Thursday, 24 March 2011


Why oh why am I writing this, again, during Question Time? The panel is not too bad tonight, except Bianca Jagger continues to be a reality avoider and Ken Livingstone is pouring out the usual nonsense. Ken is puffed up and full of his own self importance. He is just another do as I say, seeker of personal advantage Labour corrupter. It is great to see the Left wriggling to define which humanitarian intervention they support and which they don't and why.

Oh and how the massive debt Labour left this country with isn't true, it is an illusion put about by the Tories and their media. Having decided that lying was their soundest policy, Labour of course are well prepared for this line of 'defence'.


What on earth is going on in the Middle East? Whilst we have been talking tough about dealing with murderous Muslims and then doing all we can to make them comfortable, it seems that a lot of these Muslims are not as enamoured of their leaders as we think. Millionaire playboy Osama bin Laden may think that Muslims are crying out for strong autocratic leadership, but maybe that isn't so.

But the question remains, why have we intervened in Libya? We seem happy for Mugabe to kill as many of his people as he likes. Now we know why Blair was out there hugging the Colonel, the two of them are of a piece, but how do we now hate the man so much? And Bahraini Royals are coming for the Wedding here I gather, but they are shooting protesters are they not? Syria is bubbling; what is our opinion about that?

Of course The US and the UK are hiding behind a UN resolution to say it is legal. The UN are now 'in control' of the Libyan intervention. But is the UN not riddled with countries that have, at best, dubious records on 'human rights'? The UN is a most useless organisation, what sane person is interested in their view?

But what are we expecting in Libya? What if Gadaffi goes and we don't like the replacement. I think we are basing our assumptions on outcomes on the views of people who have experienced the Renaissance, about people who haven't. Once again it seems we don't think before we act and we don't believe a plan is important before we blunder in.


Good grief. Ed Balls has just given his reply to the Budget. Whilst there are plenty of areas to attack Osborne, Balls ignored them all. He merely spouted self serving cant about how clever he was whilst in Government (careful to apologise that they didn't catch the Bankers before they wrecked the world) and that if only we did what he says now.......

If you had no idea what was going on in this country Balls may have sounded plausible. He was speaking from a nursery school (it could so easily have been the opposition Treasury) and assumed it was ignorant children he was addressing. He really is a disgraceful human being, let alone politician.

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).

Parallel Universes

You may have heard that it is something of the vogue currently, to believe in the existence of parallel universes. Apparently they are useful to science and one of the ways we 'know' about them is the strange behaviour of light. If you shine a light at a card with two slits in it the image on a card behind will be of something resembling a bar code, bands of light and dark. This is caused by the wave action of light at times reinforcing and at times interfering.

Trouble arose though when a single photon was fired at the card. Obviously it should pass through one slit with no chance of 'banding' occurring as there is nothing to cause interference. Except banding does occur. So what is causing the interference? According to the theory, it is photons from another universe. Or several universes. Even stranger though, is the fact that if you try to observe the photons directly the banding (and interference) disappears.

Here I have a problem as this doesn't seem likely. Are we supposing the photon has some consciousness? Do they know they are being watched? (I am aware that much in science is counter-intuitive, but never the less..). Being able to notice the interference tells us there are other photons, so hiding when we look isn't too bright (if you'll excuse the pun).

It strikes me that the photons causing the interference are not from another universe but another time. I suspect that the 'arrow of time' may be a bit of an illusion. Being from another time does allow for interference but also would answer the disappearance when observed too. You see, when you choose to spot a photon you do so from the perspective of out 'time'. So the other photons cannot physically exist in that situation, in that moment.

Obviously I have no idea, or ability to base this on anything. It just strikes me that the time version answers the questions and the universe one doesn't.