Monday, 31 October 2011

War And Peace

The Italian press are reporting that a return of terrorism is likely if the labour reforms demanded by the EU are enacted. Now, whilst it might be Italy that is wrong in this scenario, it is nevertheless a fact. But just as the Euro assumes all countries have identical financial and economic situations, so the EU itself assumes ever country has the same systems of justice and social standards.

Nick Clegg believes this too and David Cameron has been swept up thinking the EU is actually a functioning Utopia. In Britain, I can go to Scotland and leaving aside some local traditions and customs, feel no different than at home. This is patently not true if I were to go to Italy. There is only the slimmest of shared experience. This has been covered up by the EU technocrats as of no consequence, because as they get their way, national traits will be steamrollered out of existence. Except they aren't.

The fault lies with the short-termism of politicians. They do not act for the long term good of their country, but for the short term, gains that reflect on them immediately (because we are too stupid to understand the long game). So they do not examine a system and see how best to achieve an end result, they just pile in and expect things to turn out OK. If an effort had been made to create a European standard, to show up the nature of our shared civilization, it may still have not been instantaneous, but we would be well on the way.

Instead, the nearest we get is forced solutions; a Europe wide police force, employment laws, health and safety edicts, Human Rights and the Code Napoleon. The usual big government solution, top down instruction. They didn't even consider best practice here, otherwise much would emulate the UK systems, rather than imposing French ones that don't even work well there. No, the EU had at its core the kernel of a decent idea, but instead of cleverly working out a system to suit a diverse citizenry, they designed a system to suit French politicians and technocrats. It was bound to fail. Arrogance always does.

The Stupid Race

As David Cameron does everything in his power to prove that he has absolutely no idea what goes on in the lives of ordinary people, who have had to work for a living, up pops a contender for the 'Most Stupid' title. Cameron wanders from irrelevant dingbat idea to picking exactly the opposite of the correct position on every important point. He believes in AGW, thinks wind farms have some utility and supports the idea of the EU.

But Nick Clegg may have the drop on him. He thinks we would commit 'economic suicide' if we pulled out of the EU. What, I wonder does he think is going on inside the EU, if it is not economic suicide? Talk about fiddling while Rome burns. And frankly, I don't think we should stay in a construct just because the Deputy PM's wife is doing nicely out of it thank you. Mind you, that is all the Project is about; the promotion and fulfilment of vested interests.

We should leave, leave now and hope that someone of sense rises to the fore in Europe, else war is not far off. France will see to that. It has spent the last five decades politicking to get the Germans to pay for its empire, but the Germans know a thing or two about taking over other countries and are not so easily misled. The Sunday Times said we are being forced into a United States of Europe by this financial crisis. That is the sort of cant Clegg (and Cameron) believe. In no way does, or would the unification of Europe under Franco-German rule resemble the US. Its entire design is to recreate a Soviet nation of absolutism.

Friday, 28 October 2011

A Bit Obvious, Dave

Is David Cameron just a less accomplished Blair, or are we a bit wiser after having such a duplicitous character in No10? Dave, Davey-Boy, the Big D, says that the British people don't need a say on Europe, there is nothing to worry about. Then starts screaming about the poor bankers and the EU upsetting them.

We know how Blair got rich and we know how cosy Brown was with banks (only helpful people get to open the new Lehman building, even if it didn't last long!), but now we seem to be being told that Cameron is on the same train. We could have got you out of this pickle Dave. All you had to do was give us the referendum and then (as it would have been a resounding 'out' vote) you could go to Brussels with some real ammo.

You see, unlike the stories you and your ilk tell us Dave, you can't have some EU, you either do what you are told or you leave. And you don't want to leave, do you Dave? Why not? What is in it for you, because there really isn't anything in it for us?

Dave, get your head out of the bubble for a second. It was St Crispin's day last Tuesday, making this an excellent time of year to stick two fingers up to the French (and Germans). And yes I know it is not supposed to be true, but then nor is 'seal up the walls with our English dead'. The power is in the image.

Thursday, 27 October 2011


Profits down 73% at Amazon. Oops. But hey, the idea is that they spend on the hardware now, to create a large captive client base for 'soft' products later. A little pain now is necessary for the bigger picture to evolve. Which is a great idea if someone else with a broad UK profile and access to a larger library wasn't around.

This means that Kindle will have to compete with other products, which wasn't quite the plan. I think it was supposed to dominate. Certainly the amount of advertising seemed to be aimed that way. Kindle, Hoover, Windows, that kind of thing.

But now is a bad time to take a rather large dent in profits and I don't think it is all Kindle based. Amazon does too much (a common complaint, but still true), but more importantly it's pricing mechanism is driving the company not the other way around. Running a business is about finding smart ways to make a margin, but Amazon have targeted crushing the competition. It isn't working, but so far they are sticking with it. I wonder how it is going? 73%.

There is a similar arrogance at work in our supermarkets. They have acquired a belief from somewhere that they can do what they like (surely not from politicians?) and rather like Banking, seem to be run by some remarkably stupid people. Years ago Sainsbury's used to regularly make the news because offers advertised around the store were not repeated at the till. So when you checked your receipt you found that the half price fish fingers were in fact charged at full price. Just a mistake, the central computer hadn't been updated with the offer, sorry. But it kept happening. So careless. No really, care less.

Tesco launch a massive media campaign about price drops, even getting them to add that this time it is a real price war. Except it wasn't. They had quietly put up the prices, so that they could drop them to much fanfare later. The greedy so and so's even 'dropped' the price to somewhere higher than they were a couple of months before. And rioters who raid their stores go to jail!

What Would You Have Done?

Suppose for a moment that you have been accused on rape by your cleaner, which means you have been arrested and held in a cell for a while. Then you are put on trial. Very quickly the trial falls apart as the 'victim' very clearly isn't telling the truth.

The question is, how would you feel? Relieved immediately I'm sure, but what about when you consider what happened? Would you be incredulous that you had ever been arrested let alone that it got to court? I mean, it all fell apart so quickly that a little stress testing before hand should surely have shown up the flaws? What if you were also someone 'important' and this had all happened in the full glare of publicity?

I would imagine the normal person would kick off mightily and a somewhat more famous person seek some redress, noisily. Now think about the Strauss-Kahn case. He seems to be taking things quite calmly.  Which started my conspiracy nose twitching, even though I don't generally get caught up in the crop circle, the US government did 9/11 craziness.

You see, from what I recall, Strauss-Kahn was kicked out of the IMF and Christine Lagarde installed in lightning quick time. Even teachers accused of interfering with their charges get suspended until proven guilty and yet a very important executive, of an internationally important organisation was out on his ear as soon as the allegation was in. And I wonder why.

The IMF have recently been muttering about pitching in to support the Eurozone, which drags in countries like Britain, whereas before we could avoid more costly payments. A useful extra source of income and one that you might have thought would be more diligent. The Eurozone is in crisis because some states are having the wrong 'exchange rate' applied to their currency, the one-size-fits-all Euro. It is set to work for countries like Germany and France of course (after all, it is their empire) and the problems it is causing Southern Europe were as predictable as night following day.

So the obvious solution is to release them from their obligation and let them float their own currency. But if they were so allowed it would weaken the imperative of a single political union, which is what the objective is, not solving the Euro crisis. This then requires any and all efforts to be applied to propping up the Euro until the political union is in place and there is frantic activity taking place, well out of sight of the compliant media to exactly that end.

The question is, did Strauss-Kahn object to the IMF being dragged in and so was disposed of, the threat being 'look what we can do, now be quiet and go away', probably with an 'or else' added for good measure.   The great game of creating a Franco-German version of the USSR is well under way and nothing can be allowed to stop it, not even high profile figures. It would be like allowing someone to expose the lies about WMD before the Iraq invasion.

Wednesday, 26 October 2011

More And Less Union

The European Union is a busted flush. It was a bad idea from the outset (I know not everyone would agree, but Hitler and Napoleon had supporters too, didn't make it right though) and only survived because the elites adopted the old British bobbies saying, 'move along, nothing to see here'. Now people are looking and they don't like what has been going on. The careful rules to protect the power of the elite, the special shops that only they can use (all heavily discounted of course) and the disappearing money.

Added to this now, we have the idiocy of supporting a currency that doesn't fit every country in the so called Eurozone, but is forced on them regardless. You know when you try to put the wrong lid on something and it just won't fit? You realise and stop trying don't you, but this is exactly what the Eurozone is currently facing and endless meetings are taking place to find a way to make the lid fit. It is the classic ideological conundrum; how to make the answer you want fit reality (which is stubbornly different).

We have to stop waiting for our political 'leaders' to raise the Europe issue; we must do so ourselves. It is time that the cosy agreement between our three main political parties to not mention the EU during elections was ended. Let us get serious about democracy while we still have it and demand our say. Not just in a referendum, but always, at every stage. And the repatriation of powers is not something to aim for (as Cameron suggests he might, one day), but an essential legal requirement to put Britain back on its correct footing.

But exiting one Union because it was madness to have even joined is only part of the historic requirements on our shoulders today. The Union that makes up the United Kingdom should be recovered. Oh, I'm sure the little dictators that seemed to have popped up out of nowhere in Scotland in particular, will claim it is a plot is smother their country again, but clearly it isn't. Britain is much weaker without Scotland and Wales as integral parts. Look to our history and the contribution these people have made to our nation.

Yes, more effort is needed, in these technologically capable times to make wealth creation more widespread (and that includes looking to England's North, too), but generally together we are stronger. It was, again, to weaken Britain and increase the ease with which the EU could swallow up our countries that the 'regions' were created in the first place. Perhaps the cruellest of jokes; pretend independence.

Look how stupid the leaders are. Look at the crackpot and unfinanced schemes they implement to win your hearts and trick your minds. Scotland in particular is heading towards a very Greek future. Remember too some of the great minds and achievements of the past. But what is Scotland famous for today? Nothing positive and everything with a whinge. In an age when being a victim is in vogue, Scotland leads.

The Welsh have quietly ignored the suggestion that they too get on with being stupid and the country is seriously turning around. No more patronising and uneconomic steelworks to appease them. Real effort by the people is bringing rewards. Though many of the civil servants will have to retrain; that bit of patronising job generation cannot go on.

To achieve all of this the United Kingdom first needs a great leader, the likes of which we have not seen in a long time. A leader unlike the venal, snivelling wretches we have had of late. A leader of vision and purpose, who puts the nation and its people first. It can be done, but it needs a radical change in mindset. A drastic move away from the Leftist brainwashing to which we have been subjected in the West for too long. Don't let those rich-enough-to-be-Socialist prats who invade St Paul's and other places have their way any more. The fight back needs to start now.

Tuesday, 25 October 2011

The Madness Goes On

I wonder if, during the Great Depression politics was subsumed by a sideshow? Did the statesmen of the time try to resolve the financial crisis (doubtless all seeking advantage) or did they, as now try to support some ridiculous political idea on the side, that is designed only for an elite (as empires generally are)?

 Cameron is supposedly fine about his MP's voting against his edict (why issue one then?) and says he understands. I'm sure he understands a number of things in politics, but good government isn't one of them. He truly is just creating another branch of the Labour Party. This country needs to avoid the EU like the plague, as it is, literally, a plague on all our houses. Cameron claims not to see this. He feels the EU is a great institution, though needs some reform.

He says he is going to demand that reform. Firstly, he is a small part of the EU and can demand until he is blue in the face, but they will do precisely what they want to do. Secondly, he isn't even being sincere. Why did he agree to the last Treaty obligations if he wanted to exert some muscle? Why not make your case from the moment you took office? Because he is as much a lap dog of Brussels as was the definition of self serving cowardice, Tony Blair, before him.

Consider what Cameron says and then does. He said he was in favour of a referendum on the EU now he is fervently against it. He said he wants smaller government and a bigger society, but by continuing to agree to (illegally!) transferring sovereignty to Brussels he is playing his part in making the biggest of big governments. His only consistency is in supporting the undemocratic EU, as this accords with denying the people of this country a democratic vote on its future.

Why is a political empire across Europe a good thing? Particularly one that allows no democracy (your MEP's do not make the law in the EU, they just sign it off on instruction). The Euro clearly doesn't work but they are doing anything but using common sense to resolve the crisis. Why would a system of law that negates Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and Common Law, replacing it all with the Code Napoleon that makes the state the entity and the people its vassals, be a good idea? Why, to consider a small, but important detail, do their police have immunity from prosecution?

The EU is the most corrupt form of banditry the World has ever seen, so perhaps we should not be surprised that senior politicians in a (just about) democratic country, prevail on their colleagues to put self before the Country and its people. The wealth of Blair awaits those who play by the rules.

Monday, 24 October 2011


There has been an enormous buzz about this somewhat forced debate today on whether a referendum on their future should be allowed for the people. Cameron got himself in this mess by clearly saying what suited him, at the time. The principled objection of quite a number of Conservative MP's throws his shallowness into sharp profile.

What amuses me though is the standard of the Left media reporting. As usual they are only interested in bashing the Tories, so for them the whole story is Tory disunity. Actually, the only issue here is whether the imploding EU is something we should be part of. It costs us an enormous amount of money and it offers us no benefit. By 'us' I mean the people of the United Kingdom, excepting senior politicians. They are very much inside the EU tent and have no intention of upsetting the gravy train.

This backward, inward looking cabal of anti-democratic tinpot despots are still desperately calling black, white to keep their sinking ship afloat. The Euro is destroying the EU, but just by denying it, the problem is solved apparently. and it is to be one of these people, that is David Cameron's fervent desire. We are threatened that if we left the EU, the countries remaining would not trade with us. When the lies have to be that blatant, you know they have nothing, no argument.

Let us be clear. Cameron is trying to deny that the British people want a say and that say is that they want to break away from the bunch of crooks calling themselves the EU elite. He shows exactly the same contempt for democracy that his masters in Brussels do. At this moment of political crisis across Europe, the real conversations going on are not those about Greek bailouts, they are the preparations to unite Europe as a single nation. This has always been the goal and they do not want to miss the opportunity that this crisis presents. Strangely, for once, the German people could save Europe, by having no part of this Soviet takeover.

That Cameron is so terrified of the people's vote is important, because neither he, Parliament, the Queen or the people can hand Britain to a foreign power. No one has that ability, but Ted Heath did exactly that. That is the real scandal, that these days politicians have come to act as if they are above the law. They have (and this is not unnecessarily dramatic, just true) committed treason, it is as simple as that. They have handed effective control of this country to a foreign power, Brussels and it was never in their gift to do so. It is a war that Germany and France have been fighting since the Second World War and their empire is crashingly close. But financial crisis is making their duplicity plain. There may be much violence unless these extremists are defied whilst some democracy remains.

The principled objection by some Tories is to their credit, there were scant few Labour MP's with principles (as ever) and of course, the Lib Dems just look for opportunities and popular schemes to get power. Popular in the Westminster bubble that is.

Thursday, 20 October 2011

Bloody Democracy!

David 'Cast Iron Guarantee' Cameron is running scared. Having promised, absolutely with a cross my heart and cast iron guarantee, to hold a referendum on Europe he reneged after having used it as a trick to get (nearly) elected. Cameron seems to have a fundamental disagreement with the electors inasmuch that he doesn't think he is there to serve anyone, but just to be important and tell people what to do. It is the belief of most of our political class.

He then said that if 100,000 people signed a petition online, then parliament would debate the subject. That number was quickly and easily surpassed in support of a referendum on the EU, so initially an 'oh dear, there isn't time' ploy was tried, but here we are now with a debate looming. But damn it all, democracy is again being an inconvenience, because the MP's want to be able to vote according to the wishes of their constituents, rather than doing what Cameron says.

The debate was going to happen while the man impassioned about democracy in other countries and a deep Eurosceptic who thinks we should stay in, was not going to be about, so he is now desperate to bring it forward to Monday. The Tory policy of never talking about 'Europe' doesn't seem to have panned out too well.

James Delingpole has proclaimed him the Worst Tory Prime Minister Ever, but I don't think he is there quite yet. The lies and weakness of Edward Heath still take some beating. But I don't know that it is the confusion of a Coalition that is causing these problems. I do seriously wonder how bad Cameron would have been had he received a decent overall majority; he shows all the signs that he would be a 'Blair Too' and that really would have shot him straight to the top of the charts.


I remain confused. What is instinct and how does it get passed on? I say passed on, but some say this is the wrong way of looking at it, that it is no more passed on than the ability to grow a limb in the right place. I think that not only misses the point, but kind of underestimates the importance and complexity of the limb issue.

Instinct may be seen as a behaviour, but it is a very, very important one and something that cannot be left to learning. Those for whom the ideology of Darwinism must be followed at all times, will say that it is just that the behaviour seen as an instinct just means those are more likely to survive, just like having the best placed limbs does. But for me, this is even weaker that the evolution theory that only the best survive.

A baby kangaroo is born, clings to its mothers fur, climbs up to the pouch, crawls in and feeds on the teat there. That is quite a chain of events to encode let alone for it to have evolved and only its children survived. In a survival of the fittest competition, making things that difficult for the newborn would seem a recipe for disaster, but then I'm not tied to the ideology, just seeking answers.

In every debate I've seen though, the original question of instinct rapidly shoots off into discussions of behaviour and I don't think that is the place to start. For me, I question how the instinct comes about. I feel that it is a learned behaviour that is so important that through some mechanism it becomes implanted and yes, then grows just as sure a piece of us as a limb.

Problem is though, whether through Darwinian luck or learned behaviour that realises, even at an unconscious level, its importance and is encoded, how did the first Joey make the trip? I guess at some point kangaroo's may have assisted the newborn on its way, but then, progressively decided they couldn't be bothered and left the tot to his own devices, by which time the encoding was in place.

I don't think this is blind watchmaker stuff though. I think there is a mechanism that tells the brain to hard wire certain things that are repeatedly important. Like when I exercise and this damages the muscle, which repairs itself but 'decides' to repair itself stronger all the better to meet the challenge it didn't cope with so well before. Why would our bodies 'assume' that? Why is the repair not random in its achievements, making the muscle sometimes stronger sometimes not.

It is not an evolutionary benefit, it is an instant benefit and we all do it. Oh I know, it is only creatures that developed this trait that survived, hence it is universal. That is part of the problem I have with the Theory of Evolution; that all pronouncements about it rely on hindsight, a wonderful gift but not very useful for scientific endeavour. In fact, it positively inhibits it.

Argos It

Well, as I predicted the decline of Argos gets ever more evident. Profits down 94% (Guardian) is saying something and quite loudly, though it seems Management can't hear it. The Argos business lost its MD in June and she hasn't been replaced yet. Why? And a review of how they do business concluded that they were doing the right things.

Despite this, or perhaps because of it(?) they are also looking into other areas, a TV channel and insurance sales, books, anything it seems. What the hell is Argos about and where is the leadership? In a booming economy retail life is like little skirmishes in war. Generally the army (business) is kept in good order and lower level officers fight little battles here and there. The army moves in the direction the General sets, but not with any panic.

A recession is a full scale battle, when the deployment of forces and the use of different aspects of the army needs to be played well. The General needs to be visibly active and calm, issuing clear commands. What of the above applies to Argos? Head Office recruit buyers who have no experience, which given a glance at the catalogue comes as no surprise. If it is an attempt to break the cycle and bring in fresh thinking it is to be applauded, though HRG don't seem to show that kind of initiative.

If you had to think of what Argos currently resembles most, I think it would be Woolworths. They are selling way too much in too many areas, relying on the bottom end of the market and without a clear strategy. I predict that the share price will start to suffer soon.

My other two favourites are probably reaching decision time too; Best Buy and Comet. Which one will go first, because go they will. There is over capacity in the electronics retail sector and both offer no clear advantage for customers. They are only worth the (knock down) value of their stock. Curry's/PC World stand to gain, but given that their profile continues to address the bottom end of the market and with no bold statements from the leadership, may not do half as well as they could.

This is fairly apparent , but the fact that the share price resolutely fails to move upwards, suggest the market is concerned about the lack of endeavour too. My bet is that the share price will move up, as the sector clears out the dead wood, but surely the objective should be to strike early and seize the day?

Wednesday, 19 October 2011

Static Travellers

The Dale Farm eviction has kicked off. On TV we have seen a genuinely distressed protester, concerned that the police easily walked in through a fence at the back, totally unexpected. The protester is of course just that, a protester, not an owner of the land. Her annoyance was merely at being outsmarted, claiming as she did that the bailiffs should have come in first. Thy may well have done, but it was obvious that a breach of the peace was likely, due to outsiders being present, barricades built and people chained to heavy objects.

This twerp, was bleating about the authorities not following the rules, whilst insisting 'her side' didn't need to. In a way she was appealing to the camera (as these idiots do) as an info box at the bottom of the Sky News picture showed a poll result, with 92% thinking the 'Travellers' should be forcibly evicted.  Clearly they only have the support of society wreckers, not society.

With rent-a-mob (they call themselves political protesters, but I just go for accuracy) throwing rocks at the police, they also bleated that the police were being violent. A Marcusean 'lying is telling the truth' commentator in the studio was saying that the police were causing the trouble, causing a breach of the peace. I think, as I have said in other posts, people are beginning to understand what these people are up to and the scales are falling from their eyes.

Basically, all of these protesters act like self indulgent children, just like babies crying for more sweets. Their arguments have all the same lack of cohesion and resort to ludicrous lies to make some case that only works in their heads. The 'Travellers' naturally are no better. Chancers and exploiters of weakness, this time someone has stood up to them.

Examine their claims; they have nowhere to go, the eviction doesn't give them time to make other arrangements and it is all a conspiracy because they don't live a 'normal' life. Well, the process has taken ten years, which I think is sufficient time to make alternative plans. As for their difference from 'normal' people, it certainly isn't because they are Travellers, bearing in mind that they have bought a piece of land and illegally built on it a permanent settlement.

No, the only way that they are different is that they believe the law should apply to others but not them. And the protesters are not there for them. Oh some of them doubtless will be dreamers, but the hard core will be there merely to cause a nuisance and highlight Travellers as a minority that is 'suffering'. This is to cause a schism in our society and civilisation. They are political terrorists and should be jailed just as the rioters were. They should be shown that we are intolerant of them and that the police will support the law abiding and the greater part of our settled society.

Tuesday, 18 October 2011

Here We Go

The first objections to Shale Gas are appearing. I see news reported that the recent minor tremors in Blackpool were due to the 'fracking' that is a part of extracting Shale Gas. Though the report also said that these tiny rumbles were not likely to get larger if the extraction continued and that they would cause no damage, I'm guessing all the latter stuff will get lost. No, I think we will be seeing 'Shale Gas Causes Earthquakes' and that will be it.

In the Sunday Times (hell, that used to be a good paper) I read a story about how the climate was very much hotter 55 million years ago and that even the poles were lush with vegetation and the temperature and humidity that was likely would have meant large scale, long lasting hurricanes would have raged.

Entirely to be expected the article went on to say that this was due to there being more CO2 in the atmosphere and that we are causing that again through our burning of fossil fuels. Whilst it did point out that the current situation is something less than 500 parts per million of CO2 in the air and that 55 million years ago is was more like 1,500-2,000 ppm, it did skip some important detail.

It struck me that there was a glaring omission in the article; why did the CO2 concentration increase? And why so sure that this was responsible for the warming? Usually, it is the other way around, the increase follows the warming. Still, a computer model said it would cause the storms and you know computers, they are never wrong. Not least because the 'experts' knowledge of weather is absolute and complete and programmers only write perfect software, that is never influenced by ideology.

When No Means Yes

There is a naive belief in many people that, as you can prove things right or wrong that anyone postulating something must be honest, because otherwise they would be found out. There are several problems with this though. Firstly, as with any propaganda if you repeat it often enough people come to believe it. Secondly, it has become too prevalent lately that people accept the utterances of 'experts', mainly it seems as it releases those people from having to consider the matter themselves.

Lastly though is the more pernicious reason and the most dangerous. Because the Left don't accept proof and truth. For them, like political correctness it is wrong to judge anything that the Left believes. Marcuse, possibly deified by now by the Left, said that fiction was truth and that reality and truth were not, er real.

So, reconsider all you have heard about, for instance Global Warming. When was the last time you heard a debate about it? OK, how about if you have ever heard a debate about it. Exactly. The subject has been censored by the Left. It cannot be debated because it is a Left ideology and therefore above discourse. That is why the Royal Society say it is a pure truth that should not be investigated (which of course, is pretty unscientific).

It is why you find yourself saying, when someone tells you a joke that despite making you laugh you feel may be at someone else's expense, 'you can't say that!' Political Correctness is just a Left tool to stop debate, to claim that they are always right about everything.

In the last Question Time, sections of the audience booed anything related to Tory changes to the NHS and cheered any mention of working for the NHS, that it was a brilliant system and in fact any mention of public service at all. These people were not interested in the outcome for the health of people in the NHS, nor reality, they just supported an ideological position. This was the day, after all when news of yet more scandal, involving neglect to the point of killing in NHS hospitals was released.

Of course the 'discussion' wittered on for a while, about 'reform' but no one seemed to connect the fact that nurses were not feeding patients, not ensuring they could and did drink, not helping them with toilets or keeping them clean. All  this is regularly reported and yet nurses are uniformly painted as angels. Why, when spending was increased so massively, did it translate into much worse service? Why have doctors seemingly forgotten their most basic skills, with children sent home when they have meningitis or broken bones. Why has nursing sunk so low?

Hospitals are now even more of a death sentence than they used to be, but can you imagine how hard it must be for those who do their job properly? Surrounded by degree educated, high minded colleagues who care nothing for patients, but are acutely aware of their own self worth and that a chat amongst workmates is more important than some old woman's pain relief. These nurses need not fear rebuke, the NHS rarely acts against them. But interestingly, the same regulatory bodies act extremely swiftly to get rid of people who show up the patients suffering.

You are being lied to on a massive scale. Sometimes it is just some grubbing politician or lazy public sector 'executive' on the make, but often it is because of Left ideology. Their goals long ago were to undermine Western culture and its economic underpinnings, to destroy the family unit and promote homosexuality and other 'victims' and 'minorities' because these would also destabilise society. They are able to do this because their truth is different to your truth; there is no such thing as reality. Kick a rock, Leftie, kick a rock.

Liam Fox

So it would appear that Liam Fox is as stupid and self serving as we have come to expect of our political class in general. It is amazing that he resigned though. I thought that we had established that only criminal actions were a resigning matter, since New Labour introduced the New Morality into politics? The resignation being enough in itself and the sort of justice you and I could expect, arrest, court case, was then obviated.

You do have to admire Labour though. Unlike others, they, like a woman spurned will not give up and chase a story to ground. Don't get me wrong, when they uncover misdeeds they should do. But it does beg the question why we had to endure so much corruption and deceit under Blair and Brown, without anyone effectively hounding them.

Was the oh-so-obvious cover up of the death of David Kelly something that the Opposition thought they should go along with? Was it just because Cameron hoped he would get the same leeway if in a similar position, when Prime Minister? A dangerous pact to enter considering Labour are quite evidently a scheming bunch of ne'er do wells, unable to even maintain 'honour amongst thieves'.

You And Tangled Webs

It is usual to find the Left supporting entirely contradictory positions, as putting ideology before reality as they do is a recipe for disaster. Some birds take a while longer to come home to roost. The Global Warming religion was useful for the Left as it simultaneously addressed a desire to hate ourselves as over mighty Man and to also believe that Man, in the form of clever Lefties would resolve the problem. This resolution was their second desire; to shut down Western civilisation and its economic roots.

This is why 'the debate is settled', the BBC should not allow debate on air and opposition to Global Warming must see you classed as a nutter. But as bills go up it has become personal and the electorate are getting restless. They are asking questions, the questions that the Left have outlawed. The people can see how shallow and unsubstantiated arguments of the Left are, when the best they are able to say is 'it is, because I say it is' and 'you cannot oppose us'.

So, Cameron, in thrall to Green policies as much as any other who skips thinking, trots along to accuse the energy companies of charging too much. That they are is also due to government not being bothered to do its job properly, but Cameron is not looking to blame himself and the companies are hardly likely to say that they do it because he doesn't control them well enough.

No they are arguing the highly plausible and partly correct point that it is green taxes and costs that are driving bills up. Cameron didn't want that in the light of day either and Chris Huhne will be livid. Something he is responsible for being questioned, how dare they! Obviously no sane person would put up a wind turbine unless someone guaranteed to pay for it and its operating costs, making it a money tree rather than a business proposition.

So we all pay vastly increased bills, to suit Cameron's and Huhne's version of politics, which is based on lies and a false premise. All of these costs could be taken off our shoulders at the stroke of a pen and have no consequences whatsoever. But none of this explains the enhanced profits these foreign owned, energy companies are making. (Interestingly, many of these companies come to Britain to buy such infrastructure organisations, as in their own countries they are more closely controlled and profits commensurately less).

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

Monday, 17 October 2011

Dan Wheldon

The racing driver Dan Wheldon died in a horrific crash at the Las Vegas 300 Indycar race. As he is a sportsman from this area, I would like to salute him and his achievements and send deepest condolences to his family.

I gather that it has been years since there has been a fatality in Indycar and for that we should be grateful. Though who to I'm not sure, as the governing body of the sport doesn't seem a likely source of safety. Formula 1 is a race car sport with many twists and turns, slowing cars, but bringing them into close proximity. Fires are rare and all tracks (except Monaco) have large run-off area, gravel traps and cushioned 'walls'. This, added to the immensely strong car bodies and other safety features makes it a safe(ish) sport.

Indycar is run at high speed around a simple banked oval, with concrete walls on the outer edge (where centrifugal force pushes the cars). In the event of an accident the car is likely to strike the wall, disintegrate and then slide down across the track towards the in-field, probably in front of following cars, with any concomitant fire not being apparent as the fuel used, ethanol, burns almost invisibly. That to me seems a lot of stupid ideas, all brought together in one, already risky sport.

Money, Money, Money

Well, the stupidity goes on. The Eurozone crisis continues to drag the whole world into its designed drama but no one thinks of doing anything positive about it. We hear of enormous sums of money being proposed as 'bailouts'. Greece may be technically bankrupt (as opposed to actually bankrupt, which it is) and Spain and Italy need extra funding. Why? Because the Euro is crippling their economies and the French and Germans will not cancel the Euro project as it may fatally wound the whole EU project.

The empire builders are not ready to do that and probably never will be. War would be better than admitting to a bad idea (and losing a carefully constructed empire). Ironically, the Chinese are playing the Franco/German game now. They are offering to buy up European infrastructure and provide funds to keep the Eurozone going. That's nice of them, isn't it?

Of course the Chinese have a history of dealing with the EU, so are acutely aware how stupid they are (the Chinese underwrote the GPS system the EU is trying to threaten US with). The Chinese see two reasons for providing this support. Firstly, they will gain control of key segments of European infrastructure which they can milk or wreck as they see fit (much as UK infrastructure is mainly in foreign hands who then put bills up massively) and secondly, if they keep the Euro going, it will do the maximum damage possible to the whole Western economy.

These new wars are not killing so many people (yet) but they certainly are devastating in their way. Will some politicians wake up, or is this cycle now entrenched and we wait to see where the real fighting starts?

Condensing Boilers

Since 2005 it has been the law of the land that if you install a new gas boiler, it has to be a 'condensing' boiler. The reason the action was taken was to decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, an ideological and political concern, not to provide an extra driver for the boiler manufacturing and installation businesses. The boilers often use a pipe running outside to cool water before it returns to the boiler as part of the condensing.

This pipe unfortunately freezes during the winter months, when the temperature becomes freezing and the boiler shuts down. Now, I'm not sure if the companies responsible thought that, due to Global Warming (which after all was what their boilers were 'fighting') there wouldn't ever be cold weather again, or if they were just phenomenally stupid. The whole project was pushed through by Prescott (other ideas, knocking down perfectly good houses to allow developers to build new ones and setting up illegal 'regional governments'), so it is highly likely that it is the latter.

British Gas are leading the way to solve the problem though, by charging customers to resolve what in many cases, would be their own faulty installation. Something I think, under the Sale of Goods act would be classed as 'unfit for purpose' (makes you think of Prescott again, doesn't it?). Isn't it strange how flouting the law seems to come naturally to large companies these days, just as it does politicians. Could the two things possibly be connected?

Wednesday, 12 October 2011

All Hail Shale!

The discovery of enormous amounts of 'shale gas' in the North West is brilliant news, for reality based people. This naturally excludes Chris Huhne the Energy Secretary. Chris, who is probably just a pretty straight kinda guy, doesn't have much interest in energy, or in fact climate change which is the other part of his important title. No, he is interested in ideology, more specifically Man Made Global Warming ideology.

In this he seeks to put everything behind his certain knowledge that CO2 in the atmosphere is deadly and will cook us all, or freeze us. But it will definitely be our fault. You see the climate probably is changing, it always has so it seems a pretty safe premise and until fairly recently it was in an upward, hotter direction. Then, rather inconveniently it stopped warming. So those tied to the ideology decided to ignore this new data (or 'hide' it, see 'Climategate') much as they had also had to ignore the Mediaeval Warm Period.

It is truly brilliant now that science has been released from the bonds of being, well, an exact science. And this is Chris Huhne's world, that is Chris Huhne the politician who is in a position to do an awful lot of harm. He isn't insisting on building and subsidising wind farms to cure a problem, he is doing so because his ideology says he must. So fuel bills sky rocket whilst absolutely pointless turbines go up, that are making some people rich, like the Prime Minister's father-in-law, but don't actually have a purpose.

Even when the blasted thing is met with the most favourable conditions and it is outputting at its maximum, a conventional power station has to be 'turning and burning' just in case the wind drops (or increases), thus negating the whole reason for the existence of the Quixotic devices. To believe otherwise you have to lack reason and logic.

Which brings us back to shale gas. If it turns out that there is anything like the amount we think there is, it will be ground breaking for the UK (no pun intended). It will mean cheap fuel for the rest of our and our children's lives, at least. It will remove at a stroke the need to rely on Russia for gas and it will help stabilise our economy. But with ideology led Chris Huhne anywhere near the controls, we run the risk of this bounty being ignored.

Though wind turbines are entirely pointless, they are the prescribed saviour mechanism and therefore, as with all religious scripture cannot be denied. Shale gas ticks all the boxes if you live in the real world, but we have a madman in charge of policy (apparently), so we must be prepared for trouble. Soon, the articles will doubtless start appearing on the BBC and in the Guardian saying that to use shale gas we would have to first sell our souls to the Devil and that anyone who supports it eats babies. These are the people, don't forget, who really do have the funds to pay for propaganda.

Monday, 10 October 2011

Liam Fox

Liam Fox it seems has a friend whom he is helping out, by allowing him to be an unofficial adviser. Doesn't strike me as an ideal action from a Minister, but I haven't heard of any harm either. Word is rife though that he may have to resign.

We must have entered a different phase of politics as almost nothing was a resigning matter a few years ago. Ah yes, of course, Labour are in Opposition now so high standards, integrity and resigning are all back on the table. Whilst acting as a government and in their speeches since it is clear Labour don't actually have any policies and care little for anything other than themselves. But by God do they whinge.

As far as I can see this is a nonsense and should be resolved easily, but that is not what the Left want. Naturally, it is constant headline news for the BBC, the same organisation that didn't draw your attention to the fact that an unelected 'advisor' was put in charge of civil servants, quite against the rules, by Labour.

No, all the excitement over this affair is generated by the Left and its willing media friends. The Conservatives are rattled because they still seem to believe in matters of principle (something Blair deleted from government in May 1997).

Thursday, 6 October 2011


The real problem I have with the marxist push to create a section of society that is dependent on state handouts is the fact that it undermines their very souls. Naturally, some people will be lazy but many, too many become driven into an indolent attitude.

We talk about obesity and the wicked ready meals industry churns out and it ends up with the usual 'and it is the poor who suffer most'. What!? Those not working have the most time to cook meals from scratch; they are not forced to eat kebabs and curries. The local schools organise breakfast clubs as the poor kids don't get a breakfast otherwise. Only because their parent(s) was still in bed.

Most of the societal problems at the poorest income level are caused by the hopelessness that the marxist policies create and insist on. People used to work very hard, poor or not to maintain their dignity. Now the insistence that one does not criticise another (except social work jobsworths in all levels of government) means dignity is based on your own self view. You are dignified if you say you are.

Billy Bragg Breaks Cover

Political activist for his own opinion, Billy Bragg is on Question Time. You wouldn't want to leave your kids with him, not for any awful reason I'm sure, but because he might lose them. Or let them walk off a cliff. He has some very strange ideas, rarely related to a world based on atoms and molecules, but more a sort of Pixar world.

He is not even quite the usual dopey dream world Leftie, he is his own, singular Left wing. Luckily the BBC have managed to find  a decent enough crowd of people for whom thinking is a rare treat and who will applaud anything that is labelled as an attack on the Tories. Including walking off a cliff. So Bragg should be safe with his earnest sounding, passionately stated nonsense.

He thinks the Human Rights Act is fantastically important and the fact that it allows criminals to ignore the consequences of their actions, marvellous. Right up until an illegal immigrant robs him, I bet. That we respect some quoted level of human existence is fine and correct, but where even in this lazily drawn up law, that judges take great delight in perverting, does it say that the right to a life, a family life means in this country?

If a criminal breaks our laws and has no right of abode here, or the crime means we revoke it, that is his choice.  As someone in the audience pointed out, that is a civil matter not an inalienable right. Who else ends up with a right to live in Britain, anyone who just wants to?

Bragg has also said that we should not use QE money to give to banks, but to individuals, if anyone and allow them to spend it. Now, I'm not too far adrift from that line, except the logical extension of this would be not to carry on giving so much to government, but allow people to make their own decisions and I doubt he means that. I suspect Billy dislikes bankers hence the comment, but would be fine with people being impoverished by a Left government.

Amanda Knox

Human intuition is based on norms. What most people do in a given situation. You have to have at least a little understanding of the culture someone comes from, but then their actions and quite often the more subconscious ones will give a good insight into a person's character.

It is here we have a problem with Amanda Knox. She just hasn't done what we expect of the person she claims to be. Amanda shared a property with Meredith Kercher and so there must be some kind of friendship, one of shared experience at least. Yet, whilst Amanda was  away from the premises apparently, Meredith was brutally murdered and whilst being interviewed by the police, Knox was performing cartwheels and the splits.

She talks of people responding to tragedy in different ways (note she says 'tragedy, not 'grief' or 'shock') to explain this behaviour, but it doesn't. Nobody in their right mind would think of doing such outrageous things in a police station, let alone in connection with such a serious matter. Acrobatics are frivolous and showing off and consequently inappropriate; no one would not realise that. It suggest her mind was unbalanced not upset.

Her recent statement too that 'I just want my life back' seems offensive too and almost contrived to be so, as Meredith can't have her life back. It is noticeable through the whole affair to date that Knox doesn't talk about the killing of Kercher, just her own situation. She wasn't there she insisted to the court, seeking her release. But is this just her latest version of events?

When she first claimed it, her 'Italian boyfriend' (she had often made much of how handsome her boyfriend in the US was, how much he loved her) couldn't remember her being at his place, as she had said. Knox had also, earlier, claimed that her boss at a bar was the murderer and when it was proven that he was working at the time, she withdrew the claim, though without apologising to him. And then, presumably remembered, she wasn't there.

And it is this kind of thing that gets under your skin. Knox casually throws around stories and retracts them as necessary, without a care. If you, or anyone you knew became aware that someone you shared a house with had been attacked and killed in such a way, what would be the reaction? I can't imagine anyone, acting like Knox. She was 'too sexy' for the police in her view and the other inmates were bound to fancy her.

No, the Italian police may have been unable to gather enough hard evidence and got rather too much wrong, but it is difficult to not see Amanda Knox as having been involved. The drug dealer who has admitted killing Meredith has been ambivalent about Knox and her boyfriend. Again, someone who was known via Amanda Knox. I don't know if she is guilty any more than I know of her innocence, but a lot adds up to the former not the latter.

That is not how justice works and so she is free. I wish the story could be discovered for the sake of the Kercher family, but I don't think Knox will help them no matter what.

Cat Scan - May vs Clarke

Theresa May has made some interesting comments over time and I think should be allowed to do more and to operate more independently. But of course power these days, has to be centralised in the Party and the Conservatives are not very good at being Conservatives.

So I'm not sure about Theresa, but I am about Ken Clarke; the man is an idiot. He has no place in a proper, functioning Conservative Party, certainly not one that wants Britain to recover and do well. It would be an interesting hint at Cameron's mettle and conviction to Britain, not personal power if he sacked the worm. 

Wednesday, 5 October 2011

Chris Huhne Anyone?

Chris Huhne is the Climate Change and Energy Secretary, he is a Lib Dem and he is a little undecided as to whether he likes the media. His ambivalence towards the media is the result of the conflicting needs he has, firstly to proselytise for his Green religion and then again to avoid questions about his alleged attempt to avoid a speeding fine. It is said he got his wife to say she was driving when the camera flashed, though she has publicly stated she was not.

The police and the CPS needless to say, in such a complicated case are still, after some months, considering the evidence. Just like when Prescott was filmed assaulting a member of the public, the forces of law and order become strangely inert and confused when presented with criminal activity by a Member of Parliament, (though of course when instructed by a left wing government to arrest a Conservative MP, they were straight in, despite no evidence and ignoring rules themselves).

Huhne though has told some rather more important and damaging lies. These are related to the Climate Change bit of his job role, he is a little hazy about what the Energy bit means. He thinks windmills will save the planet. That is pretty much it. Also that they magically appear if he summons them. Instead, they actually use rather a lot of energy to produce and install.

Once in they ruin the landscape, kill birds and bats and the noise of the blades is also an irritant to people and animals nearby. And then there is the energy deficit. Apart from some nasty metals, dragged around the world to produce the magnets in a turbine, and overlooking the energy involved in getting the materials for construction to the areas of natural beauty that Chris Huhne particularly likes to despoil for his projects, we have the foundation materials.

According to a US paper of 2004 (Brookhaven National Laboratory), a 1.3MW onshore wind turbine needs about 240 cubic metres of concrete (108 tonnes) for its foundation and about ten tonnes of steel. Both are energy intensive products to manufacture, the steel here producing something like 5 tonnes of CO2. Concrete generates 1 tonne of CO2 for each tonne of material, giving 108 tonnes of CO2. So this one turbine has a deficit, before a blade turns of something like 113 tonnes of CO2. Cement production is responsible, apparently for 8% of all CO2 produced by Man.

To put that in perspective, (and to show a fairness that AGW religionists will not) a single 747 flying from London to New York will emit something like 52 tonnes of CO2 by my reckoning. And the trails they leave act like clouds, so have a real and immediate effect, unlike the guesswork on 'greenhouse gases' by the 'experts'.

But back to windmills. Huhne believes they will meet our target commitment to the EU on using renewables. Maybe they will (if we were building at a rate that no one can manage and we aren't even attempting), but they won't achieve any CO2 target. For each of these ridiculous and pointless towers produces risible amounts of electricity and then only intermittently. So there must be a power station, of more conventional means, running all the time waiting to take over when the wind drops (or gets too high, or we don't need the extra electricity).

This alone renders the windmill pointless. The industry knows this as do government, which is why subsidies were introduced to build them and the power companies are forced to buy the expensive electricity they produce (or compensate them when they don't buy due to a lack of demand). It is a licence to print money and nothing else. You have been scammed and the rise in electricity bills is almost entirely due to windmills and Huhne's policy (most of the rest is due to the lack of control over energy companies, by, er Chris Huhne).

So, is Chris Huhne the stupidest person in this country?

Tuesday, 4 October 2011

Remember The Nosey Parker?

When people used to know other people who lived in their street, neighbours kept a casual eye on the children playing out and an even closer one if a stranger was seen near them. Keeping up with the Jones' also meant knowing other people's business, which kept you on your toes (people cared about others' view of them, then).

But there was also one woman (and it was a woman, because they were about) who was the known 'curtain twitcher'. She had an unnatural interest in what went on around her, always had an opinion of others based on what she would do, always offended, always quick to report minor misdemeanour's among her neighbours. A woman certain of her own moral rectitude and convinced that no one was as qualified to judge as her. You may recognise the type from your own past.

The media today would insist that it lampoons the type in Hyacinth Bucket, but that is not right. Hyacinth may affect a station she has not quite achieved, but she wants to do better, she strives to achieve a higher standard, the Twitcher  doesn't, she is all sour faced moaning. No, the Twitcher is the archetypal Socialist. Think about it. Who wants to monitor everything we do? Who thinks they have a moral right to tell everyone else what to do?

Who thinks that the authorities should be included and decide everything for us? Who has nothing useful to say, but plenty of ideas for other people? Who takes offence over the slightest thing? Who constantly casts a miserable shadow over others lives? The Socialist. So there you have it. Socialism (by which I mean the Left liberal) is the miserable old hag no one likes and who just causes grief.

Monday, 3 October 2011

The European Union.

It strikes me that perhaps I shouldn't just expect everyone to understand what the EU is and so understand the problems and the solutions. So here is a quick summary. A Frenchman called Jean Monnet decided that a United Europe, run by French technocrats would be the ideal state. He also recognised that it would be opposed by the ordinary people of Europe, so it had to be done little by little, in secret, by stealth.

Words would have new meanings, so that lies could be told, the truth only being understood by those in the know. Individual states would be taken apart and the EU would consist of regions. In the UK these regions are those of the MEP's who get paid a lot to do precisely nothing. John Prescott tried to introduce the regional governments required a while back, but as usual made a mess of it.

It is also the reason the Welsh and Scottish were given their little governing bodies, as a precursor to all authority being taken away from them, their function then merely to impose EU laws. The nature of our law had to fundamentally change too. No longer could the old established Common Law be allowed and nor could Habeus Corpus. Basic laws that have been introduced to protect the people from over-powerful monarchs or parliaments have been dismantled. They need to be, the EU is a dictatorship.

In Britain, we used to have few criminal offences, now virtually everything is and this change came about to support the Europe wide laws based on the French Code Napoleon. This states that all acts are illegal unless expressly allowed by the State. Here of course, the reverse was true. This was to ensure the government feared the people not the people fear the government. The EU much prefers the  latter.

It was hoped by the power elite in the EU that they were entering the final stages of success, having created a beneficial crisis on instituting the Euro. But it has run away from them and people now realise how dangerous these tyrants and their ideas of conquering Europe are.

The EU functions like this; a group of technocrats spend their time inventing new rules and regulations which they put before the EU parliament. Parliaments are democratic aren't they? We can ultimately control them. Well, we can just about give our own politicians a bloody nose, but this lot are untouchable. Because of the enormous amounts of legislation they pass, the MEP's just sit there pressing Yes or No buttons furiously as they have been instructed.

If by some mischance they vote down a rule, the technocrats may redraft it, but it will be back and it won't go away until the MEP's agree to it. Not just lacking in democracy, the EU is actively anti-democratic. In short, the EU exists only to provide a structure for a powerful elite to rule, in luxury and in perpetuity. It has no other real function. Yes, its laws are to run its 'nation' but that is the work of 'little people'.

You will hear France and Germany mentioned a lot in talk of the EU. That is because the French feel they are uniquely gifted to run things and the Germans feel their economic might gives them the right. Both of these are really self-delusions. France and Germany are just re-running their long standing battles, by another means. Here they have stood the maxim, 'war is politics by another name' on its head. It is merely the mindset of Napoleon and Hitler. So, who usually sorts these European messes out? Where is our Wellington, our Churchill? Oh my God, we've only got David Cameron (and Nick 'Spare Leg' Clegg).

The Overmighty State

I have just received a letter from the taxman. It states that I should return my paper tax form by 31st October or face a £100 fine that will rise rapidly to £1,300. This is usual these days, not just that fines are routinely imposed, but that the threats that go with them are extreme. The anomaly here being that I haven't been sent a paper tax form to fill in. Which didn't surprise me, following a letter a while back saying they wouldn't be sending me them, routinely.

This one went with the one a couple of days ago threatening to remove items to sell, for non payment of tax, because they hadn't heard from me. Except of course, their haste to impose fines is so great that they miss when you do reply. I dispute the amount and have asked for time to pay. Apparently though, the HMRC don't have a hardship policy.

Richard North on his EU Referendum blog is pursuing illegal fees charged by councils and bailiffs, backed up by the usual threatening letters. Watchdog on BBC1 ran an article about fines from the DVLA because they had lost your SORN form and you hadn't checked they had got it.

The connection? Revenue raising from ordinary law-abiding citizens. That it is happening so broadly suggests that it is no coincidence, but a planned strategy on the part of all levels of government. You cannot move these days for the forms that must be completed by deadlines (HMRC etc, don't have such a level of service to you, naturally) with fines rapidly following.

It is clear that bonuses are involved in this corrupt and immoral system. The day will come when someone, or perhaps a lot of people will crack. Is that why strict sentences were handed down to looters? Because with such a weak police force, the authorities, know they are only a short distance from political rioting (and not by the usual marxist rabble)?

Democracy Is A Nuisance

Strangely, as British Prime Ministers of late show a deep penchant for sending British troops to risk their lives, to bolster democracy (apparently) in foreign lands, they show little care for it at home. Mr. Cameron doesn't think he should honour an election pledge (that is, something used to get democratically elected) to have a referendum on the EU. The reason is clear for all to see; the British people, as usual way ahead of politicians, know we need to get out.

The vote will be overwhelmingly in favour of leaving the EU altogether. This is the sort of decision rational, sane people make. To stay in is a vested interest position, one that suits politicians and keeps gravy trains rolling. According to these demented souls, we are stupid enough to believe any rubbish they spout to support their beloved project. Hence, the suggestion that lots of jobs rely on the EU. Yes, politicians jobs. What country will not trade with Britain, because we leave the EU?

Heavens, even Mexico has special trading status with the EU. Did Canada have to become part of the US? Surely such a powerful trading bloc so close means economic and political union is essential for survival? No it isn't, plainly.

Cameron is finding the threat of democracy at home most tiresome; why can he not just do as he pleases? Do people not realise that it is the networks forged through entities such as the EU (and some more hidden ones), that provide the level of income stream such as Tony Blair is now enjoying, after they have been rumbled as complete failures as politicians? The EU doesn't rely on democracy, why should Britain?

The unfortunate campaign just launched to put the 'Great' back in Britain has a major obstacle in the form of David Cameron who, through his continued subservience to the EU means to further eradicate Britain as an entity, not enhance it!