wanted to buy a £10 cake to eat. The problem was he wanted to keep it as well. The solution he came up with was to borrow £10 and buy two.

Tuesday, 13 April 2010

Conservative Manifesto

Very light on the real problem facing us, debt and like all the main parties no mention of helping rid us of that debt by getting the monkey of the EU off our back. However, overall the message is a strong one and I really like the idea of giving power back. It fits with their well known schools strategy and could offer hope to the likes of doctors who might be able to concentrate on medicine and patients, instead of Labour apparatchiks and their targets. Which should mean fewer state sponsored deaths, thank goodness. Could have been stronger i.e. more Conservative and so more supportive of people who contribute and those who would like to.

Brown's response was brilliant. He talked about the need for central control of your lives. He said you would be abandoned by a Conservative government not interfering. Brown realises that no-one feels that the state intrudes too much with too many stupid laws. That driving the NHS to become a killing machine, to push police to pursue only motoring and political crimes (but not politicians of the left) is something the nation craves more of. That he is completely detached from reality is undoubted, but do his constituents realise? Would be nice if they would think of the United Kingdom and Scotland for a change.

Monday, 12 April 2010

Labour Manifesto

Much as they have hated having to do it, Labour have put down on paper a manifesto to hold on to power, which is very different from a manifesto to govern. You can tell that Labour do not intend these words to last beyond May 6th, even if they win, in the way they have left so much out. Launching this fabrication, Brown talked extensively about what he speculates a Conservative government would do. Naturally for a fiscal incompetent, he is also happy to lie where need be. What he wont address, even when asked, is what he will actually do to get the finances straight (something he still says he can do in the short term, taking only 4 years to halve the deficit). Alan Johnson was asked about why he wont guarantee not to raise VAT , despite vilifying the Tories. All he could say was that the Tories were the party of raising VAT. Does that mean Labour wont? He wouldn't say, so that's a yes they will raise it.

Brown talked about the future, emphasising that looking back is a bad idea. Well, yes because if you do you realise the person telling you the country is safe in his hands, spent the last 13 wrecking it. Darling gives the impression of being the only one who recognises reality when he sees it, but has been seriously gagged. He let slip earlier that, basically it will be the private sector and its taxes that will get us out of the mire. Brown says the economy is the public sector so he mustn't stop spending on his client voters (well, not before May 6th). Remember, Brown said no increases in income tax, then raised NI, followed by the 50p rate and now he is back for more NI.

For 13 years we haven't had a government. New Labour came to power to enrich themselves and to impose central control over everything. We now have thought crimes and extensive criminalisation of people who should be seen as bulwarks of society. Difficult to avoid the (often wrong) attentions of the state these days and almost no way to correct them. It sounds dramatic, but Britain has become a nation of oppressed people.

Saturday, 10 April 2010

News Readers -What is Going On?

I am getting really annoyed by what appears to be a new trend with newsreaders. They keep saying 'a' before words and putting ridiculous emphasis on the start of words too. Is there some new, moronic trainer going around? It doesn't seem limited to one channel and it seems to have suddenly appeared.

It is really annoying, really, really annoying and a stupid way of speaking anyway. What is going on?

Friday, 9 April 2010

1689 Bill of Rights

Now here is a nice piece of legislation, typical of the sort of thing done in the peoples name but never really intended like that. Parliament was keen to show its importance at a time when things were very different in terms of power, involving royalty (civil war or not), so the result was something that couldn't be achieved just because it was 'the right thing'. One aspect, that gets people going these days, is that 'no fine or forfeiture can be imposed without due process of the law'. Which means a court has to find you guilty. If a policeman issues you with a fixed penalty ticket he is flying in the face of this law (which still stands). However, because you can refuse to pay and elect to be tried in a court (or actually just appear before a magistrate) the claim is that your rights under the Bill are upheld. That the state attempts to intimidate by issuing the penalty and increasing it by 50% should you have the audacity to demand your legal entitlement gives the lie to this. Technically correct, but a clear abuse by parliamentary power.

A parking fine needless to say doesn't offer this alternative, hypocritically or otherwise so is just illegal. Full stop. A clear example of the contempt MP's have for the people and again, an abuse. The Bill of Rights could have been amended, laws always can as no parliament can tie another (except I suppose when it is a massive debt like Gordon has racked up) but it has to be expressly done. So someone would have had to point out, openly, the mischief the government of the day intended, before making the changes in a new law. Not very palatable, better to just ignore the law and hoodwink the people. It was about raising funds after all.

The reason for this need to spell it out was openly stated by a Judge who said some laws were 'constitutional' and were part of a 'hierarchy' of laws. In normal practice, when a new law impinges on the provisions of an old one, the new takes precedence, except here with constitutional laws. (He was keen to make this point as it was during the Metric Martyrs trial, when they said the 1985 Weights and Measures Act allowed the use of pounds, but the Judge said the provisions of EU law as enacted under the 1972 Act, by which we joined the EEC, could not be superseded in this way and specifically named the Bill of Rights as another).

You can find a short document in the House of Commons Library that completely ignores this and tries to have it that new laws are just that, new law. It carefully says that the Bill can be amended without pointing out that it hasn't been in important areas. To be fair that isn't the point of the document, but you can't help reading it with the feeling that it is to put you off the scent, if you were planning on looking to the Bill for support in some way.

Naturally, the government and its agents are in no hurry to have this tested in a court of law. If they have their way and deny there is a hierarchy of laws then the Metric Martyrs were wrongly convicted and the trial was politically controlled. If not, then the EU Act of 1972 can be binned.

Interestingly, the government has never had the right to hand authority to a foreign power, as has been done. There does seem to be a lot of abuse and extra-legal activity in our governments of late, does there not?

Council Car Parks

One of the worst things government does is to set a framework that they fundamentally change later. You know they are aware of the problems this causes. because they are careful never to do the same for things affecting themselves (or as in the expenses scandal, write laws to specifically exclude them). On car parks then, let us examine Milton Keynes.

Milton Keynes is a planned town, its layout was considered right from the start, so the basic infrastructure is clearly defined, such as the grid roads and the roundabouts. A large. enclosed shopping centre was built and surrounded by copious, free parking. Milton Keynes was the city of the car, not least because it excluded tall buildings and so was quite extensive in spread. Free parking around a prestigious shopping centre meant that MK was attractive to all kinds of retailers and the reputation as a place to shop grew quickly. Even coaches from Suffolk brought carrot-crunchers to the sophisticated environs of this new town (city). The shops pay premium rates to the council, but know why and have the ability to pull in the punters to pay for it. Then, once established the council started salivating at the prospect of easy money (is there any other kind for government?) and introduced parking charges. And in the sort of socialism Gordon Brown would understand, they introduced bands of charges -red (most expensive) close to the shops, purple (less expensive) further away and green for the kindly-bestowed free spaces, furthest away. So, on a rainy day you can tell the rich inside the shopping mall; they are the ones who aren't wet.

The white lines of the bays were repainted (there is a legal defence if they are not obvious) and thick coloured lines painted along the front to denote the banding. Solar powered ticket machines are in place and a small army of uniforms appeared to 'enforce' these new rules (and hopefully plenty of fines). Now, there are about 16,000 spaces in Central Milton Keynes with 5,000 of those being 'free'. So if we estimate that the 'premium' and 'standard' are split 50/50 then we end up with 5500 of each. The official website says that parking charges are premium 30p per 15 minutes (I think it is slightly more, but we'll go with that) and standard, 30p per hour. Further, let's assume that the shops open at 9 and as parking charges cease at 6pm that gives 9 revenue hours per day. That means the potential income is £59400, premium and £14850, standard. Or a total of £74250 per day. For a car park you paid for. And don't forget; you don't buy the space for an hour (or whatever) you only buy the ticket entitling you. If you come back earlier than expected you cannot hand over your ticket to someone else to use up what has been paid for -they are 'non transferable'. So potentially, they can screw a bit more revenue out of 'their' spaces.(Personally, I not only love handing over a ticket to someone else, but I also love the etiquette that says you don't ask for payment. It not only sticks it to the council, but makes you feel superior, because you aren't a money-grubber like them). But this doesn't only apply to shops. No, the council attracted businesses to the centre of MK, plenty of them and then stuffed their employees with charges too. They can buy 'scratch cards' which I think are a pound a day, but originally you couldn't and with a maximum stay of 5 hours(!) you were treated to the spectacle of office workers pouring out to buy tickets and move their cars (otherwise you had 'overstayed'). Oh and if you park near the station, the free spaces are only available after 8:30am, so if you start work earlier than that -pay for a space.

So what do they do with the money? Well, they would tell you that your taxes would have had to have gone up without the car park charges, which you know is self serving cant. Some years back I saw a job advertised in the MK free paper (which I so wish now I'd kept) for a 'white line monitor'. I can't remember the exact title, but that was the gist of it -someone to check on car park lines. Mind you, the first thing the council did when introducing parking charges in the centre, was to build a new private car park for themselves. Free of course.

The details matter. A vibrant shopping centre is one where people window shop, stroll at leisure and perhaps stop to have coffee or a bite to eat. But with car park charges, you buy the time you think you need, hustle round and get out. The coffee shops miss out, because you didn't buy the time for it and the stores that might get impulse purchases, don't. It is not the business of government to leech off society, it is not their business to interfere and intrude. Rather they should assist and facilitate. But with super-salaries for 'Chief Executives' of councils, thousands of non-jobs to support and elegant offices to provide, you can be sure the self importance of government is assured and the thinking will always be that the servant is the master.

The thing is, there isn't a word to describe the people at councils who do these things to us. You might think 'moron' or 'imbecile' might fit, but that doesn't cover the spite and carelessness that is added to their stupidity. Maybe we should have a competition to come up with a word, or perhaps just invent one.


Victoria Coren was on Have I Got News For You last night. That is what I call a raised profile, but I have no objection to her appearing on the telly at all. In fact, I must admit that I am becoming something of a fan. Not stalker, creepy fan, though she is a delight, rather a reason to watch a programme she is in. I really like her quick fire way of speaking, the rapidity of her wit and a certain style. Her politics seem a little unthinking, but there you go. And, did I mention, she doesn't look too bad either.

Thursday, 8 April 2010


Last night's programme was no cutie. Question Time is such horrible programming. I don't think that it was just my leanings that made it unwatchable, there seemed to be more placed lefties than normal. When an audience claps actions taken by Gordon Brown then you know something is not quite right. The panel didn't raise the likelihood of quality debate either; Schama the historian was like some mechanical toy activated by being asked a question. He was bouncing around in his seat and waving his arms about as if lack of motion by any part of his body would instantly entail its loss. I would normally find this endearing and the essence of an eccentric Englishman, but as he reeled off long sentences with no content, rambling and directionless, he was a bore. At least with Milliband, D you don't have any expectations, his abilities plainly being extremely limited, and on that front he didn't disappoint. He decided that the Tories not imposing a hike in NI was a 'tax cut' and that meant police officers and teachers will lose their jobs. Not only did he invent that whole scenario, he obviously arrived with the line and was bound to say it (probably more than once) whether it fitted into the debate or not. I appreciate that Labour, with spite in mind, generally cut front line services in a 'well if you wont pay more in tax what do you expect' kind of way, so perhaps that was going to be on their minds and seem reasonable to expect anyone else to do that too. From what I saw before getting too bored, Dimbleby decided the audience, sorry the Labour panellists didn't need his help this week.

Theresa May, well what can you say? I really want her to be a good, strong participant, but she isn't. Skewered by nothing sharper than a comfy chair, Theresa couldn't effectively handle why Chris Grayling had supported B&B owners who had been vilified for objecting to homosexual acts in their house. In acts of possibly deliberate ignorance, the lefts line was that when you set up a business, you don't get to choose and that the law was against them. Well, I think that you will find businesses make many choices (although changes in the current laws may force change) and that 'the law' isn't a manifest good. Unfortunately, as happens so often with PC, the stupid hypocrisy of vague laws causes them to repeatedly crash into each other. The law supporting homosexuality, whilst always given high status was here allowed to trump Human Rights in the form of religious freedom. One 'practising Christian' in the audience said that his faith had no problem with homosexuals, so presumably practising in his case referred to not being fully competent; another 'practising Christian' pointed out the Christian faith has always had a problem with it.

Campbell was an odd sort on this show. Usually dependable, he seemed confused and on at least a couple of occasions found himself spouting Labour rhetoric, until it was pointed out and he attempted to modify his stance. 1 out of ten for turning up I thought. Janet Daly was reliable. Though (for some reason) not asked to contribute that much, it was she who pointed out the clash of PC ideas, but the panel, Dimbleby and the audience it seemed, struggled to understand her point. 'Yes, but opposing homosexuality is against the law' she was told.

So, as expected, political 'debate' during an open election campaign is basically pointless.

Wednesday, 7 April 2010

And We're Off

The worst kept secret in politics is out, yes the election will be on May 6th. The polls tell us that a hung parliament is a distinct possibility, which we really don't need right now. But the polls are usually wrong. I think overall, people are fed up with the lies and deceits of all the politicians, but they will decide, come election day, that like it or not they must bring in the Tories. We cannot continue to allow Labour to wreck still further this tattered nation. For me, I think the Tories lost in 97 because people thought that their in-fighting was no good for the ruling party and so again it is with New Labour (or New New Labour now under the ownership of Unite). Labour will rely on their corruptions where they can, having ensured the maximum number of people are on benefits and a large client class of pointless Quango employees and public servants exists, knowing that their imaginary world relies on Labour. They may try vote rigging as they have repeatedly done in the past. But it will be to no avail. They have been in power too long to continue to kid people that they have, or have ever had, the faintest idea what is going on. It is time the chancers and ne'er-do-wells of New Labour should slink away.

Thursday, 1 April 2010

Question Time

As we are in pre-Election fever currently it seems OK to watch BBC's Question Time. Admittedly it can be good sport at times but generally it's a bore. Well, the format is hopeless and so what can you expect? Politicians and invited commentators face the public and answer their questions, but it is all quick fire and so degenerates into cheap point scoring. Mind you that is all the House of Commons seems to be for these days so maybe I am hopelessly old fashioned. Tony did keep saying we needed to modernise things, usually political things and I never understood why, so perhaps it is just me being out of touch. I kinda liked a safe country that was justly proud and where things worked. It may not have been terribly modern looking, but it was comfortable, people felt less need to kill each other and quite recklessly used to talk to their neighbours. I digress.

What I wanted to mention about this flawed political show was Victoria Coren. She seems a lovely, intelligent lady and has an easy witty style. My word though, she is definitely of the Observer/Guardian class. Her views on any subject were predictable and way below her obvious capabilities. Her view on immigration? That if she ruled the world people could move freely anywhere they liked. Presumably the sun would shine all the time and everyone would love everyone. Instead we have her support for the Labour model; Britain as a rich country run by exceptionally stupid people, doesn't just let anyone in, it also gives them money and houses. OK, so that isn't a universal gift, but there is plainly too much truth in it. People look for easy money, so it is no surprise we have particular problem with immigration. That is the real world. But the likes of Victoria can never see past their Utopia and as she is plainly intelligent I am lost by her lack of connection. Another little line of hers was to launch the uniform attack on the racist bigots of the BNP and how did she do it? By slandering the people of Barking and (speaking of her own heritage) that she wouldn't make a good Russian, the implication being she speaks up on bad things, adding that she doesn't even drink! Maybe just a teensy weensy bit of bigotted racism there Victoria. And she is wrong. As long as she was a politically powerful Russian, she would fit right in. Thing is though, she is probably right about a large part of Barking and the Russian thing was just a joke and mildly amusing. The problem is that her people, her class are in thrall to political correctness and believe we should not be allowed to say such things. You can't have it both ways Victoria, no matter how nice you are.

Don't Get Me Started

If someone pulled the rug from under your feet you would notice of course. Which is why politicians go about things very differently. They need to convince you that either you never had a rug in the first place, or that you really should hand over the rug of your own accord. So what they do, is to affect your thinking. Mostly, in what could be called this Post Education world, it is achieved through the lens of Political Correctness, but can be by means more akin to a sleight of hand.

An example. I have a great plan to make some money. I'm going to ask a group of people to give me some money, that they wont get back and with that money I will build a car park. It will be in a prime location, just where they want it and when it is built I will charge them (and to be fair anyone else) to use it. Does that sound outrageous to you? Why would anyone hand over the original 'investment' money? I agree, no reason at all. Now substitute your local council for me, in that scenario. Outrageous. But somehow, these slimy toves have convinced us that what they do is all above board. As I said at the outset though, don't get me started. I'll come back another time about the evils of council car parks.

The coming General Election

It is clear that an election is imminent (and closing in on being a Constitutional necessity) but it hasn't actually been announced yet. That hasn't stopped party leaders acting as if it has been called. Might this be because there is a cap on spending during an election campaign? The government (e.g. the Labour Party) have massively upped the amount of advertising it has been doing over recent months, usually to give the impression that it is doing a stonking job, running the country. Our everyday experience would suggest otherwise of course.

Today we have business leaders saying they don't fancy a tax rise, amazingly, which gives a boost to the Tories as it amounts to support for their objection to increasing company National Insurance contributions. None of that is surprising, but the Labour response is I feel. The ludicrous Peter Mandelson (who is risibly the Business Minister) says the Tory suggestion that they would reverse the NI hike on businesses if elected, is like a child in a sweetshop who is grabbing sweets without any idea how he is going to pay for them. Well, in Opposition a party cannot know the full figures for the economy so there is a certain amount of guesswork, but stupid ideas still are stupid ideas whether you need to raise tax somewhere or not. It is however, a fairly accurate analogy of what Gordon Brown has done when Chancellor and having max'd the nations credit card, he turned (in his new PM/Chancellor role) to inventing money. And Mandelson's further assertion that there is a hole in the Tories figures is pretty rich coming from a Party that have created a massive hole in reality and also have no solid plans to cure it, or in fact to rein in the reckless spending of their PM/Chancellor. The man with the title Chancellor, but whose only role is to bring serious eyebrows to the delivery of the Party message, suggests that the whole nation will be saved by the efforts of the private sector and the increased tax revenues from their activities. Then carries on oblivious to the damage he does by increasing the burden on the private sector, by increasing the size and cost of the detrimental state sector and pushing up the interest bill like some addled gambling addict. We certainly are beyond the Age of Reason.