Thursday, 31 May 2012

News Blackout

Whilst the expensive Leveson inquiry rumbles on, looking at arcane details of how papers selected by the Guardian and the BBC behaved, a very real scandal surrounds our media. Do you know what our strategy is in Afghanistan? How things are going out there? No? But hundreds of our forces have been killed in that God forsaken land. Yet our media thinks we have no right to know.

Certainly we get the odd snippet like Mike Brewer going out there and talking about kit (but strangely not the shortages, or the failures), or some special report that after it is over you realise, you didn't actually learn anything important from it.

What about Syria? Is the inability to tell us what is going on there due to complexity? That the situation is too dangerous for journalists? We should find it really annoying that the BBC just keeps saying in every report that 'we cannot verify the truth of these claims', by whichever side is making them.

We see footage of artillery shells landing in towns and Assad tells us it is the rebels. Rarely have I seen an armed insurrection by the people include artillery. I know the state has such weapons and they could have mislaid some, but it seems a cumbersome piece of kit for a movement without significant organisation and mobility to deploy.

The Taliban don't seem to have asked their friends for any and I assume they are much better placed to not only use it but to acquire it. But who is doing the shelling in Syria remains a mystery. By our standards, Assad makes it onto the bonkers scale, but internally in Syria, he has kept the fundamentalists from the throats of many other religions, not least the Christians.

Are the rebels Islamist fundamentalists? We don't know. But if they are, I dare say that Assad's admittedly nasty actions to date, would come to be insignificant should the fundamentalists seize power and begin the cleansing that is promised.

A Question For You

If you live in an EU country, answer this question; if you don't agree with the measures that the EU leadership are taking to deal with the financial crisis, what can you do about it?

The answer is not only simple, but also one that I wonder if anyone has ever considered before. Nothing. There is absolutely nothing you can do. You can vote for different parties in your own state (or region of the EU as you should look at it), but it won't make any difference. The EU does the telling, it never listens, let alone seek advice.

Because the exchange rate is wrong for Greece, it cannot get out of the mess it is in unless the rich countries, for whom the rate is right, transfer funds to the poorer countries. As we have seen, this they are unwilling to do. If a parliament, such as Greece's disagrees, it is replaced with EU leaning technocrats, who will do its bidding.

There is not only no democracy in the EU machine, it is in fact designed to destroy democracies. The eurozone is in a mess because of EU policies and those policies are here to stay. Look to history and human nature; when have tyrants ever backed down of their own volition, before? When all in the Warsaw Pact had to run their countries according to edicts from Moscow, it became a bloc of backward, impoverished nations. In fact, a model that the EU has followed and still thinks a good idea.

London House Prices Shock

A publicity seeking company that you have never heard of, have released a story (they call it a report) saying that if the eurozone breaks up, it will see expensive houses in London halve in price. Here is their reasoning; property has been bought at the top end primarily by rich foreigners looking for stable assets away from eurozone Europe.

There has been a surge in this activity they say. If the Euro goes kaput (which is like asking will the sun come up tomorrow) then there will be a brief uplift again in London prices, but as it all settles they will leave and prices could fall by 50%.

This didn't seem right, so we asked a six year old what they thought. Did house prices double in London due to all this buying by fearful Euro avoiders? No. Why did they buy in London? Because it has fine houses, in a much less volatile economy. Will this change after the Euro crisis settles? No. What will a 'settled' Europe look like when the Euro has become history?. A mess, with many countries vying with each other for trade by devaluing currencies and protectionism. Possibly a bit of fighting (you know, the thing the EU guaranteed to prevent).

How long will this last? Perhaps a decade. With a much poorer Europe resulting. If you thought London was a good bet now, why and when would you leave? For where? This is stark evidence, actual empirical evidence of the way Britain can weather the storm and come out clean. By being independent, getting as far away from Europe as possible, increasing industry at home and trading widely. We could ask the Queen what all this Commonwealth stuff is about, perhaps.

Does Cameron realise any of this? The six year old says he doesn't expect Cameron to move up to his class any time soon. Apparently, his attentions are held by a very disreputable gang that is hanging around at the moment. They call themselves the European Union I gather. They have some interesting, metaphysical ideas such as black being in fact white etc. I think Cameron does have a back up plan though. Whilst generally he believes that if something is absolutely, provably broken, it may not be. But, if you stick with it, the fairies will come and mend it while you are asleep.

Tuesday, 29 May 2012

Looking At Clegg

No matter how desperate David Cameron is to emulate Tony Blair, it seems to me that the politician who stands out as a Blair look-a-like is Nick Clegg.

Clegg has all the trademarks of arrogant assertion covering a haven't-got-a-clue reality, his wife having the same ambitious look, yet relying on sinecures with firms that earn from policies that her husband affects. He looks for the best education for his children whilst vehemently demanding that you do not, cannot do the same.

Ultimately, when seen in a harsh light, stripped bare he, like Blair, is an empty vessel.

Wither Europe?

No pain, no socialism as you might say. The EU needs to heal itself we hear, it is in dire financial straits. Well, maybe that is wrong, maybe we are letting the Left, the EU frame the 'narrative'. The only problem, as ever, with the EU and its Euro is political not economic.

If Greece was a sovereign country they could do what was necessary to recover, not 'negotiate' with Frenchmen and Germans. But then, that would be a country that also didn't drag down its neighbours or 'partners'. Again, politics.

If you look at the problems roosting today, you see it is the countries in receipt of EU welfare benefits who now need more and more. They won't help themselves (by paying their taxes!) and in many ways they can't, because the central power of unelected technocrats hold them in thrall. Greece is Waynetta Slobopoulos, but with a better tan. The people have become used to a way of life beyond their means and demand as a 'right' that it should continue.

That is the proper framing of this crisis; that it is a political one. A political crisis inevitable by the objectives of the EU from the outset and completely avoidable by the simple expedient of deleting the EU. It is not our national governments that duplicate the powers of the EU, but the other way around. At the simplest it is repeat government and therefore redundant; at the extreme it is an anti-democratic, totalitarian construct that will devour its children.

Left And Right

I've always been a bit uncomfortable about Left and Right in politics. Something seemed to be wrong with the premise involved. The Left is dedicated to the removal of freedom from the individual and giving absolute power to the State, which then hugs all the people it is responsible for, in that special benign way the Left imagine.

In reality of course, the Left is a totalitarian, uncaring construction for an elite to hold power in perpetuity, using violence to maintain its power. But then I am led to believe that Fascists are the Right wing version, doing exactly the same thing. Clearly, to me this means Fascism is of the Left as evidenced by the mislabelling of Hitler and Stalin as being polar opposites.

In matters of human interaction you cannot have the range that we have been led to believe in for so long. You cannot have an unpleasant, oppressive regime at one end, then progress through a free world of trade and movement to oppressive regime again. That isn't how we work. One extreme is clearly oppression the other is non oppression. We are not dealing with a temperature scale. Cold, being the Left and way too hot the Right. Unpleasant temperatures are the same to a person. What matters is good weather and bad.

This is not to say that what we have hitherto thought of as Right should now be considered wonderful, sunlit uplands. It means some who have been considered Right wing are in fact totalitarians and therefore of the Left. A person on the Right wing of the political spectrum has to be someone who respects others, embraces a culture of freedom of expression within a civil society, where laws only take effect where they do genuine good, to protect the majority.

Just as politicians who would hope to be on the Right need to look at themselves to see if they harbour ill will, so those on the Left should be careful that their instinct to control and burden others, does not lead them to the logical conclusion of such policies; totalitarianism.

Naturally, it may be supposed that without resorting to some form of communism (they do like their little factions of horror don't they), the Right could allow big business to flourish at the expense of 'workers'. That rich people would have a separate justice. But that would mean a state existing that promulgates such laws, and enforces them. See where this is going?

Monday, 28 May 2012

Wow! Cherie Blair A Victim!

The snake oil salesman, Tony Blair is continuing to use the Leveson 'inquiry' to tout some propagandised version of his life. Now we learn the nasty papers hounded his wife and that the legal pair thought about bring suits against the papers on many occasions. Yeah right.

I don't know what the Leveson inquiry is supposed to be for, but it certainly shouldn't give little gangsters like Blair a platform. This man destroyed the moral fibre of Britain, its standing in the world and its integirty. He also destroyed the economy and left the country less fair, less equal, with fewer opportunities and under a raft of oppressive laws. He is the most venal, the most disgusting example of a human being we have ever let be a Prime Minister of this country.

And he thinks the papers were unkind! If only the people in power had a little spine, we could deal with this runt of the litter in the way that should have happened, whilst he was still in office.

Eurovision - What IT Tells Us About Europe

The Eurovision song contest, long a favourite of mine is losing its lustre. I used to love the cheesy nature of the songs, the awfulness of some and the chaotic voting by countries that were unable to act in a grown up fashion. Now the show is put on with way too much panache, too many countries enter decent songs and the corrupt bit is beyond the pale.

I should applaud the progress towards genuine talent, but that leaves me cold I'm afraid. But what really drives me away is that all of the fractured former communist countries are involved and so we have lots more 'friends-votes. Cyprus giving top votes to Greece and vice versa was always laughed at, now everyone is at it.

It shows up in a way that we never get a chance to see normally (though always suspected), that Europe is a hopelessly segmented place, trying to pretend to unity. We are very different and all too many corrupt and non cooperative. Why on earth would you want to try to tie these people together in a political union, let alone an economic one!?

Maybe the communist regime of the EU should just celebrate diversity and leave us alone. People strive to do better when they can, or hold their hand out for subsidies when the EU comes along. It cannot work and only those who insisted they could sovietise Europe believed otherwise.

BBC & Blair

Irony piles on irony. A powerful media organisation, with a vested interest in the reduction of the Murdoch empire, the BBC continues to report the Leveson inquiry as if it is a chance for people to explain why they had dealings with this evil empire. Tony Blair was up today. Personally I wonder why you would bother, as the chance of Blair telling the truth is absolutely zero, not just because he has based his 'success' on lies, but because he has so much to hide.

Anyway, the lunchtime report on the BBC was extraordinarily soft on Blair, as is Leveson himself of course, who offered a humble apology to the superstar in his midst after a protester launched a verbal attack on Blair. War criminal is something that nutters often throw around, but it is hard not to see it applying to Tony Blair; there was no substance to vindicate his desire to attack Iraq and we used to concern ourselves about such matters. Blair's subsequent wealth is difficult to understand.

I don't know why the BBC felt the need to be so respectful to Blair, but maybe something is going on behind the scenes. The BBC may want to convince you that a competitor was up to no good, but they seem completely at ease with their cosying up to Blair whilst in office. Strange that, as he really is an evil man.

Tuesday, 22 May 2012

Doom And Gloom

Marks and Spencer report a profit fall and the retail sector generally seems to be in trouble. This is due to a number of reasons. The smallest and least significant is people losing their jobs. Those still in work have no reason not to 'carry on'. The major reasons are lack of disposable income and newspaper stories. On the latter, I'm surprised the media haven't accessed everyone's Facebook page and Twitter account in order to tell everyone personally and individually just how bad their life is going to be.

The papers endlessly report the end of the world and then ignore it not happening. They have no idea what is going on, so they make most of it up and guess that scaring people makes for better copy. So people hold back on spending because the papers tell them everyone else is doing the same. Not buying that dress today will, of course mean that you can pay the mortgage next month, as you are about to lose your job in the next day or so, according to the papers.

A major, real problem is rising prices. These are caused in a very small part, by producers needing to keep up with inflation. The biggest cause is either subsidies we must pay for on energy production, to allow wind turbines to be built, that will help eradicate fairies at the bottom of David Cameron's garden, or something. This is a cost without benefit. Then there is the opportunity spotted by these companies (and some others) to just increase prices, because they have realised just how stupid politicians and their bureaucrats are.

If the people who 'control' your prices believe in dragons, you should be able to charge pretty much what you like. Look at water. When we had a (government, again) generated crisis in supply, the water companies said that they were willing to meet their existing legal obligation to fix leaks, if they were allowed to put their prices up. And no-one, it seems, thought that outrageous.

Then there is increased taxation to take into account and so we have a situation where people are scared and penniless, not for any real or tangible reason, but because the government interferes and over taxes you, me and business due to their own inabilities and so the economy doesn't grow. As ever, a key indicator of a successful, or failing economy is the state of the retail trade. I wonder if Cameron can find time in his busy (games) schedule to listen to anyone other than a communist inspired pressure group, be it homosexual or environmental.

Friday, 18 May 2012

Life's Rich Tapestry

Oh joy! Rebekah Brooks has hit back at what she calls the 'posturing' CPS by referring to the private life of the QC bringing charges against her. Seems the slightly scary looking Alison Levitt had an affair with the man who is now her husband. At the time Lord Carlile had been married for 37 years to his childhood sweetheart and Ms Levitt was in a 14 year old marriage.

Obviously, in more deferential times, when standards of behaviour were higher and people in places of importance could be scandalised by such things, her role as a prominent QC and advisor in public service would have been questioned. Today, we find fault with wicked newspapers investigating the trivia we so hungrily feed on, expecting manners and high standards of conduct.

Ms. Brooks of course, is questioning whether the disclosure in the newspapers of Ms Levitt's affair may have given her a reason to dislike the press and may have affected her judgement as to whether to charge a tabloid newspaper executive. Cue an annoyed Keir Starmer. Ms Levitt didn't know that her affair had been reported in the News of the World, he assures us, going on to say it was just three sentences. Furthermore she is a 'distinguished and highly respected QC', by which I presume we are to assume a deferential position regarding her probity.

As a communist, Mr Starmer will naturally expect to have it every way. We must be liberal, 'progressive' and 'modern' I'm sure about married people having affairs. People should be allowed to do what they want, without constraints such as concern for the impact on others, like their spouses and children. Self is prime. However, deference, which can be ignored when referring to the Queen and such anachronisms, must be given to people who are 'distinguished' in the eyes of those such as Mr Starmer.

Reeks a little of the old benign elite, looking after you, because they know best, does it not? Indeed how dare such a person as Brooks have the temerity to question the integrity of someone such as Levitt? Do we not already know what a disreputable person Ms Brooks is, from all the things said about her at the public inquiry? Ms Levitt has not and does not do underhand things and to suggest otherwise is to impugn a flawless character.

I can't imagine Keir Starmer does intentional comedy, but I guess, being him it just comes naturally.

Thursday, 17 May 2012

Retail Strife

Clinton Cards goes into administration, with 2,800 jobs at risk and the cry goes up about the beleaguered High Street, facing online competition. It is true that Clinton's were slow out of the blocks in challenging the online start ups, but no-one seems to comment on the stores.

Firstly there are way too many of them and secondly, have you seen what they sell? In addition to a massive selection of so-so cards, they have a clutter of shelves and stands stacked with tat. When you go in and find something nice, tasteful and perhaps a little different, the shock is partly the product and partly that you didn't expect it of Clinton's.

So yes, online needs to be countered if you have a physical presence in the form of shops, but what is being sold is even more important. Look at the casualties; Woolworth's, Best Buy and Clinton's with Argos under pressure. All of these chose to stock too much and too much rubbish.

Great Britain

When attempting to close down debate on immigration, the Left often appeal to our national sense of fair play, our reasonable nature. And being reasonable and recognising the truth of what they say, we give in. But mass immigration undermines British culture, including the bit about 'fair play'. It is precisely because it does, that the Left encourage it.

It is true though that Britain has always stood apart from the rest of Europe in a very special way. We have, as a nation, remained calm whilst all around are losing their heads. We may well have relied on the US to save us from Germany in the last world war, but we were still resolute ourselves and didn't blame anyone else for our predicament, as did the French. For France, a nation that pretty much didn't bother during WW2, beyond a certain stiff resistance to Britain in support of their new German friends, it was Britain that grievously let them down, by not saving them.

This stoicism of spirit that exists in Britain is based on a history of people power that goes back centuries. Really, some amazing things were done in what we might otherwise think less enlightened times. The separation of powers between sovereign and the executive, the right to trial, the law being the instrument of the people; all of these things made us what we are.

Until recent times, when tyrants returned, we owned the law and governments feared us. Now all is reversed and Europe has taken its revenge on us for not being as stupid as them.

It is an important point that in the Britain we used to have, everything was legal unless we agreed to make it illegal. A policeman was a citizen in uniform and could only operate with the consent of the people. The absence of crime was an indicator of an effective police force. Their power was held in check by having limited access to weapons and by being split into many forces, all without a direct political control.

Many offences were minor and treated as such, with only more serious matters being considered criminal. A British subject of the Crown was free to a very great extent. Our predecessors paid moderate taxes to the State, but only assisted the State when they wanted to. We carried nor identification, nor were required to do so.

Today of course, nearly everything is a 'criminal' offence because the State, in the form of the supreme government of Britain in Brussels, says that everything is illegal unless they permit it. The police exist to protect the State and as such will be well armed. Whilst repeated attempts to con us into accepting identity cards (to protect us from terrorism even!) have failed, the (expensive) enforcement of regularly expiring passports as 'proof of identity' is now commonplace.

The reason Britain was a great country, with admired traditions and national character, was due to these hard won freedoms, that permeated our society. That we have allowed them to be destroyed and taken away by venal, uncomprehending politicians and petty tyrants, is to our great shame.

Cameron - Just An Illusion

Cameron has been giving a speech to 'business leaders' and despite these people actually knowing what is going on, Cameron still stuck to the imaginary world in his head. I doubt it is Game of Thrones, but some kind of virtual reality is swirling around inside his brain. Clearly, being properly educated doesn't mean you have any idea of how to apply that knowledge.

I'm not sure I believe in if any more, it's an illusion. The 'if' in question is, if Cameron is right. His speech for instance was formed around weasel words. His government he assured us, is doing 'all that it can' to get us out of economic crisis. This is a typical, throwaway line that is dropped into speeches because it sounds right. But Cameron must surely, know that he is far from active in debt reduction, or growth plans. And his audience there would know that at first hand.

What Cameron is actively engaged with is European integration, acquiescing to any demands from homosexual political activists, increasing national indebtedness, spending more, increasing taxation (mainly at the behest of 'green' political activists), subsidising another fantasy; 'carbon' reduction, allowing large companies to use their monopolistic situation to rip off customers, posturing and reminding us regularly that he is the Prime Minister.

So no, in no way is Cameron right, he isn't addressing the pressing issues and what he is doing is in the main, destructive. He isn't doing mad things that he thinks are political wizardry as did Gordon Brown, just things that make him feel important. He is the Prime Minister, you know.

At his speech he also 'got tough' with the EU. In his view getting tough means telling the rich countries (that would be France and Germany) to get on with supporting the poorer ones, in the eurozone. This is akin to a Samaritan giving advice on suicide to mentally unstable people. When he warned of break up, he clearly meant that he saw that as being as unthinkable as anyone else.

Naturally, given his track record on every other subject, doing the exact opposite of what Cameron thinks, is the right thing to do. The euro should not exist. It was only ever brought into being to assist in setting up a political union across Europe and the removal of national identity. Then the people would be required to stick to the laws emanating from the centre, just as Stalin did when he took over Eastern Europe after World War Two.

So, if you are finding life hard currently here are the reasons; the Left has undermined the legal system, policing, education and the Civil Service. Through 'environmentalism' they have forced governments to raise taxes and destroy businesses and the EU has brought about the financial ruin of Europe, including Britain. All of these efforts are made by authoritarians and authoritarianism is the creed of the Left; what we would call communism. It was the ideology of Stalin and Hitler and any attempt to portray Hitler as Right wing is to hide the reality, in no less a way than did communists who refused to criticise Stalin.

Our apathy to politics has allowed these people free rein and now we are reaping the whirlwind. If you don't want it to continue then wake up. When the attitude of all is to want to increase their lot and that opportunity should exist, then we will have the right political attitude to bring about a much fairer society.  This would exclude not only communists such as Ed Balls, Ed Miliband and Ken Livingstone, but also the likes of Nick Clegg and David Cameron.

These people believe in a political system that denies justice and accretes power to the centre, to them. It is unacceptable.

Police Federation Conference

The Union for police officers, the Police Federation, invited Theresa May, the Home Secretary to speak at their conference. Only, that isn't why they asked her. With a big grievance banner for her to sit in front of, the audience booed her and produced an endless series of childish stunts, to let her know that they fully supported whatever it was that the leadership was moaning about.

Police officers are angry you see, that they may no longer be able to retire at 50 with a pension some way above what they have paid for. These are also the people who take pride in the garb they adorn themselves with, to appear more aggressive, that harass motorists, attack peaceful marchers because they are not Left wing, who proudly fly rainbow flags in political sympathy with homosexual activists, who share responsibility for the abject failure to deter and detect crime and who shoot, on the whole, unarmed people.

Naturally, such a self impressed, poor quality bunch of individuals believe that they haver the wholehearted support of the country. Policing is an essential job and when they do it they will be essential, otherwise they remain the irritant, social engineering body that they have become.

If they expect the general population to chip in and support their much earlier retirement, then perhaps the general population should get the same treatment. Communist activists currently use this to deflect criticism of unfunded public sector pensions. To do this, we may have to delete the budgets for diversity training, gay and lesbian outreach events and all the other myriad, irrelevant and mindless nonsense, senior police officers devote the overwhelming balance of their attention on.

Theresa May, may not appear to be the safest pair of hands, but she has a considerable distance to travel if she wants to be as incompetent, vacuous and dangerously out of touch as the police Union.

Wednesday, 16 May 2012


How proud we need to be today, that we have the Crown Prosecution Service. This fabled organisation is led by a man who has a nobility beyond reproach. He is avowedly Left wing and a great believer in the Human Rights industry.

He brought a prosecution against a man who killed a burglar, based on the evidence of another burglar. The case was dropped when it came to court, being mere political posturing by the CPS. This is the same organisation that is taking so long over the simple matter of an MP having allegedly lied about who was driving his car, when caught by a speed camera. The charge, brought after considerable and unexplained delay, is perverting the course of justice.

Clearly, Mr, Starmer is a great believer in transparency and accountability as he has made very little of the prosecution of a Cabinet Minister, but launches live TV announcements about members of the Murdoch empire, in a similar predicament.

I think that the nature of the outrage evinced by Mrs Brooks is interesting. Her annoyance isn't just that she is 'innocent', but that the prosecution is being brought due to political pressure (or the CPS's own leanings). I think there may be something to this. Over 40 people have been arrested over this scandal, but the first charges  in the current investigation are these, and none are charged with criminal offences that might be said to be based on the central issue. No, Mrs Brooks and others are charged with destroying information that, the speculation is, night have been incriminating.

When the police launch an investigation into your work practices and you go into the office, extract a number of boxes of material and burn them in your garden (not what is alleged here) then it would be reasonable to assume that the two are connected and you are up to no good. It isn't proof though and though Keir may think that an old fashioned concept and not applicable in political trials, it is still the law.

It will be interesting indeed to see if the CPS think that the law should be allowed to have much bearing on the case. A great deal of information and not a little speculation swirls around daily in the Leveson inquiry, which seems to blithely ignore stumbling into possibly legal areas, where it may harm a future prosecution. Then there is the Left media reporting the inquiry, with many aspects amplified beyond reality. We are, for instance, continually told that 'this is bad news for the Prime Minister' because he knows someone who is appearing. No substance to the assertion being required.

A clear picture that Rebekah Brooks was in charge of a very unpleasant organisation has been framed and it is impossible to believe that any trial would not be conducted in the oxygen of an extremely opinionated atmosphere. According to the biased media, pursuing their favourite target, Murdoch, she had to know what was going on because she was in charge. At times they hardly seem able to stop short of suggesting she must have personally organised it and probably ordered it, because she is the darling of Murdoch.

On this basis every corrupt police officer must be operating under the instructions of his Chief Constable. Once again, the Left expect an ignorant public to swallow their version of reality whole. Well, maybe we shouldn't.

Tuesday, 15 May 2012

Saving Private Europe

Well, I suppose you should be fair to the European Project and say that trying to introduce a communist government of Europe without being able to do it all at once, was going to be difficult. Funnily enough, had the Project simply taken over in the Fifties and created the European Soviet Union it would have imploded about now anyway; it would still have been running against reality as indeed did Russia.

But we got the awful slow motion death of Europe by a thousand cuts and a million lies. Today most of its idiocy is laid bare. We are left wondering why this Emperor had a wardrobe, there was nothing to put in it. And there is irony everywhere you look. The EU leadership decide to lie about what they are up to because otherwise no one would put up with it. Then the Greeks lie to those same leaders about their financial situation, to be allowed to join a club and receive its generous 'welfare' payments.

Now that reality has intruded into these plans, Greece is on its knees, struggling to find a political solution to what seems an intractable problem. Intractable to a politician of course. If your intention was to serve your country and its people, the simple expedient of introducing your own currency and taking control and responsibility for it, with a push for economic growth, would be what you would do, today.

It is also a political scare story that Greece dropping out of the Eurozone would be a catastrophe. What is happening currently? 80% of Greek debt has been cancelled but that isn't a problem apparently. So why would the other 20% rock the world? And who says that would go too. And why do Greek need bailouts that dwarf  Marshall Aid, that saved the whole of western Europe?

Of course these bailouts are no such thing. They are just ways of laundering money through Greece, charging interest and then making them give it all to French and German banks. To save them from collapse, from affecting the French and German economies. The only terror in Greece leaving the Euro, is that it shows to other European people that their country too, could escape the madness of the EU. The bureaucrats might lose control, just when they were so close to finally forming their Europe wide dictatorship.

Oh, My God, It's A Show Trial

I had always thought the Leveson inquiry was a boring political jousting match that the Left was using to attack the Tories. More fool them for being a tad too close to a newspaper. But with the charging of Rebekah Brooks it suddenly struck me, it is a show trial.

These people have committed a grievous crime; they have supported the Tories! I have no flag to wave for Rebekah Brooks, she seems as disappointing a public figure as many these days. You used to be able to look up to important and powerful people, now they are not only very like us, but in fact all too often much less. Just as likely to have public brawls and drunken rants as any on the lowest rung.

But what is really a fairly straightforward case and in the main of little consequence, has been puffed up into something of great and serious significance. The reason of course, is that, as the BBC keep injecting into their 'news' reports, Rebekah knows the Prime Minister.

Did Cameron ask Rebekah to tap phones? Hack computers? Did he benefit from information so gained? No one seems to have alleged any of this, so it is just the inferences of the Left wing media, the Guardian and the BBC then. At these dinner parties we are to believe, from BBC accounts, Cameron would laughingly inquire of Rebekah, 'so, what have you done that was illegal today?'

I'm fairly sure if I had to guess, I would think a newspaperman (as we always used to say) would probably, at the very least push the barriers to get a story. And who's fault is it that today stories of national importance don't sell copy, but what some minor celebrity had for breakfast does? So should a Prime Minister befriend powerful newspaper people? Harder to see why he would avoid it I'm afraid. The biggest problem is that none of these people seem to have ever had moral principles taught to them. Blame the parents.

Accepting Responsibility

We are children. We have allowed ourselves to be reduced to that situation. Today, no-one really takes responsibility, no-one seriously considers their place in the world. They worry about themselves certainly, but that is not the same thing.

On a recent programme on the BBC about the late Seventies we saw the culture of strikes that was prevalent. It was the exercise of power by Unions, with the political objective of destroying capitalist Britain (today, these people would be 'environmentalists'). It was suggested that the real point where they over stepped the mark, was the strike by support workers at Great Ormond Street hospital

A nurse was interviewed who said she couldn't do her job of caring for children and strike. She couldn't do it and be a member of a Union she said. And this is important; she realised, in an intelligent and perceptive way that people today cannot, that the two were linked.

In those days, people realised, generally, that what they voted for, what they required from a government had to work for all, had to be based on principles. You can see immediately how different this is from the situation today. Now, selfish greed is paramount.

This is why, despite the complete inability of anyone to explain why global warming is 'real', it has attained a global political importance that can only be described as hysterical. It is why we have binge drinking, a disrespect for the law, at a time when the police have also reconsidered their job and think they are political activists and have redirected their idea of crime. Now they fight a class war against the middle and upper classes (as defined by them) using tools of petty oppression; banning hunting, persecuting motorists, refusing to prevent crime.

We have to realise it is us, as voters who have allowed this to happen. Why have we allowed politicians to con us with their narrow, self important view of their role? Why do we allow Left activists to control our lives? Listen to the nurses conference, where the audience jeer and shout down reform and change in their industry. Not because it is right, but because they have been told by their communistic leadership to do so.

Lansley was perfectly frank with them, though could have pointed out that these people, who continue to insist on a saintly status, seem to have forgotten basic hygiene. We have just had a celebration, because hospital staff have discovered hand washing and this has had a miraculous effect on infection control.

They don't want to discuss the number of people the NHS kills, by which I mean people who otherwise would not have died, not where the outcome was predictable. The government are booed because of supposed cuts the staff are told about by their leadership, but any front line staff cuts are entirely due to the political machinations of the management. We know that historically, the Left, without a hint of conscience, fight Tory attempts to get things working by destroying the front line.

Managers are left in place and nurses sacked. Bureaucrats not only protect their own jobs in this way, but attempt to define the political battlefield as being their saintly health care professionals against a wicked, uncaring Tory government.

We have to stop our unthinking support for this nonsense. The Left and its lies have held sway for too long. And by way of proof look to two people for whom politics is a personal vehicle, not an ideological imperative. Alistair Campbell and Peter Mandelson may be associated with the Left, but this is not why they are seen as notorious liars. No, they do it simply because, today we accept lies at face value. The bigger the better.

Wake up Britain! When are we going to have our moment of realisation. After the war, communists and their fellow travellers refused to believe Stalin had murdered so many of his own people, that the gulags existed. We know better now, but it is a lesson for the stupidity of our age.

Water, Water Everywhere

As the rain continues to lash the country, some areas resolutely hold on to a hosepipe ban. It feels stupid, but actually you can understand a long term shortage isn't solved by a lot of rain in a short period. But we have had a lot for a month plus, so what is going on?

Turns out that the government have been merrily rejecting applications for new reservoirs on the basis that there is 'no need'. Marry those two things up then; drought because we have had reduced rainfall over winter and no need for extra water storage capacity. The population has expanded (grown is wrong I think, when most arrived on a jet plane) and that alone would have increased usage.

The government however, are playing a virtual reality game. In their world there be dragons and every resource, every decision has to be made with the overriding aim of combating global warming. Proper scientists, using a knowledge of earth's cyclical history and the sun's activity, think it most likely that we are about to enter a period of cooling, maybe even a mini ice age. For this real threat, I think the government have made zero preparation.

The threat they invented in their heads, global warming was further blamed on Man's activity, meaning we could 'do' something about it. Strangely, this required the destruction of democratic government, Western civilisation and the capitalist system that has created so much wealth and well being. Once we had purged ourselves in this way some god would forgive our sins and global warming would be averted.

In so far as there was some warming, it is clear that, once again it was due to the Sun's activity. We are mere spectators. If you are a Stalinist, this doesn't help you scare the world into allowing you to take control.

Needless to say the anti-citizen policies of the government in the main came from the unelected government in Brussels. We should not be allowed to have enough water capacity for the number of people needing access. We should instead conserve this 'dwindling' resource, a thought process that even the old saying about the water you drink having been drunk many times before, slays.

So once again it is not just the government, but the EU that has caused a fundamental problem in the good ordering of a country and its vital infrastructure.

Monday, 14 May 2012

Did I Miss The Good News?

We all know our newspapers thrive on bad news, but really some consistency in the things they report wouldn't go amiss, even when it does mean reporting good news. Recently they have been banging on about how bad it is on the 'high street', how retail is going down the pan. So when Dixons Retail post some pretty OK results, in the current climate, we get no mention of it at all.

Is that really how we want these institutions to behave? Maybe Leveson should be looking into that. Things are tough, but from what I gather nowhere near as bad as they paint it, particularly regarding research and development and manufacturing. It could probably do with some help, but Cameron is tied up with tilting at windmills and chasing chimera's; gay marriage and non-existent global warming.

Wasn't there also something in the Queen's Speech about holding the tide back? I mean if we think that we control the weather.....

Car Design

As noted before, car design is, on the whole, in the doldrums currently. Copying is endemic and the 'style' chosen is ugly, inconsistent and childish. The gaping mouth; what a great idea. I did think the most ridiculous car design related thing I'd seen recently was the Audi advert. For a company who once made fairly attractive cars (from a bad start, as the TV advert shows), I cannot believe they wait until now to talk design!

The 'ugly duckling' we are shown at the beginning is certainly that, but the car they triumphantly end with isn't a whole lot better.'Look', they are actually saying, 'our car designers are striving to be as bad as they were decades ago, with less excuse'.

Audi's are all too often these days purchased by the worst drivers on our roads, easily outclassing BMW. They seemed to be to blame for bringing about the popularity of white cars (never good) and then some of the most ridiculous design. But then BMW struck back.

I have just seen an article about the BMW 6 series coupe. It is stunningly horrible. The proportions are OK, but that is about it. From the side, the cabin area looks quite normal but out of place on the body. This has the usual sharp creases and angles with a rounded boot. Doesn't work.

Inside, it is a an attempt at simplicity that has simply missed the point. The air vents are a terrible shape and way too large, the contrasting colour schemes and highlights badly executed. The dials look like they belong on another car, with a different dash and very possibly a much lower price tag. On the door you have what looks like the silver painted grill from a cheap 1980's radio.

All the evidence appears to point to BMW doing some wonderful engineering work, but my advice would be to hire a designer too.

More Hollande

Already the world has heard too much coming out of the French oaf Hollande's mouth. With no grasp of economic reality, he is yet another conman to continue the French tradition of believing themselves to be the finest breeders of bureaucrats, whilst the evidence piles up that perhaps they are the worst.

Hollande talks of piety and we find that he takes a £12,000 an hour private jet to celebrate with his supporters. It was the only way he could get to Paris quickly enough we are told, by way of explanation. But of course, if he decided to be hundreds of miles away at his moment of victory, then that is his choice and maybe he can't get to Paris. But, yes he can because someone else will pay for it. Does he not claim to be a 'Socialist'? Surely we should expect such behaviour then?

His hatred for the rich seems a little confected too, for someone with three houses. Naturally what we are actually seeing is a man who has only said what he thinks will get him elected, furthering his wealth and power. Then he will 'retire' on a healthy pension. If you live in a country where stupidity and hubris are rampant, you would be a fool not to be a 'socialist'. I predict that we will see a never ending chain of destructive measures introduced, riots and constant scandals of hypocrisy.

Friday, 11 May 2012

The Things That Can't Be Said

Another awful QT last night. I think Dimmo might be losing it, he couldn't stop the bickering and grandstanding by the ridiculous Chris Bryant. I am ambivalent about academics on the programme. On the one hand their specialisation should provide a better, more considered and structured answer to questions, but of course so many of them will only participate through a Left wing filter. It is the only thing academia takes pride in across the board; being politically naive.

The most telling section though was the absolute and overwhelming inability of anyone to answer the question, asking whether the recent grooming convictions of an Asian gang, had racial overtones. Firstly, we should recognise that if it had been a white gang targeting Asian girls our media and politicians would be screaming about its racist nature. Secondly, that it is culture not race that is the issue.

A man in religious garb got himself in an almighty mess by trying to make valid points, but tip toeing around them. Naturally he felt he had to do this due to current 'sensibilities', but even so Bryant was shaking his head vigorously, as he spotted a politically correct issue being abused.

To summarise what the poor fellow was trying to say; the case featured white girls as young as 13 becoming friendly with men in their mid forties, because they were offered free chips. He questioned where this lack of discretion came from. He also said that the vogue for girls to dress skimpily doesn't help and sends out the wrong message (cue the Bryant head shaking). And finally, to show his complete ignorance of left wing orthodoxy, he wondered what their parents were doing about them, or social services if they are in care. He even corrected himself when he almost mentioned a 'normal' family.

His points were valid, spot on and entirely relevant. This had the left shouting him down of course. Why do girls dress in very revealing clothes? Because it is fashionable we are told, usually by people who don't trouble themselves with thinking before saying. But it is not is it. They dress like that because we have removed social principles from ourselves and moral codes just don't exist (look at how high Brown claimed was his moral rectitude, when all the evidence showed he doesn't have any, at all).

They dress like that to appear 'sexy', to attract males. That it is done ever younger is due, again, to the efforts of the Left to sexualise children (through 'education') and the lack of parental control. To a group of men from a community that, on the whole, sees women as very much second class objects and requires them to cover themselves from head to foot we get another extreme reaction. They see the overtly sexual dress of these girls as proof of their lack of concern for themselves as sexual objects.

To be clear, the culture provides a different way of looking at these girls, which generally just manifests itself as disgust and lack of respect. These men took that further and acted on their own urges, which makes them as criminal and as evil as anyone else who cannot act in a decent manner. This is the clash of multiculturalism and it is why the Left do not allow this debate. It is yet more evidence of the faulty nature of their ideology, so must be hidden. However for some, multiculturalism causing these divisions and strive, is exactly what is intended.

From my cultural background, I have a lack of respect for a medieval creed that treats women as inferior, however, I still think that, having attained a degree of choice, a little restraint should be shown in public. It was interesting to note that none of the QT audience, including the raging Lefties, was dressed in micro skirt, boobs hanging out, stockings and high heels. Maybe they didn't think it appropriate though heaven knows why, because apparently, it doesn't have a 'meaning' it is just a form of garment.

On the subject of race, it was kept very clearly to meaning colour of skin, at no point was anyone allowed to suggest that the culture of Pakistan, through the backward nature of the interpretation of Islam they have chosen, means that a clash with our own failings was inevitable.

So what are our failings? Our cultural misdeeds?  Well, our religious friend covered all of that too. Our so called culture is no such thing, it is a thread of historic traditions and institutions, hanging together loosely in an almost forgotten way, assaulted on all sides by Leftist doctrine that relentlessly ridicules it. Gay marriage is not all the rage to right some inalienable wrong, it is a political crusade to destroy our society by undermining the basic unit of family. We know, absolutely, that the nuclear family of a married father and mother raising children results in the best outcomes for those children.

The Left deny this at every turn, not by facts but by ideology. It must be wrong they say to allow one system of relationship but deny another. Why must it? That people who cannot have children get together in relationships that are either platonic or sexual is of no concern or consequence to other people. Marriage however need never come into it. What are they forming a family unit for? They don't need to tie themselves to each other. And yes, the marriage and its vows, so spat upon by the Left these days (guess why), is in some ways supposed to be a coercion to stay together, for the sake of the children.

So, a little personal rectitude, a belief in decency and respect for others, self respect and a caring, supportive family would alleviate many of the problems that are making these children vulnerable, (as opposed to the Left construct of 'vulnerable children', something quite different). Interestingly, these concepts are the very ones espoused by the Christian faith, which has (with some admittedly pretty big hiccups along the way) served Western civilisation so well over the centuries. How it sticks in the throat of the Left in its attempt to control your lives.

Imagine the chaos without their central controlling influence; of people able to do what they wanted when they wanted, with respect and thought for others. To someone not of the privileged elite of course, this would seem an eminently desirable system, but the work of decades needs to be undone if we want that. Why, even people with a conscience and a clear idea of what is wrong around them, cannot speak openly in our 'free' society because he fears to 'offend'.

Chris Bryant. Let me summarise his position; race and culture are not and cannot be an issue, it is just Right wing intolerance that causes problems, that girls should be allowed to wear anything or nothing without it being interpreted as a conscious decision on their part, to send a message about their personality and intentions. Bryant doesn't think that the police failing to investigate a complaint for 4 years is a problem either, as it just showed they were exercising the right amount of sensitivity, to people of a different race and culture (not that they noticed that anyway).

Bryant also feels that the Coalition are making a mess of getting the country out of financial ruin, by adopting policies identical in all but the tiniest detail, to those of his own party. Although he applauded (as did the Lib Dem Lord, apparently an economist) the succession of Francois Hollande to the Presidency of France, promising to save the country by taxing the rich heavily and spending it on 'the people'. Cheers all round.

'The rich' however, will move their cash and probably themselves if he tries his reverse Robin Hood stunt. He will never raise the sums he imagines and his belief that moving money around inside France will change things, is idiotic at such a level, that it possibly creates a class of its own. The Conservatives know they need to regrow the economy to generate the wealth that drags us out of the mire, but somehow cannot turn that belief into action. Again it seems, it is just something you cannot say in public.

Wednesday, 9 May 2012

Cameron - Held Back By Clegg

Yeah, right we've seen loads of evidence of that. Remind me, who said, without a Clegg in sight that he wanted to lead the Greenest government ever? Why, you moron? Global Warming isn't real. You don't even have to get out to know that! CO2 still rising, warming stopped in 1998 (there's lots more, but Cameron doesn't seem to  have a very great attention span).

Why are we to have a Green Bank? Is it becoming difficult to siphon money to buddies? Why the massive wind farm just given the go ahead? Turbines are ugly, environmentally unsound in a real world, non-WWF kind of way, as opposed to communist doctrine dressed as polar bear hugs and absolutely, definitively, entirely pointless. Except to the people harvesting subsidies.

Cameron seems incapable of learning. He doesn't know how to regrow the economy nor why, he can't grasp what a Constitutional Monarchy is, he doesn't realise that when the country proves, repeatedly (General and local council elections) that it wants Conservative policies, he should do just that. But instead he thinks it is enough to say he recognises this and then carries on being a vaguely Left idiot.

So yes, we are aware that Clegg is even more stupid than you (he not only thinks the EU is a good idea but that Britain should even now join the Eurozone before we 'miss out'). Presumably in the same way that popping into the nearest town during the Black Death was a good idea, as you wouldn't want to miss out on being dead, which seemed all the rage at the time. But no David, you still couldn't recognise a Conservative let alone be one.

Tuesday, 8 May 2012

Exploding Europe

On it goes, in the age of Wishful Thinking'. First a person perceived as a true Tory gets voted in whilst Tories elsewhere in council elections get an absolute thrashing. (Ghastly to see how many people vote quite happily for a lying, wealthy, incompetent, hypocritical, Stalinist in the form of Ken Livingstone).

Then a raving Socialist is voted in, in France and Greece can't form a government. People voting against 'austerity', the belief seeming to be that if you don't vote for austerity bad things will go away. Maybe ostriches will inherit the earth.

Anyway it is clear no-one seriously wants to address the issue except Britain, where the people clearly want to vote for Conservative policies of growth, but the wet, leftie Cameron won't offer them this.

It will be funny watching the supremely arrogant Hollande, replacing the arrogant Sarkozy, pout and fume about everything that annoys him and promise his followers the world, delivering nothing but extra grief and debt. He is on a mission to destroy France. Good luck to him. He should also be a big boost to the destruction of the EU, which will help the whole of Europe a great deal. It seems it takes stupid people to finally destroy the stupid constructions of stupid people.

What should Greece do? Well, I think someone in Greece should take the bull by the horns and say that Greece, a once proud country must stand on its two feet and declare itself proud once again. It should print Drachma's in secret and then when all is ready, tell the Eurocrats that they no longer run Greece, that the Euro will be replaced with the Drachma, immediately and with an exchange rate set by Greeks.

If this means trouble for the banks that the EU is supporting, then so be it; they got themselves into this mess and they created the situation for the Greeks to be destroyed. It is only pigeons coming home to roost. Greece can then go about growing their economy and returning wealth to their people. To do this though, they have to abandon their lifelong love of Communism, it has held them back before. Surely they can see the communism of the EU project isn't working for them?

Socialism, by which these days means almost exclusively communists in hiding, has wrecked Europe with its repeated stabs at power. Most spectacularly it has caused the banking crisis by having Blair and Clinton in power at the same time, both courting money and power with banks. Authoritarians have had their day. It is time for their citadels to be torn down, the biggest of course being the EU.

Interesting also to see, as the EU begins its death squirms that it is lashing out at Britain, that constant bastion against authoritarians in Europe through the ages. They are trying to remove the 'old' idea of nations states, beginning here and we don't need to wonder why. They will seek to destroy our financial centres as it keeps us strong, just as they long ago forced us to break with the Commonwealth,

How much longer can we keep finding stupid people to run our politics? When will a leader emerge who can see the EU for what it is?

Thursday, 3 May 2012

Mark Serwotka - Socialist?

Mark Serwotka is the General Secretary of the PCS Union and has a solidly socialist background. He wants you to understand he is of the people and wants the best for the working man. Actually, he is none of the above, it is just that words like socialist are nicer, less threatening.

Mark takes about £90K as a salary and a good slug of money for his pension pot; I have no idea what a union boss does to 'earn' this money, it seems that it is a pretty cushy number. What he does do though, is use that position to cause trouble, supporting his true views, which are far Left and intended to bring about a version of the USSR in Britain.

This needs to be clearly understood, because when people such as Serwotka talk they sound reasonable, Left leaning people who want to oppose Tories. But they lie incessantly to further their cause; it must succeed and so any sense of fair play is put aside. We must start challenging the Left not because they are socialists but because they are not. Many socialist ideals are perfectly acceptable and can be subject to rational debate, but these people are hard to find.

Austin Mitchell's London

Labour arch twit, Austin Mitchell MP has said that London is sucking the life out of the country. This is the bleating of a victim culture weakling, who echoes the Marxist creed of 'somebody do it for me'. Basically, he has it the wrong way around. London is a centre of activity because it tries to be. The North is the way it is because people with the attitude of this small minded gimp hold sway.

He blames Thatcher for destroying manufacturing and focussing on the City. Certainly she could have helped more, but it had to destroy itself. I think the Unions in the Seventies and the Labour governments of the time did most of the work.

Similarly he blames London for the crushing of cities like Manchester and Liverpool. Many Northern cities boomed during early Industrial Revolution manufacturing, but were not adept at moving with the times once established. That was their downfall. Liverpool was crushed, mainly due to its shipping moving to Felixstowe (hardly a city), where the ship owners could be assured of their vessel being unloaded, whereas in Liverpool they had to try to arrive in between strikes, something that became increasingly difficult.

Like Scotland, the North of England has been destroyed by throwing its lot in with Labour. Marxism was never intended to serve the people was it?


If you follow the logic of the Greens then you must be of the opinion that Man should not use energy. Delingpole says that we should rely on the technical inventiveness of mankind, which has, at least up until now, resolved our looming problems.

It has become clear that the global warming scare turned into a scam long ago and it isn't something to concern anyone. It was definitely right to look into it though, as it is absolutely the case that one thing affects another and we just didn't know what level of harm our activity was having. However, when we realised that we are not having any impact, we should have also said we don't understand the mechanisms either, so we need to keep an eye on things.

Contrarily though, we did the opposite and allowed a bunch of political activists from the Left tell us that they did understand the entirety of global climate and that Man was having a devastating effect on the planet. None of this, not any of it was true and it is very probably the enormity of the lie that caused people to think it might be true. But hey everyone said, in this post intellectual world I'm not going to do anything stupid myself, like try to find out!

Going back to the assertion that technology will save us, it has to be the right technology and again, unbelievably the Left has achieved something incredible. They have sold you technology that cannot possibly do what you need it to do. We know, absolutely and without doubt that our current photovoltaic technology is woefully inadequate for domestic, let alone industrial power applications.

Is your roof plastered with solar panels? And how is that working out for you? Great when the sun shines and you are not at home I would guess, just the fridge and the fish tank drawing a little power. What about when you get home and want to cook dinner, put the kettle on for a cuppa in front of the TV, watching that new Blu ray film through the cinema sound system?

Don't tell me, you can't even have a (low energy, low output) light bulb on, because the sun has gone down (which is why you need a light on!). Then there are the wind farms. Fabulous output when the wind is just right, none at all when it is calm or quite windy. So, they require a real power station as back up, just like solar, negating the need for these 'technologies' in the first place.

Gas is a relatively low CO2 output fossil fuel, so should we be building those type of power station? Delingpole again is keen, because the shale gas reserves found around Britain means we would have our own fuel for hundreds of years. But as CO2 output is not causing a thing called global warming or climate change, we don't need to worry about emissions. But you know what, a lot the by products of burning anything are not that pleasant when emitted to the atmosphere.

We may not be looking at the catastrophe the Left tried to make you believe, so they could create the failing system of government they need to seize power, but pollution is still undesirable, so let's try to avoid it. Nuclear of course gets us away from the emissions problem but produces its own problems of radioactive waste. Well, there may be good news here.

The use of Thorium as a fuel for nuclear reactors would have an immediate benefit in that it produces between 10 and 10,000 times less waste than uranium, which is what we currently use. As it uses up all the Thorium rather than the 0.7% in a uranium reactor, meaning we have at least a 1,000 year energy supply at current usage, worldwide.

There are other benefits too. It doesn't need to be used in a pressurised environment so no explosion should a plant be overwhelmed as at Fukushima. Also, it stops reacting if you stop bombarding it with neutrons. As a scientist involved pointed out, if the reactor 'runs away' and gets too hot, a plug in the reactor melts and the thorium drains away, so stopping the reaction process. It saves itself.

Are we developing this technology? No. We are pumping all our money into wind farm and solar array subsidies, into funding Green activists and their useful idiot academics. Nadine Dorries recently suggested that a major failing of the Conservative leadership was that they didn't know the price of milk. It seems more likely that the bigger issue is, they don't appear to know how to find out. The most obvious things escape them.

Wednesday, 2 May 2012

How You Doin'?

Traditionally a map of Britain shows a Labour heartland in the North and solidly Conservative in the South. This we are told (and have come to accept), is because working folk live 'up North' and all the snooty, posh types down South. So the division is based on the people that live there.

But as ever, the Left have tried to construct the narrative along lines of their choosing. They have decided for you how you will look at something. If you are a low paid worker living in the South are you a fish out of water? Do you yearn to move Up North?

Do wealthy people (excluding footballers, they are too stupid to count) in the Northern climes always up sticks and relocate Southwards, the day some magical figure of money in the bank is hit? I think not.

Clearly, the divide is more likely that the devastation in Labour regions is because they are Labour regions. Where effort is rewarded and ambition is seen as good, wealth is created and these areas flourish because those traits are Conservative traits.

I mentioned traditional earlier and this should be seen in this context. Needless to say, the current Conservatives are no such thing. Though Labour continues to be mainly a subversive, Marxist party masquerading as something altogether more benign and 'of the people'. Though of course there was the interlude where the spivs of Tony Blair held sway, whilst trying to make themselves rich.


The retailer struggling for reasons that are palpably obvious to everyone, except its management are in the news again. Bad news. The boss of Argos, who gets paid the big bucks because he takes the big decisions and thinks up grand strategy and is a risk taker, is going to hire consultants. To come up with the grand ideas etc. He also thinks that a bunch of employees ought to pay, with their jobs for this bewildering failure to sell enough.

Maybe close a load of stores, though most are mid-lease. Doh. Argos have an interesting sales concept that they should work harder at making a positive in the eyes of the public. Instead their laxity in getting the goods out and the teeth grindingly annoying 'number 27 please', machine seem designed to drive people away.

By having no goods on shelves, for shop lifters to steal, they have no theft problem. They don't need security on the door and they don't need security tags on products. Are these cost savings passed on? No. The way Argos have decided to present themselves as having cheaper prices is by selling tat. They ought to have a staff uniform based on baggy jogging suits, to make their target audience feel at home.

But it is not just that. It is their product range. Choice is nice, don't get me wrong but what you stock defines who you are. You employ people to understand the market sector they cover and buy according to a strategy, maybe one the CEO came up with, when he wasn't looking for consultants to ask what he should have for lunch. But what kind of strategy produces this result;

Mice. A fairly simple device, that tends to be seen with almost every computer. So maybe an item that sells well. So how many different models do you think Argos have available? One hundred and thirty, that's how many. Yes, you read that right 130. And there are fully 25 priced below £12.50.

Mr. Moron met Mrs. Moron and they had a child. They called it Argos. Don't sack the staff, sack the management. Do what entrepreneurs do and innovate. Look at your market, spot the opportunities and work them. Be a motivator not a dumbed down, run down, disrespected shop, with a sense of entitlement.

If you look at job ads for roles at Argos such as Buyer and Category Manager they say exactly the right thing. They want people who 'think outside the box' (I hate that phrase, but everyone knows what it means), who can bring new ideas. But they don't hire those people! Or if they do they stifle them into conformity once on board.

Don't hire cloned graduates, because your sure that sociology degree will prove useful at some point. Hire them because they have a spark, or hire a kid off a park bench who, when you talked to him was oozing natural talent. Go and find these people. It is clear this isn't happening, because on an effort versus return basis the lack of return points clearly to a lack of effort.


A parliamentary committee decided yesterday was the day to show just how pointless this Left inspired Salem witch hunt is. They announced that in their opinion the Murdoch's were not fit and proper people to run an international company, even though they have no business making that assertion. It is the role of a regulator.

The opinion though, just appeared to be the malicious dribbling of the Labour bloc doing as they are told, so not even a hint of a real inquiry process. But I suppose the real point was to try to set the direction the regulator should take. It would be a brave bureaucrat who found differently from a Parliamentary committee wouldn't it?

This inquiry, like the Leveson one is yet another example of how the Left so completely dominate our lives through corrupt politics. It has no point and barely touches things that are the proper interest of government and yet as a tool to attack capitalists, both in the flesh and politicians of that hue, it is unimpeachable. The constant complaints and shrill exhortations of the Left really are becoming tiresome.

The process has revealed something of importance though, that is of real and proper interest to MP's and something that requires action. Tom Watson MP (Labour), a member of the anti-Murdoch brigade brought in to do harm, has released privileged information from within the inquiry, before its own report was published and in a book written for financial gain. Watson disclosed that the report would say Murdoch misled Parliament.

Surely this exposes Watson as at least not a fit and proper person to be on the committee, casting its whole validity into doubt, but also raises the question as to whether he should be a Member of Parliament at all. It is surely correct that he be released from his position as an MP and barred from the House for at least 5 years, meaning he cannot stand again for election to that House, within that time frame.

Naturally, as you would expect of such an unattractive character, Watson has form. He has leaked information before, though his buddies on the Leveson inquiry somehow managed to blame Guido Fawkes blog. They said that Watson had copied the information released from the blog, making Paul Staines (aka Guido) the source of the leak. Quite how the redacted version he published became un-redacted in Watson's hands, no-one felt at liberty to say. This meant an important matter was dropped.

So, the actual lessons learnt are, that we should listen less to and be more aware of the Left and its persistent tactics to modify the way you think. And that we should act against the Left, holding them to account every time they corrupt democratic process and break the law. No more should they be able to escape common justice, as it applies to others. This is not party politics, or differing opinions. We have to weed out these dangerous people from within our midst.

Tuesday, 1 May 2012

On Being Fed Up

I am heartily sick of hearing about the Leveson inquiry. I know it has such a high profile because it is beloved of the Left and so the BBC major on every nuance, but really what is the point? So journalists hacked phones; that is a criminal matter for the police, lawsuits by those affected are a civil matter. Government collusion is a concern but, excuse me, I haven't actually heard much of substance there. We really must stop letting the shrieking of the Left affect our view of the world.

When New Labour came to power it was widely held that it was the support of the Sun that swung it and now we hear that Cameron and others had personal contact. This must come as a major shock to the country, close to a bear's activity in the woods, I should imagine. What we haven't heard is anything of substance. The Jeremy Hunt affair looks dodgy, but probably because it is.

Hunt has a guilty look that does his conscience, if not his integrity, a great service. The torturous way Cameron talks about it also suggests there is more to it, but we'll see. It might make some small point to the whole, expensive shebang.

Look, let us get this straight. If a Prime Minister can lie, openly and blatantly to Parliament and the country and in doing so take this country to war and we do absolutely nothing about it, why would we be concerned about a Prime Minister knowing a media tycoon? We haven't even locked Campbell up, for goodness sake!

Actually, on a separate note, is the vast amount of money Blair is getting paid and his 'Middle East' mission, based on him continuing to search Iraq for WMD's? You know, the ones he is certain are there? Here is what is apparent today though, with the benefit of hindsight and a better view of what, in any other country would be called criminal activity. In the Middle East there is a real threat from the very slightly unhinged regime in Iran.

This stands them apart from a long list of grasping malcontents who seem to run much of the area. They actively want to cause harm and want powerful weapons. So we invade the country next door which, whilst having a nasty, tinpot dictator in charge, was otherwise none of the above.

A constant stream of news emerges that ends with the word Pakistan, as in 'terrorists trained in', 'went to a camp in', 'assisted in terrorism by the security services of', 'bombers came from' and 'Osama Bin Laden found in'. So, once again, we invaded the country next door. Due to this new policy, all I can say, with one eye on the Eurozone situation, is that if the Germans kick off again, boy are Denmark in trouble.

Global Warming stopped in 1998. CO2 continues to go up, but the temperature doesn't. It's been warmer before. CO2 rises after the temperature does, not the other way around. Clearly we do not understand climate to any significant degree. So why are we still taxing and regulating and pumping money into Green activities and giving a mountain of cash to Green activists and academics?

(On the basis that there are obviously a lot of really stupid people out there; I have a few jars of Moonbeams for sale, at £1 million each. I collect them from cucumbers).