I know this isn't a shock (the shock is, that with legal obligations the BBC are allowed to ignore them), but BBC News is actually just opinion through Left wing ideologically tinted glasses.
This morning Teresa may was 'interviewed' on Breakfast TV. The interview pretty much consisted of trying to trip her up on her Brexit talks or get her to say something negative about Boris Johnson. You know, stuff that only really matters to Leftie journalists and no-one else. It failed.
So then they went over to one of their own journalists and asked his opinion of what she had said. Why? Who cares? But of course, it looks like independent verification of Leftie ideas.
There is plenty of scope for a truly independent journalist to tear into the Conservatives and their, so far, bland conference. Conservatives (at least, traditionally) are about small government, individual liberty, freedom of opportunity and equality before the law.
What we currently have is a high spending looks-like-Labour Tory party that is in danger of appealing to absolutely no-one.
The still in sixth form journalists posing as adults on the BBC could just ask May "why don't you massively shrink the bloated state sector? Tony Blair, a man of no use or utility, hugely increased the state payroll to acquire client voters, so why not reverse it and close down the ever-increasing debt mountain?
Why not point out the damage not only the Labour actions of the Seventies did to Britain, but the current mess left by the policies and action of Blair and Brown? Having done so, you can then move on to the painful process of dealing with it. It is not the fault of those employed in the pointless bureaucracies and quangos dreamed up by Blair, that they are so employed. But for the sake of the country these constructs and their jobs need to go.
By being honest and up-front we can perhaps give them time to find alternative employment (though people like Shami Chakrabarti need a special kind of employer), before shutting the doors.
Why not change the school curriculum to include education on the agenda instead of endless Marxist propaganda. Then the future won't consist of emotionally weak, under educated snowflakes, but with people of drive, skilled and imaginative.
Hell, even without a proper education, how about an open science lesson about Climate Change; it would be an hour well spent and then the day after we can withdraw all the green-scam subsidies and reduce everyone's energy bills. The shock may melt some snowflakes and cause the rent-seekers to squeal like stuck pigs, but it would also save the lives of the pensioners condemned to die of cold this winter, because they can't afford to pay to heat their homes and enrich charlatans.
Showing posts with label Blair. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blair. Show all posts
Tuesday, 3 October 2017
Wednesday, 9 August 2017
What's Wrong? I'll Tell You
It does say on this blog that it is personal opinion. Good, that's that covered now to press on.
We find ourselves in all sorts of bad places at the moment, kind of forming a single feeling of, well being in a bad place. You know, education doesn't seem to be working, immigration seems a problem but you don't want to sound horrible, hospitals can't cope apparently, politicians are in their own little world, which is not what you imagined they were for and then there's the news.
How can all this be happening? All at once. Well your culpability is that you weren't paying attention. Now, whilst some of it was intended to evade your notice, the glaringly obvious also slipped by. Hello? Tony Blair? Really, you elected him? And then did it again? How many clues do you need? No wonder the actual problem went undetected!
On healthcare; basically a good idea run by the wrong people. The NHS 'free at the point of delivery' is just like any other insurance paid for scheme, but is run by a state bureaucracy. Time and again these are proven to be the worst people to allow to run anything. Soldiers achieve great things on battlefields, doctors and nurses do great things on the front line, but take a step back and the managers, the MOD are a shambles of incompetence, entitlement and waste.
Doctors and nurses are not coming out of this as unmitigated heroes though. Nurses used to do the basic tasks on wards, which were clean, functional and caring places. Now nurses don't receive training, they are educated, to degree level. This new understanding of their own importance means they no longer concern themselves with menial tasks and assistants have had to be hired to do those jobs. Wards are now dirty with poor standards of actual care.
When you go in to hospital, you are an inconvenience, you mess with their numbers. Cost them money. So you are allocated a number and processed through the system, with everyone focussed on maximising the efficiency of the system, to please managers and bureaucrats. You are no longer a patient with an ailment, you are a form, to be processed. You might get what you need quickly enough and you might not.
Complaints of course crop up, but the defence mechanism is continually oiled for this possibility. How dare you criticise doctors and nurses? Whatever went wrong, it will be cuts (if Tories are in power) or swept under the carpet if 'socialists' hold sway.
And there it is, the first mention of socialists. It isn't socialism that is the issue though. This thoroughly acceptable political thought process is not to blame as it hasn't been heard around here for a very long time. No, Marxism is what is at work. Gramsci and the long march through the institutions is at work.
Education is a good example of what is going on and it is of key interest to Marxists of course. You will hear from time to time bleatings about 'unqualified' teachers. This is usually about free schools, a recent introduction. And naturally, hearing that teachers are unqualified instantly makes you think they must be substandard. But do you ask what a qualified teacher is? No, you don't.
A 'qualified' teacher is one that has progressed through a Union run institution where they mainly receive left oriented political indoctrination. It is the reason almost every teacher sings the Red Flag (of communism) when a 'socialist' government is elected. It is why they go on strike and hate 'the Tories' It is why you hear of 'cuts' whether there are any or not.
For the Marxists, a poor education system that promotes left ideology is essential, firstly to help destabilise society, but also, when they win (Marxists deal in inevitabilities) they need a lumpen mass of proles to do the menial work, to do what they are told, to come to rely entirely on the state. And what are our educational establishments churning out? Functionally illiterate snowflakes, unable to discover facts, handle the truth or debate.
The same Marxist approach is happening of course, within the police, all state bureaucracies, the judiciary and not least the media. One particularly powerful weapon they deploy is Political Correctness. This is an immensely useful option as, whenever they don't have an answer, can't engage in debate (i.e. most of the time) they encourage the use of the phrase 'you can't say that'.
Things become unsayable, beyond the pale, not because they actually are, in a fair reasonable society, but because it serves Marxist ideology. You are 'not allowed' to talk about black on black crime, even though it is a very real problem and makes a misery of many lives.
For the Marxists you have to be stupid and believe amazing and ridiculous things. Hence, Corbyn isn't seen as dangerous, a hard core Marxist who would turn Britain into Venezuela in the blink of an eye, but as an alternative politician, in line with British tradition. What Marxists cannot achieve through violent revolution, by encouraging you to 'rise up' and put them in dictatorial power, they will get by other duplicitous means.
Let me show you how a cultural hysteria can be used to achieve ridiculous ends. The goal of Marxists is to overthrow the system that made the countries that adopted it wealthy, capitalism. Because of this success, this ability to enhance lives, capitalism has held Marxism in check. So it has to go. But how to get rid of it?
One way is to get the rich countries to spend all their money. But why would they do that and on what? War would not guarantee a good outcome for Marxists and it provides opportunities for capitalism. No, it had to be something fundamentally useless.
Then they had a brainwave, something that would undermine capitalism and show, most amusingly for them, just how stupid modern societies have become under their incessant, malign influence. They said you had to build weapons to defend against dragons. Or rather they said you had to spend enormous amounts of your wealth on combatting 'Global Warming'. This was your fault naturally, because in becoming wealthy through capitalist endeavour, you had damaged the planet.
So, it became fashionable to feel guilty and completely OK to pay for winds farms and solar panels, which are not actually fit for purpose. Some people got rich but most people were being robbed blind and that was the object. To waste money fighting a chimera. So old people die of cold due to fuel poverty, but that doesn't matter against the great scheme of achieving Marxist Utopia.
Are you stupid though? Is Climate Change or whatever the current vogue name is for the scam, not real? Yes, the climate changes, it always has. But we can't stop it and we are certainly not causing it. Oh and yes, it does seem likely you are stupid, because (for once perhaps) think; why would scientists tell you the science is settled, you are not allowed to debate climate change? The Scientific Method requires constant questioning, constant re-evaluation. It requires proof.
That is why you cannot challenge it. Because it is a tissue of lies. It is why they fiddle the temperature records, why they issue vicious attacks whenever a scientist questions the ideology. It is why there is never a debate on TV, why the BBC endlessly pumps out propaganda to support it. A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
So what is wrong with the world today? Simple. We have for too long not stood up against the creeping, malign undermining of decent, civilised society by dangerous, violent Marxists. Demand that the outcome of the education system is a clearly educated child, not happy Marxist inclined teachers, parroting tired, worthless ideology. Demand that common sense and long held laws and norms are returned.
Stand up for the things that work for you, capitalism and decent, civil society and destroy rampant Marxism. And along the way, we can pick up and make great use of a proper, socialist party in our midst. That would be something we have, perhaps never seen.
We find ourselves in all sorts of bad places at the moment, kind of forming a single feeling of, well being in a bad place. You know, education doesn't seem to be working, immigration seems a problem but you don't want to sound horrible, hospitals can't cope apparently, politicians are in their own little world, which is not what you imagined they were for and then there's the news.
How can all this be happening? All at once. Well your culpability is that you weren't paying attention. Now, whilst some of it was intended to evade your notice, the glaringly obvious also slipped by. Hello? Tony Blair? Really, you elected him? And then did it again? How many clues do you need? No wonder the actual problem went undetected!
On healthcare; basically a good idea run by the wrong people. The NHS 'free at the point of delivery' is just like any other insurance paid for scheme, but is run by a state bureaucracy. Time and again these are proven to be the worst people to allow to run anything. Soldiers achieve great things on battlefields, doctors and nurses do great things on the front line, but take a step back and the managers, the MOD are a shambles of incompetence, entitlement and waste.
Doctors and nurses are not coming out of this as unmitigated heroes though. Nurses used to do the basic tasks on wards, which were clean, functional and caring places. Now nurses don't receive training, they are educated, to degree level. This new understanding of their own importance means they no longer concern themselves with menial tasks and assistants have had to be hired to do those jobs. Wards are now dirty with poor standards of actual care.
When you go in to hospital, you are an inconvenience, you mess with their numbers. Cost them money. So you are allocated a number and processed through the system, with everyone focussed on maximising the efficiency of the system, to please managers and bureaucrats. You are no longer a patient with an ailment, you are a form, to be processed. You might get what you need quickly enough and you might not.
Complaints of course crop up, but the defence mechanism is continually oiled for this possibility. How dare you criticise doctors and nurses? Whatever went wrong, it will be cuts (if Tories are in power) or swept under the carpet if 'socialists' hold sway.
And there it is, the first mention of socialists. It isn't socialism that is the issue though. This thoroughly acceptable political thought process is not to blame as it hasn't been heard around here for a very long time. No, Marxism is what is at work. Gramsci and the long march through the institutions is at work.
Education is a good example of what is going on and it is of key interest to Marxists of course. You will hear from time to time bleatings about 'unqualified' teachers. This is usually about free schools, a recent introduction. And naturally, hearing that teachers are unqualified instantly makes you think they must be substandard. But do you ask what a qualified teacher is? No, you don't.
A 'qualified' teacher is one that has progressed through a Union run institution where they mainly receive left oriented political indoctrination. It is the reason almost every teacher sings the Red Flag (of communism) when a 'socialist' government is elected. It is why they go on strike and hate 'the Tories' It is why you hear of 'cuts' whether there are any or not.
For the Marxists, a poor education system that promotes left ideology is essential, firstly to help destabilise society, but also, when they win (Marxists deal in inevitabilities) they need a lumpen mass of proles to do the menial work, to do what they are told, to come to rely entirely on the state. And what are our educational establishments churning out? Functionally illiterate snowflakes, unable to discover facts, handle the truth or debate.
The same Marxist approach is happening of course, within the police, all state bureaucracies, the judiciary and not least the media. One particularly powerful weapon they deploy is Political Correctness. This is an immensely useful option as, whenever they don't have an answer, can't engage in debate (i.e. most of the time) they encourage the use of the phrase 'you can't say that'.
Things become unsayable, beyond the pale, not because they actually are, in a fair reasonable society, but because it serves Marxist ideology. You are 'not allowed' to talk about black on black crime, even though it is a very real problem and makes a misery of many lives.
For the Marxists you have to be stupid and believe amazing and ridiculous things. Hence, Corbyn isn't seen as dangerous, a hard core Marxist who would turn Britain into Venezuela in the blink of an eye, but as an alternative politician, in line with British tradition. What Marxists cannot achieve through violent revolution, by encouraging you to 'rise up' and put them in dictatorial power, they will get by other duplicitous means.
Let me show you how a cultural hysteria can be used to achieve ridiculous ends. The goal of Marxists is to overthrow the system that made the countries that adopted it wealthy, capitalism. Because of this success, this ability to enhance lives, capitalism has held Marxism in check. So it has to go. But how to get rid of it?
One way is to get the rich countries to spend all their money. But why would they do that and on what? War would not guarantee a good outcome for Marxists and it provides opportunities for capitalism. No, it had to be something fundamentally useless.
Then they had a brainwave, something that would undermine capitalism and show, most amusingly for them, just how stupid modern societies have become under their incessant, malign influence. They said you had to build weapons to defend against dragons. Or rather they said you had to spend enormous amounts of your wealth on combatting 'Global Warming'. This was your fault naturally, because in becoming wealthy through capitalist endeavour, you had damaged the planet.
So, it became fashionable to feel guilty and completely OK to pay for winds farms and solar panels, which are not actually fit for purpose. Some people got rich but most people were being robbed blind and that was the object. To waste money fighting a chimera. So old people die of cold due to fuel poverty, but that doesn't matter against the great scheme of achieving Marxist Utopia.
Are you stupid though? Is Climate Change or whatever the current vogue name is for the scam, not real? Yes, the climate changes, it always has. But we can't stop it and we are certainly not causing it. Oh and yes, it does seem likely you are stupid, because (for once perhaps) think; why would scientists tell you the science is settled, you are not allowed to debate climate change? The Scientific Method requires constant questioning, constant re-evaluation. It requires proof.
That is why you cannot challenge it. Because it is a tissue of lies. It is why they fiddle the temperature records, why they issue vicious attacks whenever a scientist questions the ideology. It is why there is never a debate on TV, why the BBC endlessly pumps out propaganda to support it. A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
So what is wrong with the world today? Simple. We have for too long not stood up against the creeping, malign undermining of decent, civilised society by dangerous, violent Marxists. Demand that the outcome of the education system is a clearly educated child, not happy Marxist inclined teachers, parroting tired, worthless ideology. Demand that common sense and long held laws and norms are returned.
Stand up for the things that work for you, capitalism and decent, civil society and destroy rampant Marxism. And along the way, we can pick up and make great use of a proper, socialist party in our midst. That would be something we have, perhaps never seen.
Monday, 7 January 2013
How Thick Is David Cameron?
David Cameron is aware that most people in Britain want out of the EU, but he keeps promising to 'renegotiate' our deal with them, knowing he can't and that we have heard all this before from Blair. He goes on about Green issues despite a) all the evidence that it is a scam becoming more and more commonly known and b) that it is responsible for severe distress to the poor and old, due to the increases in energy prices to pay the get-rich-quick 'renewables' industry.
He supports homosexual issues that were in no-ones manifesto and are immensely unimportant at best, ahead of economic recovery policies. And today he is insulting UKIP even though the number likely to vote for them keeps growing (probably every time he berates them). UKIP of course are irrelevant he claims, but just seem to have policies that chime with most people and are traditional values of Conservatives.
Or is Cameron really more rattled by the on-going stories of the money Blair is raking in, touring the world's despots and bankers seeking advantage. Mandelson might still be the king of unprincipled snakes, but he has stuck more closely to politics and influence. Blair is better at getting money. His wife must be delighted. Socialists all. Don't worry David, you are fully on track to take on the Blair fatuous money making when your party and the country bore of you.
*In the interest of balance, I should point out that Cameron is not as bad as Clegg. And Clegg also has a wife who makes money out of policies he espouses, just like Cherie used to insist. Cameron is a little lacking in that respect.
He supports homosexual issues that were in no-ones manifesto and are immensely unimportant at best, ahead of economic recovery policies. And today he is insulting UKIP even though the number likely to vote for them keeps growing (probably every time he berates them). UKIP of course are irrelevant he claims, but just seem to have policies that chime with most people and are traditional values of Conservatives.
Or is Cameron really more rattled by the on-going stories of the money Blair is raking in, touring the world's despots and bankers seeking advantage. Mandelson might still be the king of unprincipled snakes, but he has stuck more closely to politics and influence. Blair is better at getting money. His wife must be delighted. Socialists all. Don't worry David, you are fully on track to take on the Blair fatuous money making when your party and the country bore of you.
*In the interest of balance, I should point out that Cameron is not as bad as Clegg. And Clegg also has a wife who makes money out of policies he espouses, just like Cherie used to insist. Cameron is a little lacking in that respect.
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.
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.
Monday, 28 May 2012
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.
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, 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).
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).
Friday, 27 January 2012
Pot, Kettle
Well, unbelievably the headline in today's Telegraph online is that Dave Hartnett, head of HMRC wants us to understand that paying tradesmen in cash is 'diddling the country'. Firstly, to be true it requires every tradesman to be a liar, inasmuch that he is saying they all don't pay their taxes, which I don't doubt is largely true but still potentially libellous.
Secondly and much more importantly, I think the head of the tax office letting large companies off billions of pounds of tax (and interest) owed is a far more serious situation, perhaps requiring a slightly more serious word than diddling to describe. There has been some talk recently about the decline in moral standards in Britain (with some correctly understanding this is directly connected to the overt corruption of Tony Blair's gang) and I think this clearly fits into it.
Economically literate types (e.g. not Labour) understand the Laffler curve effect on taxation. If you tax highly, people look for ways to avoid paying it. At a lower level everyone pretty much agrees it is something they should pay and also low enough that they can't be bothered to see if they can avoid any of it. So you get more by lowering the rate of tax (as long as you don't have someone lunching with big company bosses from the tax office).
The kind of deceit Hartnett refers to has always been tacitly accepted, but much of the moral decline is due to more unsavoury behaviour by New Labour than just their incessant raising of taxes. The lying (and obvious lying) by the PM and his MP's sent a message that it was OK for everyone to do it. And with binge drinking, which is also part of the NL culture a little lying fits in pretty well. No personal responsibility, you see.
There was a comedian (I believe) on QT last night who was quite brilliant with his left liberal deceit. He started off by saying that the top 1 percent of Footsie 100 executives had increased their pay recently (during a recession) by 49%. He then contrived to link this to the £26,000 benefit cap, proposed by the coalition government and then had a stab at Melanie Phillips for being concerned about the 'working poor'. He was applauded well for this diatribe by the audience.
I wonder though, if they listened to the words and not the delivery they would have thought 'hang on, that doesn't make sense'. The working poor do get a bad deal. If you can't afford another child on your wages you don't have one. The state doesn't find you a nice, larger house, because you have decided you need ten child benefit payments, to meet your needs. More should be done for those that help themselves. Similarly, the well paid executives wouldn't offend me if they earned it, but too often they are paid highly 'by arrangement'.
One set of executives sit on a remuneration committee for another set and award generous salaries and bonuses for success or failure. The favour of course, is returned. This is what we must stop.
It is rich however (no pun intended) to watch politicians spout on about nasty bankers when a) the bankers did what they did following the leadership of Blair and the financial pushing from Brown -two particular idiots, a perfect storm of politicians. And b) the MP's were finding ever more openly criminal ways to enhance their salaries, but how many of them paid a price for their behaviour? The message over MP's expenses was writ large and clear; we are corrupt, we acknowledge that we have been caught, but we don't really care what you think, we will carry on doing whatever we want and only the small will go to jail, if anyone must.
There should have been serious police intervention, with large scale arrests and, from what we know quite a lot of imprisonments. However, when one force cannot decide what happened when the Deputy PM was filmed assaulting a member of the public and when another force agonises over what to do, when presented with clear testimony supporting a charge of perverting the course of justice against a Cabinet Minister, then I guess we couldn't expect much from the Constabularies, who are clearly corrupted themselves.
If we think a political party of any colour will offer a fair system of taxation and do substantive good to support the working poor, when senior members of their ranks are not prosecuted for lying in their declarations to the tax office and parliamentary officials, then we are deluding ourselves.
Secondly and much more importantly, I think the head of the tax office letting large companies off billions of pounds of tax (and interest) owed is a far more serious situation, perhaps requiring a slightly more serious word than diddling to describe. There has been some talk recently about the decline in moral standards in Britain (with some correctly understanding this is directly connected to the overt corruption of Tony Blair's gang) and I think this clearly fits into it.
Economically literate types (e.g. not Labour) understand the Laffler curve effect on taxation. If you tax highly, people look for ways to avoid paying it. At a lower level everyone pretty much agrees it is something they should pay and also low enough that they can't be bothered to see if they can avoid any of it. So you get more by lowering the rate of tax (as long as you don't have someone lunching with big company bosses from the tax office).
The kind of deceit Hartnett refers to has always been tacitly accepted, but much of the moral decline is due to more unsavoury behaviour by New Labour than just their incessant raising of taxes. The lying (and obvious lying) by the PM and his MP's sent a message that it was OK for everyone to do it. And with binge drinking, which is also part of the NL culture a little lying fits in pretty well. No personal responsibility, you see.
There was a comedian (I believe) on QT last night who was quite brilliant with his left liberal deceit. He started off by saying that the top 1 percent of Footsie 100 executives had increased their pay recently (during a recession) by 49%. He then contrived to link this to the £26,000 benefit cap, proposed by the coalition government and then had a stab at Melanie Phillips for being concerned about the 'working poor'. He was applauded well for this diatribe by the audience.
I wonder though, if they listened to the words and not the delivery they would have thought 'hang on, that doesn't make sense'. The working poor do get a bad deal. If you can't afford another child on your wages you don't have one. The state doesn't find you a nice, larger house, because you have decided you need ten child benefit payments, to meet your needs. More should be done for those that help themselves. Similarly, the well paid executives wouldn't offend me if they earned it, but too often they are paid highly 'by arrangement'.
One set of executives sit on a remuneration committee for another set and award generous salaries and bonuses for success or failure. The favour of course, is returned. This is what we must stop.
It is rich however (no pun intended) to watch politicians spout on about nasty bankers when a) the bankers did what they did following the leadership of Blair and the financial pushing from Brown -two particular idiots, a perfect storm of politicians. And b) the MP's were finding ever more openly criminal ways to enhance their salaries, but how many of them paid a price for their behaviour? The message over MP's expenses was writ large and clear; we are corrupt, we acknowledge that we have been caught, but we don't really care what you think, we will carry on doing whatever we want and only the small will go to jail, if anyone must.
There should have been serious police intervention, with large scale arrests and, from what we know quite a lot of imprisonments. However, when one force cannot decide what happened when the Deputy PM was filmed assaulting a member of the public and when another force agonises over what to do, when presented with clear testimony supporting a charge of perverting the course of justice against a Cabinet Minister, then I guess we couldn't expect much from the Constabularies, who are clearly corrupted themselves.
If we think a political party of any colour will offer a fair system of taxation and do substantive good to support the working poor, when senior members of their ranks are not prosecuted for lying in their declarations to the tax office and parliamentary officials, then we are deluding ourselves.
Thursday, 29 December 2011
Britain In 2011
As the year comes to a close Britain finds itself in an interesting situation. In an attempt to prove we can rise above the chaos all around comment is made of Britain's historic virtues, its national character and the 'been here before, survived' creed. Whilst this is all historically true, it is not so now. The British character has been eroded and dissolved, from within and without. What has happened? We must go back a little way.
Tony Blair is a strange man. He is not a megalomaniac though some of the signs were there. He stopped short of seizing power for absolute control, merely grabbing what he needed to ensure his tenure was as untrammelled as possible; he did not want power where responsibility would also come into play, he was in love with the wealth of power. Tony Blair did not have traffic lights changed as his escorted entourage traversed London, to speed his way. He was only interested in the effect it generated; that it proclaimed him a great man.
Blair claimed to have felt the hand of history on his shoulder, though it was actually his imagining that the thing he craved was happening. Blair wanted a legacy, something for which he would be remembered for all time, such as a great man should. He also went about his acquisition of wealth with an ambition and drive that only a venal man with a greedy wife behind can. Blair saw in the writings of his namesake, George Orwell, a manifesto for his own greatness. That he should find a Squealer who so exactly fitted the role, in every way, was magnificent.
Whilst this utter weakling and his chosen, even weaker placemen, formed a government, the march of the Left continued. All academe, much of the Judiciary and almost all the media was beholden to the ideology of the Left. No amount of evidence could convince them of anything contrary to their thoughts. This Left ideology despised Britain and its culture; it had to be destroyed. Key to this was the undermining of religious belief and the established norms of family life. (Look at the truly Orwellian statement of the Left liberal Nick Clegg recently, that no-one would want to go back to the Fifties. A time of honesty, hope, low criminality and social cohesion underpinned by the traditional family unit).
So we found ourselves as the close of the Twentieth Century approached, in the hands of a man who sought personal enrichment as his overweening principle and goal, at a time when the institutions were in need of strong leadership and control. Now was not the time to drift. But a sudden acceleration of agendas set by activist homosexuals and the continuing entrenchment of racism by the race industry, was promoted by elements of the Blair government such as Mandelson. The aim being not to offer succour to these people as much as to undermine those who would naturally question actions taken in support of such moves.
We were to forget the real past and imagine that 1997 was Year 1. Immigration was allowed to pass unchecked to destroy British jobs at the lower level, to break the cohesion of British society and to change the culture. It was loudly shouted that these newcomers must be allowed to keep their own 'culture' and ways here. To ask them to speak English was absurd we were told. If they want Sharia law what of it? If they live in enclaves and die under gangmasters and councils and shops print in their languages, then who should speak against it?
Greed became good, because otherwise there would be something wrong with Tony Blair. Each person should consider themselves above all others, should consider their own welfare first. This has manifested itself in many ways, from the 'don't criticise me' binge drinking to the riots of the summer, when the trainer seeking youth decided they could take what they wanted with impunity and rain wasn't forecast (always a riot killer, so intent on their cause are they).
Corporations, with banks in the lead started to do very strange things, not least allowing executives to be hired on packages that included bonuses whether they succeed or fail. Only a very corrupted society could let that pass. Senior officers in every course of government life became useless and detached, adhering to political correctness and Left ideology against sense and role. Hence senior fire officers consider a rescue successful if they get a person out of their predicament, even if dead through their inaction.
And so it is. Britain is a denuded, despised country, with self loathing causing much of the misery, assailed by external enemies smelling weakness and challenged by new economic realities that we will not rise to challenge, because we must shackle ourselves to a corrupt regime of totalitarian ideas, across the narrow sea. Britain can do it, can win against this sea of insanity, but as Britons, with allies of many nations, who all subscribe to a similar view of decency and courage, of selflessness and of community. People together, against those weighed down by heavy chains of guilt and ideology, some bad governments others malicious activists for harm. If Cameron were a Conservative, 2012 could be the year, as things stand perhaps it won't be.
Though politicians of every stripe should be aware that people will not stand idly by forever.
Tony Blair is a strange man. He is not a megalomaniac though some of the signs were there. He stopped short of seizing power for absolute control, merely grabbing what he needed to ensure his tenure was as untrammelled as possible; he did not want power where responsibility would also come into play, he was in love with the wealth of power. Tony Blair did not have traffic lights changed as his escorted entourage traversed London, to speed his way. He was only interested in the effect it generated; that it proclaimed him a great man.
Blair claimed to have felt the hand of history on his shoulder, though it was actually his imagining that the thing he craved was happening. Blair wanted a legacy, something for which he would be remembered for all time, such as a great man should. He also went about his acquisition of wealth with an ambition and drive that only a venal man with a greedy wife behind can. Blair saw in the writings of his namesake, George Orwell, a manifesto for his own greatness. That he should find a Squealer who so exactly fitted the role, in every way, was magnificent.
Whilst this utter weakling and his chosen, even weaker placemen, formed a government, the march of the Left continued. All academe, much of the Judiciary and almost all the media was beholden to the ideology of the Left. No amount of evidence could convince them of anything contrary to their thoughts. This Left ideology despised Britain and its culture; it had to be destroyed. Key to this was the undermining of religious belief and the established norms of family life. (Look at the truly Orwellian statement of the Left liberal Nick Clegg recently, that no-one would want to go back to the Fifties. A time of honesty, hope, low criminality and social cohesion underpinned by the traditional family unit).
So we found ourselves as the close of the Twentieth Century approached, in the hands of a man who sought personal enrichment as his overweening principle and goal, at a time when the institutions were in need of strong leadership and control. Now was not the time to drift. But a sudden acceleration of agendas set by activist homosexuals and the continuing entrenchment of racism by the race industry, was promoted by elements of the Blair government such as Mandelson. The aim being not to offer succour to these people as much as to undermine those who would naturally question actions taken in support of such moves.
We were to forget the real past and imagine that 1997 was Year 1. Immigration was allowed to pass unchecked to destroy British jobs at the lower level, to break the cohesion of British society and to change the culture. It was loudly shouted that these newcomers must be allowed to keep their own 'culture' and ways here. To ask them to speak English was absurd we were told. If they want Sharia law what of it? If they live in enclaves and die under gangmasters and councils and shops print in their languages, then who should speak against it?
Greed became good, because otherwise there would be something wrong with Tony Blair. Each person should consider themselves above all others, should consider their own welfare first. This has manifested itself in many ways, from the 'don't criticise me' binge drinking to the riots of the summer, when the trainer seeking youth decided they could take what they wanted with impunity and rain wasn't forecast (always a riot killer, so intent on their cause are they).
Corporations, with banks in the lead started to do very strange things, not least allowing executives to be hired on packages that included bonuses whether they succeed or fail. Only a very corrupted society could let that pass. Senior officers in every course of government life became useless and detached, adhering to political correctness and Left ideology against sense and role. Hence senior fire officers consider a rescue successful if they get a person out of their predicament, even if dead through their inaction.
And so it is. Britain is a denuded, despised country, with self loathing causing much of the misery, assailed by external enemies smelling weakness and challenged by new economic realities that we will not rise to challenge, because we must shackle ourselves to a corrupt regime of totalitarian ideas, across the narrow sea. Britain can do it, can win against this sea of insanity, but as Britons, with allies of many nations, who all subscribe to a similar view of decency and courage, of selflessness and of community. People together, against those weighed down by heavy chains of guilt and ideology, some bad governments others malicious activists for harm. If Cameron were a Conservative, 2012 could be the year, as things stand perhaps it won't be.
Though politicians of every stripe should be aware that people will not stand idly by forever.
Friday, 22 July 2011
MP Tom Watson And Parliamentary Rigour
Bravo for Tom Watson, a Labour member of the committee that grilled the Murdoch's recently (and who's party also supplied the person who attacked Rupert Murdoch), who has become aware of a possible mendacious statement by James. It seems the younger of the clan claimed not to know something that apparently others say he did. If he has misled the committee, Watson wants the police to investigate.
Now let us be clear, this is a nasty affair and whoever has been up to no good should be discovered and dealt with under the laws of the land. But the thing is, this is still really a minor matter and yet Mr Watson wants to pursue the miscreants at all costs. The same rigour seemed absent though when his ex-leader, Mr Blair, lied to Parliament in order to attack another country, Iraq. This cost the country a not inconsiderable sum and, much, much worse the lives of a lot of completely innocent and uninvolved people, not least our forces who did not need to be there. But why did we invade? Was it just for Blair's vanity? His fame and the impact it could have on his 'saleability' later? There were no WMD's and we knew that, so just what was he up to?
Then of course, we have the related death of a civil servant who was involved in stating that there were no WMD's before the lies that took us to war, Dr David Kelly. There is not only an absence of rigour over investigating his death, there is official interference to ensure there is no proper investigation. These are real issues of national importance that should be investigated at all costs, with no stone left unturned. Then we might see more than mock outrage from a Director of Communications who really was a danger in No 10. But Mr Watson doesn't seem to see any need for rigour here. The Murdoch's may not be the most pleasant people, but the Left represent the extreme in that respect.
Now let us be clear, this is a nasty affair and whoever has been up to no good should be discovered and dealt with under the laws of the land. But the thing is, this is still really a minor matter and yet Mr Watson wants to pursue the miscreants at all costs. The same rigour seemed absent though when his ex-leader, Mr Blair, lied to Parliament in order to attack another country, Iraq. This cost the country a not inconsiderable sum and, much, much worse the lives of a lot of completely innocent and uninvolved people, not least our forces who did not need to be there. But why did we invade? Was it just for Blair's vanity? His fame and the impact it could have on his 'saleability' later? There were no WMD's and we knew that, so just what was he up to?
Then of course, we have the related death of a civil servant who was involved in stating that there were no WMD's before the lies that took us to war, Dr David Kelly. There is not only an absence of rigour over investigating his death, there is official interference to ensure there is no proper investigation. These are real issues of national importance that should be investigated at all costs, with no stone left unturned. Then we might see more than mock outrage from a Director of Communications who really was a danger in No 10. But Mr Watson doesn't seem to see any need for rigour here. The Murdoch's may not be the most pleasant people, but the Left represent the extreme in that respect.
Thursday, 14 July 2011
Government Inquiries
Anybody else a little cynical about the inquiries announced by the government into the phone hacking scandal? It seems that it will investigate the actualities, the police involvement and that of politicians, all under oath. Why this sudden 'no limits' approach to investigation? The last time we had such noble openness was when Blair launched an inquiry, as soon as he came to power in 1997, into events that only involved the previous, Tory, government. Well, I think that with all the parties agreeing at the moment we can be fairly sure no political shenanigans will find their way into the spotlight.
Of course, there could be the odd wild card. They may have overlooked the media's ability to drag others into their world. And then there is Gordon Brown. His deranged statement in the House yesterday, lapped up by the dimwit Speaker is probably a sign of things to come. Brown claims not least, to be speaking for those 'without a voice', victims of phone hacking, but not for himself. When did Brown think past his own concerns? If he had any actual moral fibre, he would have turned up a few more times in the House, for which he is paid. He is the best loose cannon we could hope for in all this. Though I dream of the moment someone says, 'yes but we did this on behalf/at the behest of the Prime Minister or his Director of Communications'. You know I don't mean Andy Coulson....
Of course, there could be the odd wild card. They may have overlooked the media's ability to drag others into their world. And then there is Gordon Brown. His deranged statement in the House yesterday, lapped up by the dimwit Speaker is probably a sign of things to come. Brown claims not least, to be speaking for those 'without a voice', victims of phone hacking, but not for himself. When did Brown think past his own concerns? If he had any actual moral fibre, he would have turned up a few more times in the House, for which he is paid. He is the best loose cannon we could hope for in all this. Though I dream of the moment someone says, 'yes but we did this on behalf/at the behest of the Prime Minister or his Director of Communications'. You know I don't mean Andy Coulson....
Monday, 2 May 2011
Bin Laden Dead
So the news is in that Osama bin Laden has been presented with the opportunity to discuss murder with his Creator. I see no reason to cheer at the death of any human being, but it is highly likely that the death of this man will mean others will live. It was not an opposing ideology he represented but an emptiness, a vacuum of thought, just I suspect as with any other simple murderer. Osama was we should remember, a bored millionaire playboy for whom killing became his entertainment. I don't think he was mad and killed from the clouded thoughts of an unclear mind, I think he was absolutely clear on what he was doing. Not least because he was so keen that someone else did the dangerous stuff.
The organisation he built up though could not succeed just because of the support of a bunch of easily led simpletons and idiots, but because those he opposed were weak. Political Correctness above all showed that the pathetic weakness of the Left was taking the upper hand in the West and that we couldn't oppose a blancmange. Ideologically the West was becoming corrupt and debased. The lack of care for family, the removal of personal discipline and standards, of care for others and of humility was undermining our own strengths. Strengths that came from a Christian values (and I don't mean you needed to be religious). Overwhelmingly however, the weakness was manifested in the likes of Blair who constantly showed that he would surrender to terrorism on certain conditions. One was that he personally could become enriched and the other was fear, which is why he gave in to the IRA. Neville Chamberlain showed Hitler that he didn't need to fear his 'enemies' and Blair continued that weak tradition of behalf of Britain.
In the US, with an election looming, Obama inserts into to announcements about the killing that he ordered it, so ultimately all praise is due to him. This very Blair-like behaviour shows how deeply mired the US is in a Presidential cult, where Obama sees himself as more important than any other aspect of his country or it's government. They need to rid themselves of parasites as we did.
But regarding this killing of Al Qaeda's murderer-in-chief, we must wait to see what comes next from the deeply conflicted heartlands of Pakistan.
Thursday, 10 March 2011
The New Labour Project
The global nature of the financial crisis was really bad news for New Labour. Harking back for many of their policies to the Labour Party of the immediate post WW2 years, the New Labour Project had two objectives. The first was to seize power by any means. As I have pointed out before, Blair noticed that there are no actual checks on the abuse of Executive power and so based his political strategy on lying. He would be all things to all men and say exactly what anyone wanted to hear. Once in power he would do what he wanted not what he had promised unless there was some purely circumstantial overlap.
The second stage was the actual policies he would enact once in power (bearing in mind personal enrichment was a powerful driver too). These policies were based around holding on to power long enough that they could change Britain irreversibly in directions of their choosing. Believing they were carrying through the promise of earlier Labour, class warfare was promulgated and supported, housing was pushed whether required or not (though with unchecked immigration, they probably knew the need would be high), rewarding those who support them and gerrymandering elections as if by right and doing everything possible to destroy traditional Britain.
Despite the clear evidence that the Welfare State has manifestly failed and caused a great many problems, Labour feel that a big state, running everything and bestowing favours on any part of the populace that pleases them is the natural order of things. Labour (whether New Lying or not) have always stood first and foremost for the destruction of Britain. The proof is everywhere; the break up of the UK, the lack of respect for the Queen, that Blair was the Head of State and the closeness to the EU. This latter of course is also a Marxist construct, to hide the real purpose whilst democracy is still allowed to 'interfere', so they are natural partners.
When Labour say they want to be in power for long enough to make real change in Britain, what they mean explicitly is that they will change things not for the better, not for the benefit of the people or economic advancement, but only in the interests of Labour and a big state. Also, the objective is to make such big changes that they become irreversible and Britain becomes the Marxist state they desire. In the Forties, some of the Labour politicians worried that some of what was proposed was not democratic. That was the idea though, Labour are anti-democratic and now don't even have the worriers in their midst. They are also not Socialists.
That this destruction of a traditional nation was coming along nicely when a financial crisis came knocking, brought out into the open what Blair and his henchmen (principally Brown who was 'recklessly' borrowing on purpose as part of the policy) were up to. Labour have had two goes at turning this country into Soviet Russia, will will let them try again?
Prince Andrew
Prince Andrew seems to have a bit of a blind side to what he feels is his personal behaviour. The Royal Family are in a special position in our society and their lives are pretty much mapped out for them. They get a fair recompense for it I feel. Some adapt to it better than others and Andrew could do with a sharp talking to about shaping up and then keep his head down.
What I find amazing about it though is not just the pontificating politicians but also members of the public (particularly, Lord help us, the Scots on Question Time as I write), who seemed to find little wrong with the Blair government. Scandal after scandal, corruption, criminal activity, lies and deceit with Blair going to Libya for a group hug and his pet, Mandelson who only cares about wealth not morality when choosing his 'friends'. If we didn't think that Blair should have resigned (or been sacked/arrested) how on Earth can anyone think that Andrew should even consider that he has done anything wrong.
When will we be able to get back to some kind of understanding of actual ethical behaviour? To be clear, Prince Andrew has clearly made bad judgements and perhaps shouldn't represent this country in any obvious way. But we should also turn on Blair and stop paying any money to him, for any reason, pension or otherwise and revoke his citizenship. He should also, if he sets foot here again be arrested and imprisoned (on several charges, ranging from malfeasance in public office, starting a war for personal reasons and for insisting on the killing of healthy farm animals contrary to law and scientific sense).
Thursday, 20 May 2010
Hated Law?
There was a question the other day about what laws you would like to see repealed. To set myself a challenge I decided to limit myself to just one. And I think it should be the animal 'welfare' Bill Blair brought in after the Foot and Mouth outbreak. The new legislation means that government officials can forcibly enter properties, remove and kill any animal, including pets, that they feel may have been close enough to a contaminated area to, er, something or other, maybe catch FMD. It is also an offence to impede officials carrying out this unwarranted activity. This legislation was made retrospective. Why would you want to do that (a bizarre concept anyway)? Well, the policy of killing healthy animals had already been carried out and with some force being used and certainly with threats. These actions were illegal and were known to be illegal, yet were carried out on the express instructions of 'personally in charge' Blair and his ministers.
So, by repealing this awful piece of legislation we also get to prosecute Blair,a few cronies and some Chief Constable's who felt that pleasing their political masters was more important than upholding the law. Yes, just by this one change so many good things can be achieved. It would herald a new era indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)