Monday, 30 April 2012

The Post Intellectual World

Isn't it strange that since the Left took over education and through political correctness much else, that everything is now so much worse? I mean, kids just don't have the education that used to be possible on a state controlled budget. The judiciary don't seem to have a firm grip on their role and senior police officers talk of taking all their officers off the streets, so they are instantly available to respond to reports of crime.

It seems almost impossible for people to be this stupid and yet the evidence is clear for all to see. How can it happen? Well, Orwell seemed to realise that, for a self-serving elite to take control, it had to create and use ignorant people. Stalin had his useful idiots, to create a fantasy of popular appeal.

Having failed after WW2 (a curious war, because it created a titanic struggle between two peoples, Russia and Germany both with the same ideology, but with a racial hatred of the other) to form a communist world, or Europe at least, others methods than democracy became imperative.

The Left had to insinuate itself into the institutions, all the better to undermine Western Civilisation. The vehicle of choice was environmentalism and specifically, global warming. You won't hear Cameron or Miliband talk of it come election time, but the logical outcome of a world wide threat, such as global warming is a world wide government. And that government, to fight this terrible plague, must do unpopular things, for our own good.

And only a government that doesn't need to be elected can be unpopular but still go about its work. So the world needs an unelected elite to take over and save the planet.

Let's just stop and think about this first though. Have we ever had a government that was able to do just what it wanted and how did that go? Well, let me see, there was the USSR where I believe tractor production was a never ending miracle of ever increasing numbers, North Korea where having enough to eat is a fairly basic problem for the greater part of the population. The European Union, for heaven's sake! I think you already get the idea.

Then there is the threat we face, global warming. How did we first discover it, what do we know and how do we know it? Ah, it was a theory postulated by not too clearly thinking through cause and effect regarding various gases and inter-actions in the atmosphere. Then the Left got hold of it and turned it into a politically useful monster. It was the invented crisis to drive us into the mindset that gave power to the waiting, malevolent elite.

What we know is this; they have conned you into believing 'carbon' is harmful and will destroy us all. They mean carbon dioxide, but carbon sounds nastier, dirty so they call it that. Accuracy is not the point, your being misled is. Plus it has the useful side effect of testing you. If you don't pull them up on it, they can be certain you are not paying attention. The story is that CO2 in the atmosphere, created by Man is causing the temperature to constantly rise, in a runaway greenhouse effect.

The problem for them is that they don't own science yet and not everyone is that stupid. So the fact that CO2 in the air continues to rise but temperatures haven't since 1998 tells you all you need to know. You have been lied to. On a massive scale. And all that expenditure and taxes to pay for it (much of it hidden in higher fuel bills) is completely and utterly unnecessary. Except, that was how they intended to destroy the Western World's economy.

Friday, 27 April 2012

Expensive Education

You can see the fallacy and stupidity of leftist thinking when you consider their views on education. The rich, they intone, are able to buy the best education and this is not fair. They can also buy the best furniture, holidays and gadgets; what now? But the desire to 'redistribute wealth' is just the politics of envy, education is something higher.

To deny someone the 'best' education is a terrible, life damaging thing. Very possibly it is, but what do the left do about it? Well, having identified private education as being 'the best', they don't seek to emulate it, they want it taken away from the rich too. Eh? So much for the higher plane, still seems like envy.

I deliberately labelled this item 'expensive education' because the private kind does cost a lot, but then so does the socialist mediocrity the left have achieved through their intrusion into education. Having achieved a fair degree of dumbing down, the left have further damaged the opportunities available to children, by decreeing that what they are 'taught' should be acceptable to socialism.

Socialism and all its kind, have only one use and that is as an adolescent phase, that youngsters eventually grow out of, when they realise the world isn't like that. The apogee of those with stunted development is represented by the authoritarians, Stalin, Hitler, Franco, Pol Pot and all the rest.

Aircraft Carriers

Ha! The UK and aircraft carriers; we are crap, aren't we? In the Seventies we decided we didn't need any of these kind of ships and the Navy pulled a fast one. Unable to get a full Fleet Carrier, they had 'Through Deck Cruisers' designed, which bore a striking resemblance to aircraft carriers, if a little smaller.

So we built them and put Sea Harriers on them. Then we decided to get rid of them before the paint was dry. Of course the Falklands War tipped up and we realised how useful they were, for a war we would 'never fight again'. If one thing characterises the MoD it is their constant development of theories that are 180 degrees wrong. No need for manned aircraft, no need for guns on aircraft, no need for aircraft carriers.....

The Sea Harriers did so well we redesigned them to be much more capable, the last one entering service in 1998. In 2002, a Defence Review said we didn't need them as we wouldn't be fighting 'those kind of wars' again and could rely on 'allies for fleet protection'. Would they be allies like the ones who couldn't quite decide whose side they were on in 1982?

Anyway, it meant the FA2 Sea Harriers were scrapped in 2006, some of which were only 7 years old by then! We only needed the ground attack Harriers of the Air Force until the new JSF and their carriers came into service 'in 2012' (Defence Review 2002). Remind me again how that is going....

Every single public servant, be they politicians, defence chiefs or senior policemen seem to see their jobs in the following fashion; pompous importance, salary, pension. Actually doing anything and ensuring the best work is done by all, at all times doesn't even register on their radar (assuming it has been ordered, delivered and works -none of which can be taken for granted in Britain today).

Immigration And Benefits

QT was sensationally bad last night with Dimmo seemingly unable to control the rabble he had assembled. And everyone except Farage sounded strangely mute on any subject. The pointless rich person, Polly Toynbee was not as feisty in support of some patently unsupportable nonsense. And she also, again, failed to mention that she works for a company that avoids paying UK tax.

Farage seemed to get a good reaction to a number of his points, except on immigration. Here one young chap went virtually bonkers at Farage who had said that EU immigrants qualify for immediate benefits. Mr Outraged in the audience said he was employed in the housing benefit industry (not how he put it) and Farage was wrong. He insisted, he shouted, he repeated it several times.

Now, possibly he is partly right, but late last year the EU told Britain to offer benefits to EU nationals immediately and Brussels are in charge after all. So I think the UKIP man, making an anti-EU point was actually right in his assertion. But then the man in the audience was probably more politically motivated than personally concerned with factual accuracy. Indeed, several of those who spoke from the audience seemed to be public sector workers. Who would have thought, in a QT audience?

It was also odd that Grayling, who I believe had a remit that might give an insight into benefits, kept quiet.

What I can't understand is that people keep squealing about cuts, as if government spending was a manifest good in itself. If we get rid of 90%+ of the Quango's no one would notice, but a bunch of bureaucrats would be unemployed. If we got rid of the disgusting overseas 'aid' budget, people would lose their jobs. If we got rid of gay and lesbian 'outreach' workers, no harm would be done but people would be unemployed.

These things are true and I'm sorry for anyone losing their job, but if it shouldn't have existed in the first place and when we can't afford it, what choice is there? Overall, public sector employment harms an economy, though some of that has to be accepted. If we get rid of the dead wood, we would be in a much better position.

If, for instance we left the EU and completely forgot the Climate Change scam, then the UK would recover in a very short time. It is because we will not end these idiotic policies and practises that we are doomed to an austere future, for as far as we can see. And still the Left want to support and extend the harm they do!

Thursday, 26 April 2012

Why The EU?

Countries operate and function in different ways, this we hold to be manifestly true. This is not to say that different nationalities cannot form a separate cohesive identity, as the United States proves. There, people from very different backgrounds came together, but all identify as Americans.

Europe does not have this urge; the current occupants of Greece on the whole, did not recently arrive there, nor with Italy, or Spain or Britain. So where did the desire to unite Europe come from? That it came from a belief in central planning is part of the story, but the driver lay elsewhere.

We are of course told that it was a construct to make impossible another European war, the inference being that once all nations are committed together they will not fight a 'civil war'. There was indeed a fear of renewed war and this was a way to deal with it, but the fear was still of Germany.

Should Germany rebuild, it may well become expansionist again, as it had twice already. France suggested that if much of German machinery and output of coal and food was given to them, then Germany would be held down successfully. How very noble of a country that had done so little to combat the Germans, but a deal siding with them, including fighting the allies who eventually won their country back for them.

Unable to thus hold the Germans in check and facing 'allies' who accepted the need for West German reconstruction, including an economy that would grow, the French fell back on Plan B; unification. They felt that they could hold down the Germans by creating a united Europe, led by them naturally, thus co-opting any new German strength by guile rather than main force.

Keeping Britain out was of course, important, but we showed little interest anyway. By the 1970's France had the project well under way and in their sway and so could entertain a new British interest. Their continued coolness was abated in part by the knowledge that Britain was led at that time but a supremely naive and stupid person, Ted Heath.

Willing to pay almost any price, this political infant signed Britain up and gave away much, including our fishing rights, thus condemning the whole fishing industry of the islands to doom and the whole economy eventually.

Today we have the whole continent brought to its knees by the political folly of politicians following a French model, for French aggrandisement that has been overtaken by events and by a powerful Germany, again.

Perhaps the French should have followed their other instinct after WW2, to form an anti Anglo-Saxon alliance with the USSR. Another great idea.

Lies, Damned Lies And Water Shortages

Because, I presume, all this water that is cascading from the sky may be giving us the impression that the drought might be over, the usual thing happens. The BBC, the nations' broadcaster on behalf of their own ideology, trot out a reporter to a reservoir on the day of the heaviest rain. 'The water here', he intones, 'would normally be way over my head at this time of year'. He carried on to say that the rain just wasn't enough. But, forgive me if I am wrong, but I don't think reservoirs fill up exclusively with rain that falls directly on to them. I think they have rivers and possibly other water courses feeding into them.

This water doesn't arrive on the same day as the rain of course. Which is why the BBC rush someone out, with downpours fresh on your mind and raincoat and tell you it isn't enough, because there is a drought story running, which very possibly may allow a 'Climate Change' angle to be worked in at some point. Anyway, us plebs get a 'narrative' not the news and certainly not the truth. And still no need for water companies to repair leaks, even with the 'drought'.

Lordy, lordy Brown is getting a kicking he richly deserves via Rupert Murdoch at the Leveson enquiry. Don't overdo it Rupert, just a decent hint that the man was completely unhinged will do, bearing in mind we have seen plenty of evidence of that ourselves! And fancy Brown getting Lord Mandelson to tell lies, I mean, why him? Oh yes, because he doesn't do anything else!

I saw two swallows this morning. I am well aware that this still does not qualify as a summer prediction, but my optimism shall not be thwarted, or the nation's done for.

Wednesday, 25 April 2012

Raining Again

Today is the worst day for rain since the continual precipitation started the day the hose pipe ban was called. I don't drive far to work, but it involves a bit of dual carriageway and that helps to throw interest into the journey. A BMW M3 convertible slots in, in front of me just before the slip road to the dual, without indicating. It takes the slip and joins the dual, all without any indication despite traffic being quite heavy and with the distraction of the rain. But this is a safe driver, because the car does no more than 50 on the 'big' road. What a dope (in the real, English sense)!

Doesn't Jeremy Hunt strike you as a Lib Dem? He does me. But he isn't, apparently, he is a Conservative, though I would guess he is of the David Cameron, lottery winner variety as opposed to the servant of the people politician. He has a good family background, impeccable education -all very much respectable and to be respected - but then went off the rails by becoming a Management Consultant.

I suppose once he had been in an industry that prides itself on being paid to talk about stuff, rather than achieve anything, politics was an obvious later choice. Naturally, he has been in PR too though the thing which flopped, but for which he should get some respect, was selling marmalade to Japan. Now he appears to have been up to no good in a way reminiscent of New Labour. A true political chameleon.

I see the recent massive lottery win by a Scottish fellow has allowed him to donate £1 million to Alex Salmond (or his party, I'm sure). Clearly, a fool and his money are easily parted.

Tuesday, 24 April 2012

WW2 And Communism Haven't Gone away

In the Thirties a drift towards more state intervention and an interest in communism was coming to the fore. The rise of authoritarian regimes in Germany, Italy and Russia, amongst others were the most dramatic examples. After the war, despite the evil contained within Nazism and the destruction it brought, even to Germany itself, it didn't quite result in a penitent nation. Germans, even with forced de-nazification programmes were still largely happier with Nazi control and a purge of Jews, than with what they had after.

Some of this was doubtless due to the fact that while Hitler was in power everything was wonderful at home. Then there was nothing. Germans struggled to put these things together, at best suggesting it should all just be forgotten. France, ever with an eye on the prize was looking for war reparations but didn't get them. Not only that but they too had done quite well under Nazi rule and lots of French people hankered for the day.

Communist and socialist parties were on the rise everywhere and this was not a swing to the left after Fascism, because the authoritarian is the way of the left. Fascism is more related to communism and its central planning and collectivisation. No, people were well aware that communism, in fine form under Stalin was not the way to go and yet they did. Except in Britain, where support for communism was minimal.

It just goes to show the differing mentalities; Britain stood firm whilst other European countries, primarily France just rolled over and became, on the whole willing collaborators. This then turned to a desire for more authoritarianism and the rebirth of the idea for a European superstate. It was the passion of madmen the like of which had started the war in the first place.

So it was here, from the post WW2 desire to have a planned economy, a planned society that our present distress was born. The current pig-headed approach to the Euro crisis is the same as the stupidity of the USSR and its five year plans and idiotic targets. The over-arching belief that France and Germany must run the whole of Europe, for its benefit and to do so requires the single currency. It doesn't matter how many ways you prove them wrong, they just carry on following an ideological dream.

How was Europe rebuilt after the devastation wrought by the war? By state spending, by raising taxes? No, the US launched the Marshall Plan which gave Europeans money to spend, pretty much as they liked, but to regrow their economies. Certainly the US saw some gain in doing so, but the plan was nevertheless very generous and very possibly genius. It saved Europe, without a doubt. Even at the time though, the French denied it helped, despite the fact that their nation may never have recovered without it. Some things never change.

So, the war left countries deeply in debt and with an enormous problem of homelessness due to the destruction of housing stock in addition to industry. How much did the Marshall Plan give, to kick start the rapid recovery that ensued? At today's prices, I understand it would be something like £200 billion.

Consider that and then think of the 'support' the IMF propose, the money being used to prop up Greece and Italy, Spain and Portugal. It vastly overwhelms the scale of the Marshall Plan, but what is the spending today achieving? Nothing. It is happening to support a currency that cannot work and a banking system that shows up the flaws. We are even inventing new money by printing it, to give to the banks.

We got into this mess through stupid political decisions and their effect on banking (forcing mortgages on those who couldn't afford it and lack of official over-sight) and it continues because of stupid politics. All of our problems stem from the wrong responses of our politicians to the shock of total war. Sixties architects forced dehumanising tower blocks on a bewildered society and praised themselves, until their folly was found out for what it was and some of the damned things fell down.

At least we learnt from that. The same cannot be said of politics, as it continues to career along towards collective planning and an authoritarian state, causing harm and devastation along the way. Look around you, from the Global Warming scam, born as it was of communist opportunism, seeing a chance to destroy capitalism, to the RSPCA and its attempts to seize control of its sector of society. The answer is always central control, central planning.

Time I think for some real politics, for some grown ups to take charge.

Monday, 23 April 2012

Latest Euro Woes

You could laugh at the idiots, if it wasn't so serious. The Dutch government, as I write, looks set to fall, because they cannot, will not agree to austerity measures, which is odd bearing in mind they have been pretty keen for Southern European states to do so. France looks on the brink of bringing in a Socialist President. Across Europe it seems that the people don't understand the crisis any more than the politicians.

Greek, Spanish and now French people do not want cuts. Hollande in France is saying he would grow the economy and we can guess how, with state spending, which won't work, because he will cripple private industry with taxes to pay for it.

There is a suggestion that if the IMF had insisted on proper fiscal measures to avert crisis, things would be very different and very much better. I wonder if that is why Lagarde was so hastily shoved in? To make sure the IMF was as pro-Euro as possible?

The scariest thing is that, even now the Politicians and Eurocrats are treating the whole thing as a game. Perhaps there should be some real sanctions on them should they carry on with patent folly; imprisonment and/or no state pension. That would, I guarantee make them act very differently.

Dog Chips

The political lobbying organisation, the RSPCA have it seems successfully convinced MP's to require dogs to to forced to have chips inserted under their skin. This they assure us, will stop dangerous dogs roaming our streets. Like the 1000 deaths through binge drinking, there is no attempt to substantiate the truth of the assertion.

Once again, even a child would realise that the good, who were never going to be a problem, will have their dogs chipped and the dangerous dog owners and breeders will skip the procedure. The RSPCA really are a most hateful organisation. They are attempting to use their political clout to close down the competition (competition, in animal welfare!), by claiming the facilities are not 'up to standard', by which they mean what money the charity can raise, goes on looking after the animals, not nice new buildings.

The RSPCA show the way here though, by spending enormous sums on 'facilities' that can't house many animals. But that's OK, they have quite a policy on euthanasia. Try giving them an injured bird. Their advice is to put it in a plastic bag and suffocate it. They don't believe old ladies should have the company of a budgie, because birds shouldn't be kept in cages.

It is entirely likely that the leaders of the RSPCA should only use crayons.

(By 'chips' of course, the reference is to micro chips that contain information about the dog, that can be read by passing a scanner across it, not deep fried potatoes).

Thursday, 19 April 2012

Abu Qatada And The Nature Of Government

For a very long time people have been aware that the Common Market that Edward Heath so assiduously lied about, was a dangerous construct. It was only ever an attempt to Sovietise Europe under French tutelage (allowing some German input as they were funding the project).

So much about it was so obviously wrong and at odds with British principle and practice that it should never have proceeded, at least not here. Naturally as much as could be hidden was, like the removal of British Common Law and policing by consent, to be replaced with the Code Napoleon and law enforcement. A supreme state served by its citizens. Britain in other words, turned on its head.

Some things should not have been possible, but still went ahead contrary to the law. One of these was the loss of sovereignty. It is not in the gift of a British government to hand authority of the Queen's subjects to a foreign power. And yet, they still did it.  and we only avoided being forced into the single currency by happenchance.

Now all these illegal and ridiculous actions by self-important politicians are coming home to roost. How stupid, how fundamentally moronic does our government now appear as it grapples with the deportation of a terrorist, in an age when virtually any action can be justified by inserting the word 'terrorism'. How desperately our over-paid-as-they-no-longer-have-a-job-to-do politicians squirm, to avoid admitting that they are powerless in the face of their overseas masters.

Do we run our country? No. Are the UK elections a farce? Yes, indeed. And this is most clearly signalled by the simple fact that in a sovereign country, Abu Qatada would have been deported the day it was decided he should be.

Anders Breivik

The more we learn about the Breivik shootings and bombing, the more it becomes clear, to me at least, that he is a child and should be laughed at. His reasoning is that of a pre-teen child who cannot take responsibility for his actions, because someone else should be looking out for him. That he is entitled to have entirely self centred opinions. Ironically of course, he has mixed this up with adult emotions of curing the world of a 'problem'.

At this point he falls back into his 'child world' and acts in ways that are grossly at odds with the nature of the problem. The whole point is, that if he is right, he should be able to convince others with a coherent argument. He can't, he hasn't.

It seems wrong to talk of laughter, considering the seriousness of his actions and their dreadful, continuing effects, but it is nonetheless the right reaction to this imbecile. He has tried to address an issue that needn't be beyond him, in a way that is totally out of proportion. Breivik is the guy who can't figure out which way a door opens, who buttons his coat up wrong. He is a fool.

Coalition Blues

Is anyone else getting fed up with the Coalition? Access to power really has unsettled the Lib Dems. Firstly, we saw Nick's mob disappoint their supporters by immediately ditching many of their favourite projects, on the wholly reasonable grounds that these policies were formulated when the party had no prospect of putting them into practice. This didn't stop a lot of soppy, hessian bag waving well-off people whining about betrayal.

Now however the Lib Dems are more comfortable and feel able to start bringing daft ideas forward on a daily basis. It's their reason for being. Even the distinctly un-Conservative David Cameron is exasperated so they must be crackpot. The Tories are busy with some good stuff (they are Tories after all) and lots of Cameron projects. Cameron projects are dopey, left-liberal ideas that haven't been given a moment of proper thought.

So the defining character at the moment is the Coalition U-turn. Fabulous. No really, a great way to run a country. I used to see more coherence and clear planning on the Magic Roundabout.

There is talk that the UKIP lot are spoiling the Conservative's party by splitting supporters. Some say this is nonsense as not all UKIP voters would vote Tory. Erm, I bet they would, if the Conservative party looked, sounded and acted like, say a Conservative party. UKIP are fast becoming something other than a one trick pony; they are no longer just about getting out of the EU. This entirely common sense approach is now moulding itself around a large array of policy areas.

If UKIP were a cheese they would be Wensleydale, smooth, creamy but not everyone's first choice. A true Conservative party would be mature Cheddar, works with everything, broad appeal, robust and British. The Lib Dems (and the likes of Cameron) would be Parmesan. Great on ragu, but smelly and not something you would want on its own. Labour? I don't know, nothing much comes to mind. Probably that bit of cheese you threw away because it was mouldy, you know, corrupted.

So, the Conservatives have to get back on track and do truly conservative things. Like shrinking the size of Government. We hear so many stories about how Osborne's latest tax wheeze will cause untold grief (often for tiny potential gain), but not a squeak about how much less Government is going to spend.

For example, the static caravan tax. Firstly, how the hell did he dream that one up? After eating a bad pasty or watching too much Dale Farm (an ordinary tale, of ordinary non-travelling, traveller folk)? Anyway, this will doubtless cause holiday sites to buy fewer new caravans, which means they will probably get fewer guests and so earn less to pay tax on. The manufacturers of the caravans will lay people off, so increasing welfare payments by the state and the company also paying less tax. So, how much was he hoping it would raise?

Anyway, in all of this you have private companies making rational decisions. Faced with lower incomes they cut back. When will Government learn that simple lesson? When will Osborne say, 'you know we spend money on an awful lot of things that don't actually achieve anything? Or serve a useful purpose. And then there is the £80+ billion that we just waste each year'?

Let's have some more Cheddar.

Wednesday, 18 April 2012

Do You Know What Government Is For? Because Politicians Don't

I was thinking about what troubles us. We have poorly regulated utility companies. Prices where a monopoly of some sort exists keep going up, taxes keep increasing, we have had a banking crisis, pensions remain unfunded, we cannot have a view on the EU, liberties keep vanishing, the police keep shooting unarmed and often completely innocent people with impunity and much else besides.

Yet what are the government actually doing? Implementing EU directives and slavishly following the Climate Change scam. Think about what is the prevailing motif of the current, coalition administration -the U turn. They have an idea, which they put into practice, then realise it is a bad idea and pull it. Charity tax anyone? When you think back, it was exactly the same with Blair.

These things all have one thing in common. They happen because the people responsible are careless and they are careless because, really, ultimately they are unaccountable. Jack Straw being pursued over 'rendition'? I'm sure some obscure detail will see it go away. The price of corruption required to make this happen probably doesn't rise above a bag of Maltesers.

Blair broke animal health laws whilst PM. No one arrested him, let alone accused him. Police acted in concert committing the crime of killing animals they had no right to. Just to make sure though, Blair used his time machine to make the crime not a crime with retrospective legislation. So although he was knowingly breaking the law at the time, he wasn't because in the future he would make a law that made it legal, at the time it occurred.

We should repeal that law immediately and give Blair a little more of something he dearly loves, a property in the UK. In this case, one with bars on the windows.

There is no current understanding of how climate works, so all the computer models and claims of the Greens is just so much hot air. The evidence they produce has to be biased because they don't understand the mechanism. No one does. But, because they don't examine anything, the government has adopted the cause and been completely converted to this new religion.

Unsightly and useless wind turbines go up, entirely funded by subsidy because they cannot pay for themselves and push up our bills unnecessarily. But because politicians and civil servants shun the traditional working day model of doing some work, during the course of a day no one checks the facts.

It is not just that the government does too much and involves itself where it shouldn't, it is that all of these things are done without concern, without due diligence and without care.

Get Thinking

Here's a thought; has there ever been a politician who was at least reasonably popular and competent. I mean actually, recognisibly did a good job? It doesn't have to be Churchill during the War but someone who clearly was on top of their remit.

Gordon Brown of course was hailed as a fantastic Chancellor by Labour spin doctors and the chant was taken up by those in the country who felt thinking was a waste of effort. Thatcher I suppose is an interesting case, because she did so much good for the country, was decisive and clever, but flawed in a slightly meglomanic way. The issue of popularity of course is skewed here because, as she was doing such an excellent job, the Left had to demonise her -and stir up riots- to paint an image acceptable to them.

I'm sure Bevin will pop up from the Left, but the NHS was such a radically bad idea in the way he saw it being used, e.g. controlled from the centre, that he doesn't qualify. (It could have been so different though; good idea in principle but needed to be done by a conservative -small 'c').

It seems they are usually people who are not trusted by their party such as Douglas Carswell and Frank Field.

IPCC Commissioners

The Independent Police Complaints Commission, of whom I expect more, are seeking 'truly independent commissioners' to 'build public confidence' by (in part) 'delivering messages to partners who often have conflicting views'.

Naturally, I think I would do a great deal of good within such an organisation, as I expect more of the police and think the IPCC does not do its job competently or completely at present. However, to be eligible to apply you must never have worked for the police in any capacity. Ever. However, if you murdered someone 10 years ago you are fine, the limit is on crimes attracting a three month plus sentence, within the last 5 years.

So, my views on policing are irrelevant because, whilst high minded principles based on a fair, policing by consent basis caused me to be a Special Constable, I have been inside the system and cannot be truly independent. But if you have suffered arrest by said officers, your opinion will be fine and unbiased as long as 5 years have elapsed since you were last convicted.

A lot of people have worked hard to achieve the level of incompetence currently displayed by the police and the lack of accountability is key to this. No re-invigorated IPCC will be allowed, but a few more £75K+ bureaucrats will be on the forelock tugging payroll.


It's raining, which means a segment of the population, probably quite legally in possession of a driving licence, drive incredibly slowly, even on a dual carriageway. The government has pressed into our heads that speed kills, but it doesn't. The real danger is disparity of speed, so when everyone else is doing 70-80 the guy doing 120 is a danger. But then so is the 45-50 brigade when the general flow is doing 70.

Anders Britvic, the complete fruit juice who thinks killing potential future politicians with whom he would have to disagree is a rational approach to problem solving, nevertheless says some things that make people uncomfortable, because you agree with the basics. Multiculturalism, as a creed is deliberately divisive and designed to undermine capitalist society.

It is an evil in itself, because it sets out to create fear and anger. Under multiculturalism, the Norwegian Nutter should be tolerated as his views are as valid as any other, apparently. In a law abiding society of course they are not. The only problem a multiculti could find with Anders would be that he is seems to be carrying a Right Wing label and as such can be hated. Ironically, he resorted to the left solution of force to make his political point.

I see the IMF, which seem to be one of many organisations employed solely to make daily predictions, based possibly on tea leaves, are now saying the Eurozone could provoke a Great Depression if it collapses. Of course both in existing and in self destructing the Euro does and will cause great harm, but it doesn't have to be like that.

If the EU politicians did what a decent human being would do and carefully took apart their monetary empire, we could all breathe easy. Plus, it would not only save us from a Great Depression but actually kick off a boom. Except for the politicians of course, who would 'suffer'. So it won't happen, because their feelings and power have to come first. I mean, could WW2 have ended because Hitler suddenly decided he was wrong? Suddenly realised he should consider how he was hurting other people?

I'm going to act like an expert now. An NHS 'think tank' (read 'pointless bureaucrats justifying large salaries') says that a minimum price for alcohol will save 1,000 lives. I think it will kill 10,000. I'm not going to explain how, or try to substantiate my point. I'm an expert.

MP's seem to think the messing around with the country's finances may have damaged the pensions of millions of Britons. Indeed. Partly, this is because of the £325 billion that has been printed. It crosses my mind that, had that money been given to ordinary people and not banks, then the pension crisis would be over and we would have money circulating in the economy more freely (with a dose of inflation though).

But no, it must be given to the other half of the inept cabal of bankers and politicians who caused the problem and, most likely are on course to do it again.

Tesco have issued a profits warning for the first time in 20 years. Last year they made over £1 billion profit. I wonder if that is more than all the suppliers put together made out of selling their wares to Tesco? I'm sure that a company cannot go on making more than last year forever, but the 'problem' at Tesco can be summed up in one word, arrogance.

Am I missing something? The looter who killed a man with a single punch has just been sentenced to 8 years in prison. And the man who set fire to a furniture shop got 11 and a half. The extent of the shop fire was severe because the police and fire service let it burn. We saw from aerial footage as it went up that the area was completely empty, no one about at all. I think his sentence is OK; it is the other one that puzzles me.

Friday, 13 April 2012

Anti Gay Campaign

Mayor of London Boris Johnson has stopped a poster campaign supporting the Christian notion that homosexuality is a sin. It is an interesting position for a servant of the public to take, in a country where the Christian faith is supposed to be a central part of its 'Establishment'.

The posters were particularly offensive apparently, because they claimed that homosexuality could be 'cured'. The objection is to the word 'cured' but the Gay supporters also carefully avoid the word. Their assertion is that to cure something you have to believe that something is wrong in the first place.

Christians would say, without needing a recourse to malice, that the human species continues due to sexual congress; it is not surprising then that other sexual unions would be considered unnatural. For me, this is probably too extreme a reaction to the condition in which a homosexual finds themselves. It is not something the homosexual 'does', they are born with the trait, in just the same way a heterosexual is born with theirs.

Society then has to decide how to react to the situation. Surely it should just be ignored and the homosexuals keep their activity to the confines of their homes as should heterosexuals. But we come back to that word cure again. Because homosexual activists don't want to be ignored or tolerated, they want to be 'equal' (by which they mean privileged, treated as victims).

This means they must insist on irrelevant 'needs' that are only demanded to cause schism and disagreement, to antagonise. Marriage is one such antagonism. Marriage is a human construct to tie together two people who intend to raise children, their children. The society bestows what support it can on these people as children are the future. Homosexuals have absolutely no reason to get 'married' and the requirement to do so is not envy, but political.

Mayor Johnson's support for the political activity of this group, to oppose the political activity of another shows how all of us are in thrall to the victim claims of homosexuals (a tactic of the Left generally). They have the 'moral' high ground, because they have constructed a situation where certain things cannot be said, not because they represent some clear evil, but because they oppose homosexuality (for instance). All part of the Political Correctness drive to control language and thus people; very Orwellian.

I am sure that we could discover how to change the brain chemistry of a homosexual to turn them into a heterosexual, but I'm not sure I understand why you would want to. They are unlikely to have an innate feeling that there is something wrong with themselves, as opposed to someone who cannot walk for instance. The utility of being able to use your legs is somewhat more apparent.

Because of the aggression that activists have attached to their 'cause' however, should someone wish to 'convert', say to have a relationship to raise children in the normal way, I fear that they would be intimidated not to. It is an unlikely scenario but it is one that the activists are not careless about; they are very careful to challenge any such thought. Naturally, they would be enraptured if a heterosexual wished to become a homosexual. That would be OK. But oppression is oppression no matter what its self proclaimed intention.

Wednesday, 11 April 2012

Schools, Teachers And Learning

Teachers striking is in the news. Talk is bandied about of educational standards, good and bad teachers, pay and pensions. But this is a confusion. In an ideal world a teachers Union would represent teachers in their negotiations on pay and conditions. They have no role to play in deciding educational issues.

Unfortunately we are not in an ideal world and teacher's Unions are actually about opposing a government with which they disagree and that they cannot control, so fermenting discord and announcing strikes is their political muscle flexing to get their way. Teachers striking causes immediate pain to the ordinary people and it is then a matter of whether people are weak and give in to the Unions for a quiet life, or fight them for better standards for everyone.

In these situations it is usually the children and the reason teachers exist that gets forgotten. Leftist educationalists are responsible for the poor standards of discipline and achievement in schools and teachers over inflated opinions of themselves. They also run the official complaint machines, Unions, so nothing can ever run properly.

But the Left have also created a 'them and us' narrative, where only one can be right. The government talks of monitoring teachers and sacking the bad ones, Unions say don't inspect, don't sack, just trust wonderful, professional teachers. But properly freed of state interference (and Union control) a Head could look at developing best practice in their school.

If one teacher seems to have striking success at inspiring the least able, then the head should examine how that teacher works and distill the essence to pass on to others. Learning in an institution of learning! Could it catch on? Similarly a teacher not doing so well, should feel confident to seek assistance and know that the admission does not lead instantly to a scrap heap.

All of this of course directed towards the education of the children, which is a million miles from current objective setting in education. Naturally, this local, initiative, outcome centred approach would not suit the Unions or idling teachers. But then, it's not meant to and they really are not the concern of those that care.

Tuesday, 10 April 2012

Boat Race

I come from what I suppose would be considered a poor background, but never suffered or required anything. I went through state schooling and here I am. I have a regard for others and take great pride in the achievement of others as it relates to me, the national sporting champions for instance or the business I work for being successful.

I am mildly interested in the Boat Race and extremely proud that these august institutions have remained centres of academic excellence for centuries. Are they flawed? I would imagine so. But they still attract the best brains.

So what of the imbecile who swam in front of the race to highlight his assertion that 'elitism leads to tyranny'? Well, inasmuch as quite a few people would see him as being somewhere inside that bubble, I suppose there must be some truth in it because he feels people should bend to his will. That is a tyranny.

His high handed actions relied inherently on the people taking part in and running the race not being arrogant, rude, selfish and uncaring towards others as he clearly is, because otherwise they would have just run him down. Had not an oar knocked him unconscious a following boat may have shredded him with its propeller.

A large number of people turn out to watch the boat race and I just wonder who he thinks his constituency is? It would seem likely they reside in Bedlam.

Elitism gives us the fine buildings of Wren, the country modelling of Capability Brown, the art of Da Vinci. It even constructs the Olympics and admires Usain Bolt. He runs faster, over a short distance than any one else and this makes him elite. Or, just faster than any one else.  The difference is only realised if you decide to take offence. Elitism challenges us to do better.

A lack of elitism leads to the architecture of Stalin and North Korea. An absence of the effort required to 'do well' leads to starvation and war through envy. It leads to a 'class war'. Indeed, the supposed 'intellectualisation' of thought is the opposite. It is the debasement of thought.

The Left refer to Intellectual the same way they refer to Progressive; as lies. They attempt to capture language so they can distort it and present a narrative of their creation, to support their assertion, but which fails the test of reality. Progressive means to progress, but the Left just change, change to move things on in a direction they desire. Intellectual is used to try to suggest they are elitist thinkers and therefore beyond reproach. Elitism here being acceptable!

In reality a Left 'intellectual' is someone who feels someone else should fund their life, while they 'think' important things. Common people call them wasters when they are being polite. Which brings us back to Boat Race Pillock.

Thursday, 5 April 2012

Cameron And The Long Run

Pummelled recently Cameron has hit back by saying that he is in it for the long run, not just for short term gain. Well, a major problem in politics since Blair took power is that the short term aims of a political party have become the only aim of all politics. The country can go to hell in a hand cart if it conflicts with getting re-elected.

The problem with what Cameron is saying in his own defence is that we have absolutely no evidence to support it. Certainly there is a welter of evidence that he is only interested in himself, to the extent that he agrees to stupid ideas from the Lib Dems, because it keeps his power train rolling along.

Nope, he is as short termist as Blair. He would love to install one long term system though (and this he shares, again, with Blair) and that is that his party stays in power for ever.

Secret Courts

In the UK secret courts already exist in the form of Family Courts. The restrictions on knowing what these courts are up to are severe, the punishments for disclosure draconian. So naturally they abuse the power and act in a most malicious way. These are not normal, fair courts operating behind closed doors. In these courts 'evidence' can be hidden from defendants, unsupported accusations made, material statements withheld, cross examination denied.

In fact, anything can and is allowed that enables state functionaries to do whatever they want. It takes a strong and principled judge (and we seem to have a careful justice system that has worked to weed them out early) to stand up for real and actual justice.

This is the power Clarke seeks, untrammelled, absolute and unchallengeable. I don't know why they feel the need just now to do this, but it is obviously very powerful, because they have already played their trump card. Terrorism. Not just that though, but that other countries, the US for goodness sake, cannot trust our open courts.

What a lot of hogwash. Our courts can protect sources and don't have a problem with secrecy when it matters. No, our politicians problem is, they want the power when it doesn't matter and they don't want you to know that, either.


The hosepipe ban comes into force today across several regions of the UK. Serious looking spokesmen appear on TV to warn 'customers' that the shortage is serious and large fines will result if they ignore the diktat.

Of course, no mention is made of the 300 million gallons of water they lose every day, because they cannot be bothered to meet their statutory duty to repair pipes. For them, the derisory fines of the water 'regulator' are just an operating cost, certainly much, much less than sorting out the leaks.

Imagine the damage to the funds available for executive bonuses if they were spending the money required to meet their legal commitment! Connect the dots. Police regularly set up speed traps where the average 'overspeed' is probably 3mph and the fine is instant. They have the power to seize cars instantly and crush them for repeat offences, even where the penalty is massively out of proportion to the 'crime'.

Yet when it comes to big companies, the law suddenly becomes very careful and tentative. Water bosses have a legal duty to limit leaks. If they ignore it, it doesn't really matter. The fines, even when they do come are insignificant and out of proportion in the wrong direction. Politicians who break the law are given every courtesy and excuses sought, details that would be irrelevant if it were you or I  assume great significance.

Social workers abuse their powers seizing children and breaking up families. And yet there is so often nothing done and nothing we can do to force action. Yes, it is proof positive that a corrupt state will not allow any intervention with its affairs. So it will get worse and worse, just as a child pushes to discover where the boundaries are.

Our destruction is not confirmed yet, but a clear path has been set and our politicians and their fellow travellers (such as bankers with Gordon Brown, charlatans with Tony Blair, anyone with money it seems, with Cameron) are already on it.

Wednesday, 4 April 2012

Pastygate And The EU

Listen, Osborne didn't want to tax pasties, but he had to. See, some bloody German, selling bratwurst and chips from trailers, challenged his government for charging top rate VAT on what he did. He wasn't 'catering' merely handing over some sausages he had heated up.

The judges at the EU agreed with him and Osborne went into a flat panic. It meant he either had to apply 20% to pasties or let all takeaway's escape VAT. So he went down the tax route. Naturally, the fish and chip shops here thought they saw an opportunity and are contemplating suing for the return of 'millions of pounds of VAT they have paid'.

And we laugh and wish them luck, 'yeah stick it to the man', we say. But hold on. Fish and chip shops don't actually pay VAT, they just hand it on. We pay the VAT as it is charged on what we buy. So if they got a refund, it would be our bloody money not theirs! But as they cannot ascertain who they owe what, they will keep the money and order a new Beemer. The common man is the poor bloody infantry.

The Falklands

Argentina is a country that is perpetually ruled by grubbing types, either military or political. The present President is a vain, yet quite unattractive woman called Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, who became wealthy through corrupt land deals. She rails these days, not against herself, her corruption and the appalling mess she is making of a country already in a bad way.

No, she diverts attention away from her to the Falkland Islands and British colonialism, which is oppressing  the people of the Islands. This her people believe because they are taught it at school, but like global warming, that doesn't make it true. Naturally if the islands were a colony of Argentina she wouldn't have a problem with colonialism.

Some people think her timing cynical, to reopen the wounds of the 1982 war, but this is coincidence. Her timing is based on the fact that oil has been found around the islands and her greed knows no bounds or reason. Her country could be looking for oil in its own regions, but that would require effort; so much better to take other people's possessions and the fruit of their labour.

And, as she well knows the Islanders speak English and wish to retain their links with the UK, not Argentina. So another of her planks is pulled away because if she invaded these foreign shores again, it would be Argentina, once again acting in the role of oppressor.

In 1982 there was genuine surprise among many conscripts in the Argentine forces, to find the local population hostile to them and decidedly British. This was not what they had been told to expect. It may well make sense for the Islands to be part of Argentina, it being the closest mainland. But not when it is run by corrupt nutters, so the choice of the Islanders, in the circumstances is both logical and right.

In fact, the Falklanders could offer to take over Argentina, thus not only making the coveted link, but also providing some people who are not power crazed crackpots, to restore the country to prosperity.

Tuesday, 3 April 2012

Car Parking

It's been a while since I waxed about car parking, but it continues to be a particular passion of mine. Councils seeking to use car parking charges as a form of taxation are a blight on their region and the profitability of businesses. Indeed, it is a potent symbol of the break in understanding between a corporate approach and the mindset of a state body.

I heard of a private clinic where the car parking was free (and the service efficient, facilities clean etc) that was being closed, as the facility was being moved to the local, state run hospital, where the parking charges are £1.50 an hour. This unashamed leeching off sick people and their relatives is an indication of the detached and careless thinking of over-paid apparatchiks in government sinecures. (Actually, over-paid is not quite right as being employed at all makes them over paid, if it was a penny).

Councils, like central government should of course have a fairly narrow focus and where they stray from that focus it should be exclusively to help smooth the working lives of citizens. Your local council should empty bins, pay for emergency services and libraries. It should maintain the infrastructure and environment. These are costly activities and mean a lot of employment.

However, all the political projects, such as drugs, sexual and fashionable projects (diversity, race etc), collectively falling under an 'outreach' banner, are none of the councils' business. If they feel they should engage in such activity, beyond the remit accorded them by ratepayers, then they should ask for permission.

These objections do not penetrate to the stupidity that is applied to jobs they should be doing, where waste and over complication are a way of life for people who know exactly where the next penny is coming from and that it will never end. The incentive to do things properly just doesn't exist.

The much talked about desire of local government to tax companies for providing parking spaces, is outrageous. It is absolutely none of the council's business what the company does. It may, in a way no council moron could understand, use parking as a tactic to attract the best candidates to work for them.

The reason we get these taxes is entirely due to the inhibited abilities of local government employees. It is so far beyond their intellect to find a way to stimulate growth that then provides increased tax revenue, that the idea might as well exist on Mars.

Every penny your council spends on 'environmental issues' and every 'green' tax they impose is an abuse. If they said that they were using the money to keep the dead from rising up and slaughtering us all, or to save pixies from becoming extinct, it would at least be more honest of them. Taxing and spending to support something almost entirely made up is part of the modern fashion, to believe what the Left says without thinking, but is is a key aspect of our nations poverty.

Car parking charges and the (illegal) fines they so dearly love to impose are a key aspect of local government fund raising. It should stop and they should be ordered to go back to just doing what we asked them to and to live within their means. In a spare moment, they might want to consider why they are referred to as 'public servants'.

Monday, 2 April 2012


What is going on with car design? Firstly the stupendously ugly trend of the gaping mouth radiator grille. The only car I have seen that it appears to work on is the Mitsubishi ASX and then only just (and not the white one). I blame BMW. The moronic sharp edge design trend they set off with a few years ago, under the direction of Chris Bangle set in train a movement towards exaggeration and careless design. The early design was so bad the boot looked like it was an add-on, missed from the original drawings.

It created antagonistic and meaningless shapes and form that was hideous to behold. They persevered. They shouldn't have. And, as if by force of propaganda, it is cropping up in other designs, thus proving, as with architects, stylists are not the people to define taste.

Mercedes are similarly now ugly cars, not prestige, with a multitude of LED 'driving' lights that make them look like chav transport, or pimpmobiles. Mind you, that is another trend that designers have not been able to avoid. Do they do Burberry seats?

Then there is the outrage over Bentley straying into SUV territory, with the design concept the EXP 9F. The theory seems to be that Bentley isn't that kind of brand, but Porsche is I suppose (Cayenne)? No, I have no conceptual problem with Bentley making an SUV, but what I do agree with is the criticism of the EXP 9F's design.

Clearly it is intended to appeal to those of a bling persuasion (so footballers and drug dealers) and a number of the details appear to be the result of a primary school art competition,. Overall though, the designer seems to have looked at a Ssangyong Musso and thought 'hell, yeah!'. I hope they spend time and money when they  make it, because the money they saved by getting the guy who changes the paper towels to do the design, needs compensating somewhere.

Although it is a mystery no-one cared about, we now know where the Japanese blokes went who designed 1990's ghetto blasters, those abominations of over-detail, too much plastic chrome and pointless excrescences. They now design the dashboards of cars like the Ford Focus and the Vauxhall Astra. They are so bad, so over the top, I could honestly believe they would make you physically sick, every time you sat in the car. We often refer to decades as being the ones 'style forgot', but it seems we are now living in an age when we simply forgot style.

I'll end by mentioning a V12 Ferrari, the FF. It's a bread van.