Wednesday, 30 January 2013

Awards For Tony Blair

It is nice that Poland think that they should recognise they efforts Tony Blair went to, at direct cost to the people of his own country to give Poles and in fact anyone from pretty much anywhere, an opportunity to take money out of the UK and help support the Polish (or some other) economy. This of course, was in addition to the increasing funds he agreed to give them via the EU.

Naturally, a number of wealthy individuals and financial institutions decided to give more direct and discreet thanks for all he did for them, often ignoring or changing British laws and regulations, to allow them to gain advantage.

And perhaps, negative things could offer an award? Although Clinton can claim to have set the ball rolling for a massive banking crisis, Blair did his part and with his economically ignorant Chancellor did an unbelievably good job of wrecking the economy. Not for him any need to co-opt the power of the Unions to destroy the country, as previous Labour administrations had to.

It would be difficult to decide though, what the award should be called? The Most Stupid Politician? The Worst Prime Minister? The Politician Most Able To Keep Morals Out Of His Every Decision? The options go on and on.

And then you need to consider the wise adage that you should know a man by the friends he keeps; in the past John Prescott, Peter Mandelson, Alistair Campbell, Gordon Brown and now, tyrants and despots the world over.

We do also, still need to know who it was that killed, or ordered the killing of Dr. David Kelly.

Tuesday, 29 January 2013

French Politician tells The Truth - France In Shock

The suggestion is that the Finance Minister Sapin, who admitted France is totally bankrupt, has shocked the country with this news. I'm betting they are more shocked someone told the truth! I'm betting Hollande will be very vocal for a while spouting that all is OK and thank goodness socialism has managed to grow money on trees.

France has long prayed that the success of the Anglosphere would crash and with the recession now reverberating around the world, their wishes are perhaps coming true. But I don't think they meant to get caught up in it themselves! But then hubris has a way of biting and the lack of morals in French decision making doesn't bode well for long term success.

Friday, 25 January 2013

EU Debate; Let's Actually Have One

Politicians lied to get Britain into the EU, lied about it to win the '75 referendum to stay in ('it's about trade') and have avoided talking about it ever since. Now Cameron has had to open a can of worms, he will have hated to, but he had to talk about 'Europe'.

Consequently it was going to be interesting to watch at least some of Question Time, as obviously the BBC would be mobilising to fight against any suggestion that the EU was a bad thing.You notice some interesting tactics on the programme; a young lad was allowed to make some cogent points for a referendum and Dimmo just said 'OK that's interesting' or some such and moved onto someone else for a point. When someone said that we can't have a simple in/out referendum on an issue as complex as the EU, Dimmo asks the panel to comment.

The ruse of making a 'complex EU' an established fact and then allowing those disagreeing to try to find a way to argue against it is a common one of the Left. It was rather undermined when Hislop just said it wasn't that complex and people should be allowed to have a say. It is this of course, that all of the politicians are terrified of including Cameron, the public having a say.

As Tony Blair proved, when attempting to corrupt the electoral process to make Labour the only party able to win 'elections', the people will annoying vote against you. This is also a constant lament of EU politicians who have often criticised the need to allow the people a vote (on anything) and that it gets in the way of the progress of 'The Project'.

Stalin starved the Ukrainians for disagreeing with him, so I suppose we should consider ourselves lucky, or maybe they are just not strong enough yet!

Still, the 'complex' ploy hadn't worked in QT so bizarrely a woman in the audience asked the same question again and kept on chipping in to make sure it was addressed 'properly'. Of course, the EU is a complex beast as is a motor car, but when you go to the shops you do not decide you need to understand all the mechanical interactions necessary for the car to work.

And the same is true of the EU. There would be some paperwork, but when you want to leave, you leave. The complex issue is as true as the trade meme; the EU is only and has ever only been about creating a single political entity that they when pushed, will call the United States of Europe. But being modelled on totalitarian lines it is more a Soviet Union of Europe.

So the in/out vote is entirely acceptable to discern the will of the people. Cameron cannot 'renegotiate' and he knows it, so it is only a tactic itself. He would very much like to win the next election and he has broken the taboo of bringing up 'Europe' as he knows lots of people hate it. By promising a referendum after we have done him the favour of voting Conservative, he will probably decide it isn't necessary.

Or, by some narrow margin convince the gullible that he has got a fantastic new arrangement for us 'in Europe' and the vote will go his way. Then we find out he and his EU chums never had any intention of  implementing the 'agreements', just like last time. Dan Hannan has some nice points in his Telegraph blog today.

So bear in mind whenever you hear 'debate' about the EU that it is only intended to be a political union and if we stay in we will get sucked into it, with its single currency and all, it is inevitable as it was intended to be. Consider this, if Cameron seems to convince you to stay in; Germany pays the most in to EU coffers and seems to have always had a mighty big say. The UK is the second largest contributor and what influence would you say we have had? None?

In fact, as we have seen recently, the other EU politicians openly sneer and laugh at us (or at our politicians for allowing us a say) and continue to draw up plans to reduce us to a real vassal state. The Common Agricultural Policy? A French scheme to harvest the money of other Europeans to pay their inefficient farmers.

We should say two things to technocrats of the EU; 'No' and 'a pox on all your houses'.

Thursday, 24 January 2013


Cameron is at Davos, explaining what he meant in his EU speech and other, world affecting stuff. The reason is that Davos is about big stuff. Important stuff, which is why the biggest and best are there. But what is it really about?

Well, it's a nice networking opportunity which taxpayers pay for, allowing politicians to pitch for future employment or seek advantage for their pet projects. It allows trouble makers to snipe too, but they are always going to do that somewhere.

But what Davos is really about is an opportunity for big business to lobby to get its way in legislation to hamper competitors (usually smaller companies) and increase retained profits. The executives are also keen these days that politicians continue to ignore their pay and tax dodges. It is also an opportunity for the likes of the IMF to grandstand and push their agendas.

Anything of actual use or broad acceptance to the overwhelming majority paying for these junkets is not really of any interest to anyone attending. It's a meeting to make sure that no-one rocks the boat and if a country needs to do something that might show up some shady activity elsewhere, for instance, they discuss how best to cover it up.

The outcome of these meetings is things like the spread of supermarkets, big arms deals, management consultancy contracts and laws forcing you to use services that are often unnecessary, as the asbestos clear-up companies have successfully lobbied for in the past.

This is not even the unacceptable face of capitalism, as the bosses of the large corporations meeting in Davos  are seeking strong, big government that can enforce their will. Democracy doesn't really help this kind of government so it is no wonder a number of them support institutions like the EU. Big business likes the EU installing laws that require expensive testing, as it effectively kills off the small companies that are such a pain to them.

Big government has a habit of requiring high levels of taxation to cover their wasteful activity and big business is also keen to make sure the politicians don't chase them or their companies for tax. The upshot of these activities is usually, if not immediately instability and social unrest, such as we see in Greece, so ultimately coming back and slapping politicians and businesses in the face.

But today, the opportunities for power (for politicians) and wealth (for executives and politicians) are beguiling and convince them that this time it will be different, they'll get away with it.

Wednesday, 23 January 2013

Labour And The EU Referendum

At PMQ's, the bizarre, reality separated Miliband said that he didn't agree with a referendum on staying in or leaving the EU. Let us be very clear what he is saying. Though politicians lied to the people to get us into a politicians club of their liking and despite the clear evidence that the people have realised what an extraordinarily bad idea Britain being in the EU is, Miliband doesn't want you to have a say.

It is as bald as that. Labour know that the British people have had the scales fall from their eyes, they see the Emperor has no clothes, that the EU has a naked ambition to create a Soviet style country swallowing all Europe. They know all of this and, terrified, they do not want you to be able to vote on it.

They have very much enjoyed the cosy club where the EU is left out of General Election politics by all the major parties. But that is the past and Miliband can't see it. He just can't bear to see the opportunity to be part of a state controlled bureaucracy with sweeping, unchallengeable powers slipping away.

He must think he is letting his Marxist father down. He wants the same things that Stalin (and Hitler) wanted; a single Europe united under totalitarian control. You wanted 1984 Miliband, but it is 2013 and we still have a last fingernail grip on democracy here.

That EU Speech

Well for someone who hasn't made a very good job of being a Conservative, the EU speech by David Cameron was pretty good. He made his points clearly and well, the speech was coherent and didn't duck the questions that are being asked, except when he mentioned wanting the Common Market we signed up to not  a financial one. Thus he avoided mentioning that it is and always was intended to be a political union, a superstate.

Here lies the point at which paths diverge. Heath, the Quisling, lied openly to the British people to get us to agree to join the EU. It is a has been a 'thief in the night' secretly taking away Britain's sovereignty, taking huge sums of money to pay for their grandiose schemes and pushing for more and more control from the centre, with no hint of democracy.

Cameron touched on the lack of a European demos and he is right. The EU has no democratic structure. The MEP's may be 'elected' but have no real power whatsoever. The EU ignores its own laws whenever it suits in the same way any tyranny does, as any totalitarian regime does.

Cameron said we would never join the Euro, that power should rest with national governments, not the centre in Brussels, but that we should stay in the EU to be 'at the heart of Europe'.

How does that work then? When they are squabbling over the destruction to some countries whilst others do well within the idiot construct of the Euro, how would us non-members have a say? No if Cameron followed the logic of his own arguments we should leave the EU without delay. It would save us the membership fee of many billions immediately and allow him to 'repatriate' whatever powers he wants to.

Then he can, as a sovereign nation once again, conclude whatever treaties he wants with the EU. and for that matter with any country around the world, something we currently cannot do. He could even look to address our own failing democracy and seek to removing the stain Blair and Brown left on the country.

Tuesday, 22 January 2013

Risk Averse. Really?

We are told to avoid risk, that an army of hi-viz wearing health and safety 'experts' should tell us what to do at every turn. But when it comes to those authorities having a responsibility themselves, health and safety goes out the window.

During the recent freezing weather (by recent I mean, the last few years) our roads deteriorated. Some of it is unavoidable but most is because the roads aren't fit for purpose in the first place. Anyway, the upshot is a load of potholes, which are a right pain in the suspension. Round here they are currently at plague levels (although the Lib Dems are crowing about getting one stretch of the estate completely resurfaced).

But for the two wheeled fraternity, these holes are a potential killer. However, undoubted health and safety risk or not they stay, unresolved. So, the feeling that the bikers will stay off the roads during the bad weather is negated by the fact the holes stay for years.

And don't get me started on the damage done by the waste collection vehicles, churning up the roads and crushing the pavements as they try to negotiate narrow roads, with endless cul-de-sacs (why build cul-de-sacs?), squeezing between the cars parked outside the houses.

The only time it seems occur to planners and councillors that people might own cars and park them outside their houses, is when they try to implement a scheme to charge people for the privilege. The adage that the government should fear the people, not the people their government', begins when the state starts to become a burden.

Madness Continues

I wonder if David Cameron believing he can repatriate powers to the UK from the EU is linked somehow, in a thought-process kind of way, with school closures? I wonder if the ability to believe patently stupid things is our current state of being (something that would be particularly useful for the Left)?

I mean, in the papers today we have David Bellamy pointing out that he has been frozen out of TV since he said that he didn't believe in man made global warming. Scientists you see, don't deal with fact and experiment any more. No, everything we now know is based on theory, conjecture and consensus. If you can get a lot of people to believe you, it becomes a fact.

Brilliant isn't it/ No more boring experiments and empiricism. It should be OK to get rid of that big tunnel, CERN now. I mean what are they trying to prove? Pity that some of the AGW people work there but hey, science waits for no man. Except it isn't science is it? It is a bunch of vested interest boffins who, having postulated a theory that attracts funds, can't break free of it.

And that lock-in is ably assisted by the legions of well funded lobby groups (often masquerading as charities) such as Greenpeace and WWF, who insist that black is white. When you dig deep into the AGW community you find that the 'thousands' of scientists with 'peer reviewed' articles are in fact just green activists and journo's writing what their community want to hear.

The IPCC documents are rarely what they purport, being mainly political with a little science hidden amongst the ramblings of Left activists. Any scientists who object that their input has been altered to make a certainty of a conjecture are ignored and not invited to contribute again. They are attacked in public and lose their funding.

As Boris Johnson attempted to come up to speed in an article yesterday, it seems likely, as we have known all along actually, that the Sun is the major driver of our climate. And Man really isn't that important. But you have been convinced that the moon is made of green cheese, because Left wing lobby groups told you so.

And Left oriented teachers tell you that for the safety of the children who might 'break an arm' or a teacher 'a leg', the schools must be shut during any snow related weather. This is actually because they are state employees, who are generally kept under feather eiderdowns. They can be sick as often as they like, they can have long holidays, better pay, ludicrously better pensions and not pay for them, without fear of criticism or heaven forfend, the sack.

No, the sin in the public sector is to blow the whistle. If you let on that your colleagues don't work too hard, or fiddle their expenses, you are toast. Fiddling the expenses is OK. So, a bit of snow is an ideal opportunity for some time off. No one else does, just the public sector. The protected species.

I still smile at the nicely dressed, ordinary man on Question Time (a public sector worker) who, in answer to questions about how much better state sector pensions are than private sector employees get said, 'then perhaps everyone should be brought up to our level'. It is the very essence of the Left. It sounds nice, it is very reasonable, very inclusive. But, the dimwit missed the central point. We can't afford to pay for your unfunded pension, let alone give the same to everyone!!

A fireman was moaning about his pension contributions going up, but couldn't grasp that even then, his early retirement with a good pension still wasn't covered by the new, enhanced contributions. He wanted an ounce of gold and he was willing to pay a quid for it.

So there we are. A bit of snow and the Left hurry to do nothing, to bring the country grinding to a halt. And Cameron wants us to stay in, to be a part of a Communist regime called the EU. Because he doesn't want to think about it. To understand an issue. He seems in every way as thorough in his job as Sir Anthony Heywood is in his.

Monday, 21 January 2013


A successful head teacher says that character is the defining element of a child's upbringing. With a good character a child will do better than merely his IQ suggests and I agree. The two things that come out of a proper university education is learning how to learn and character. Most students go to university to doss around though. It is why Tony Blair wanted more poorly educated people to go there; it wouldn't make any difference but it sounded good.

The problem is this though; the people who run the country don't respect good character. Tony Blair as Prime Minister? Ian Blair as Met police commissioner? Any number of bank executives? Virtually every HR person?

These days, companies hire based on tick boxes. I know of a case where an employee was asked to stand in for a manager in a branch of a big company. He did well; the unit made more money, had more clients, the staff got a bonus for the first time ever. His boss was very pleased and asked for him to be confirmed in the position. HR however, checked his personal file and said he couldn't possibly do the job, he hadn't been on the relevant training course. Oh dear, a box un-ticked.

In fact, the HR department is like a fifth column, forcing decisions on employment and company direction that has no bearing on the well being and performance of the company (or the employees) but on maintaining and increasing their power and enacting the ever increasing raft of rules and regulations. They are dependent on Political Correctness for their power and so are an unwitting Left wing invasion of business.

For HR, finding the right candidate for a department head is tiresome and boring. They therefore require these Managers to fill out a standardised form, that they can then use as the basis of their tickbox recruitment effort. Any candidate failing to meet every aspect of the 'specification' is discarded. Good judgement and an understanding of the actual requirement is anathema to them.

You can see this in the breaking into two of HR and recruitment within many companies and when they hire the services of recruitment consultancies they require compliance. No more the passionate advance from a recruiter of substance who, understanding the real needs of the business and having taken the time to get to know the qualities a candidate can bring. HR will not accept the approach unless all the boxes are ticked/

And one of the boxes is a Degree. Often, it doesn't matter what the qualification is; a 2:2 in Social Work is fine to work in a bank, or an engineering plant. It reaffirms the 'hard work' put in by the HR person in their own development including the largely pointless CIPD 'qualification'. Here it is more appropriate to read that it should be a sign of 'qualified approval' rather than achievement.

It is part of a vogue for sham qualifications and 'standards'. When you see a company boasting that it has achieved 'Quality status' such as BS5750 (or EN29000 or ISO9000) it doesn't mean the firm or it's products are of a definable quality. It means their paperwork systems tracked what happens, checked every so often by people with a vested interest in making sure as many companies have the rating as possible, to encourage acceptance of the standard and hence more sales.

In days of yore, a help desk used to be good at its job or it wasn't. You could tell by the response of those with which it interacted. It isn't rocket science. But then came ITIL. Another pile of nonsense for someone to make money out of. So now a company can boast that all of the idiots you have to talk to, who have no idea or care what your problem is, are ITIL certified.

You want to inject some dynamism into our economy? Go back to letting department Managers hire the talent they need. It is out there and it probably cannot get a job if it doesn't meet the enforced criteria of HR.

Wednesday, 16 January 2013

Does TV Make Us Stupid?

The link between 24 hour news and the emergency services is one of a love of celebrity. We remember the senior officer in the hunt for Raoul Moat with her fixation for casual, laid back appearances in front of the cameras (until it went wrong). All too often they are desperate to get to the media after major events. If it was to keep us informed it would probably be OK, but it seems they think they are 'reporters'.

Recently, a police officer said that Jimmy Savile spent every waking moment thinking about sexual abuse. What a moronic and unsubstantiated remark to make. We require facts from the police not wild speculation and personal opinion.

This type of stupidity I believe, is also the reason why the decision was taken to charge a man who staged a firework display, with causing the deaths of people in a pile up on a nearby road. Clearly, he cannot have had any control over the actions of the people driving those cars and claims that smoke from the event blanketed the road are ridiculous.

Milton Keynes has a massive firework display 'near' the M1 but there has never been a problem and the smoke doesn't obscure anything, even adjacent to the site. I'm sure people may be distracted and watch the fireworks rather than the road, but that really, really isn't the organiser's problem.

No, the decision to bring dramatic charges against the man in Taunton was due to the love of celebrity and making a drama out of a crisis. And now we hear they are dropping the manslaughter charges. Why? What has changed? Nothing, except maybe someone thought just how stupid the authorities would look, trying to prove in court, beyond reasonable doubt that this man caused these deaths directly and they were not attributable to any other cause.

These 'officials' with the celebrity madness gene activated are trying emulate the worst of the TV presenters and in that context we had a dreadful example today. As news of a helicopter crash in London came in, Sky News was transmitting its breakfast programme, which is unfortunate enough to have Eamonn Holmes on it. Today that became much worse. Holmes seemed fascinated by the opportunity for drama and started speaking of the dead pilot, before this had been confirmed. He also alternated between referring to the helicopter as a chopper or copter.

Holmes should never be allowed anywhere near a serious story, sounding insincere and fatuous whatever he is talking about, let alone when lives have been lost. I don't understand why anyone thinks he is a talent, but that is a matter of taste and opinion, but a News presenter? Never in a million years. Such reporting needs calm and accuracy. It may be valid to postulate ideas, which come close to speculation but these should be clear and educated. This is not an area of potential for Holmes. It just isn't.

Tuesday, 15 January 2013

National Poverty

I cannot help thinking that it is not entirely coincidental that our politicians have become more and more useless and the country more corrupted. MP's have over recent years continually either increased their pay or sought too. They have resorted to fraud and deceit to obtain more money through expenses and tax fiddles.

At the same time executives of large companies are being hired with bonuses tied in, without any reference to performance, they get them whether they succeed or fail. And these same people, like the politicians decide they don't actually have to do anything by way of work and certainly are not responsible when things go wrong. Things do go wrong too, as these people invariably have no idea what is going on in their companies, so with no overwatch, those lower down seek what advantage they can.

Financial 'instruments' are devised to make commission now, with no care for impact later. Banks 'mis-sell' (it used to be called fraud, when we had some protection) and companies with effective monopolies, often gifted by the government are allowed to raise prices as they wish. Paying tax has become optional for those 'too big to annoy' the government (ie potential donors).

The politicians themselves show scant interest in what the people thought they elected them for and anyway, with parliament merely existing to rubber stamp EU laws, they don't really have a job at all. Where they can be seen working hard, is to get themselves onto or in control of, committees that have some bearing on their outside interests, which are often many.

This petty corruption goes on down the ranks of course and now the people live in perpetual fear of the armies of jobsworths in an unbelievable range of roles, seeking to harass you and impose their will. You cannot complain about an 'official' for fear of some backlash accusing you of many imaginary crimes, which they successfully prosecute.

Hospitals can't diagnose, cure or treat but frequently ignore, maim and kill. Or have your children stolen from you by all powerful 'social workers' hiding behind the secrecy given to them by children's courts. The children themselves ignored and bullied until at last they say what the 'authorities' want to hear when their words becomes of crashing importance, to lock up and hound their parents.

Truly, the old protections of a British citizen and the compact between those with power and those without, requiring responsibility and fairness has been destroyed. Nothing paints a more stark picture of the reduction in morality and ability of this country than the distinction between the Victorians and us.

Then they built sewers and underground railways, held Great Exhibitions and strove for better, inventing they way round problems. The rich felt a weight of duty on their shoulders and deeds of benevolence were common. Today there is an absence of care,NGO's clamour for charitable donations which they fritter on politics and administration. Our achievements include an inability to keep traffic moving on even the best of roads when it snows, to the extent of persuading ourselves that leaving hundreds trapped in their cars overnight, in freezing conditions is acceptable.

We spend much our effort agonising over the rights of homosexuals, who were perfectly well served in laws that don't make distinctions and have no need of marriages and other such arrangements. With degenerate politicians we were and are bound to slip beneath the waves and so it has proven. Much accelerated of course, by a Government that consisted almost entirely of advantage seekers and ne'er do wells, led by a man absent of morals.

Tony Blair brought forward the debasement of our society by many years, with his corrupting cabal, their greed and stupidity emboldening others of poor character to come out of the dark. He insisted that everyone should follow his example and at all times consider themselves first and put their comfort above others; the antithesis of Victorian mores.

Common Wealth?

Her Majesty is the titular head of something called the Commonwealth. It is a loose collection of countries who have a shared experience of the English language. We can forget the empire bit it is irrelevant to everyone except trouble making lefties, for whom comprehension is itself an alien country.

This commonwealth is spread right across the globe and represents a fantastic diversity. What we as a nation should have done after the end of WW2 was to honour these fellow nations, who helped in the fight against totalitarianism. Instead, a new breed of weak politicians took hold of power in Britain. Politicians who sought solace from near neighbours, who saw their duty as being to prevent future European war.

To this end they decided that the warlike nations in Europe, France and Germany should tell us what to do, should take charge of all Europe. What could go wrong? Whilst Germany settled down to become a peaceable nation, gratefully accepting the US funds to rebuild and prospered, France continued with their traditional, baseless arrogance. And so the EU was formed, a French empire that the Germans want to run.

Meekly accepting that Britain had lost the war to a non-combatant and Germany, we surrendered whatever reparations they asked for, to be allowed to join their club. Part of this was that we must turn our backs on the commonwealth. This betrayal by Britain was essential for the Empire in Europe as it would be an advantage to Britain always, and a safe haven if (when) the French plans fell apart.

Edward Heath was the traitor who so spectacularly failed in his duty, actually choosing to lie openly and blatantly to the people he was elected to serve, in order to get his way. No less than a tinpot tyrant would do, but then of course, the object of his desire was a totalitarian regime.

Naturally, at this time of crisis, people are coming to their senses and realising the damage the EU does. Some vested interests (politicians and company bosses who do well personally out of the EU) shout loud warnings of impending peril, but look at what they say and you will find no detail. There is no substance to their claims.

At this point we should be rejoining and reinvigorating the commonwealth, making it clear that we are humbled by being allowed back in. Then we should build it up as a mighty trading organisation, for mutual benefit. Plans should be laid for richer commonwealth countries to grow the weaker, not by giving them money or by subsidy, but by encouraging them, by buying what they produce. We should make it clear, 'build it and they will come' will be honoured in our commonwealth and that it will be common wealth.

This is no socialist Utopia, which is why I say not to give things, but by generosity of spirit and through a collective will to see them grow and meet their challenges. Then wealth truly is shared, with the satisfaction that it is earned. Proud nations, whose pride is not a false one like the preening Eurocrats with their commitment to corruption. And the commonwealth will be a group of like minded, English speaking, common law nations not some centralised bureaucracy run for the benefit of an elite.

The fundamental question is not why should we leave the EU, it is why did it ever exist? It is a disgraceful slap in the face to all those who have died trying to keep Europe free of tyrants, only for Edward Heath to sell us to them, as soon as he could. The strength of Britain, ultimately based on the commonwealth has countless times saved Europe from itself. But, because we always did the job and walked away these countries have returned time and again to their ambitions.

The Napoleon complex never leaves a French politician. Britain should exit, completely all the constructs and agreements of the EU, immediately and seek constructive and imaginative schemes with our actual friends around the world. No empires, no hatred or cabals but definitely no EU. And then France should be recognised as the perennial danger that it has proven to be over so many centuries. When their standards come up to those of others, let them join the world community again.

Ironically, being subsumed in the EU empire has neutered our politicians; none of them now think like, let alone have the stature of world statesmen able to take on grand schemes to better the lot of people on a worldwide scale. They are mere pen pushers awaiting orders. And they tell us to stay in the EU, because they cling to nurse for fear of something worse. We need a grown up politician and soon.

Monday, 14 January 2013

Post From The Left

Right, this is how things are (and no disagreeing). Firstly, Man Made Global Warming. This is a fact; I know because I have looked into it, so you don't have to. I mean that, don't look into it. What is happening is this, we burn fossil fuels to power our economies and heat our homes. This is bad for two reasons. It means we have a viable capitalist society that is fundamentally stable, so not likely to accept communist domination.

Having a benign elite who only ever seek to look after your best interests is clearly better than a free for all where anyone can get rich just by working for it. How much better if it is all taken off you and the elite decide what you need.

Secondly, Global Warming means we will destroy the planet and everyone will die. The runaway greenhouse effect will happen very soon unless we tax carbon dioxide output (we'll call it carbon from here, you are too thick to understand the difference and carbon sounds dirty and horrible) and cripple our economies so we stop producing this vile stuff.

Needless to say, we the elite, always putting you the people first are busy using tax money for the good of all to provide alternative, planet saving forms of power. If you cover your roof with solar panels you can have quite a few lights on all day, absolutely free! And at night, a good few of you will be able to have one or two low energy bulbs on courtesy of that wind turbine down the road.

Some of you may be confused, as you sit in your house, not daring to turn the heating on, due to the cost of all this wonderful, renewable energy, just how Global Warming is heating up the planet. Well, it may not be constant, it may go in bursts. I know this is not what we said before, but we have known it all along (because we know everything there is to know about climate), it is just we didn't want to confuse you.

And if it is cold right now that is weather, which as we all know can be fickle in it's variability. However, if it is extremely hot that is evidence of Global Warming. It is easy really. Just think of it like the Koran or the Bible. You read it and you are peaceable and turn the other cheek or you kill anyone of another belief, or become a Jehovah's Witness. Anything can be read into the sacred words.

Finally, some cynics will say these are just lies, but don't listen to them. We on the Left have covered this base and have invented the Narrative. Basically, anything we say is true and if it doesn't concur with reality, then your understanding of reality is wrong. Remember, there is no such thing as truth.

Ooh, one last thing. If you come across one of those tiresome people who wish to debate something with you, or have some scientifically provable facts that oppose the words of the elite, then rely on Political Correctness. We invented this to stifle debate. Does a person's sexuality matter? Should laws be changed to accommodate differing people? Of course not, the idea is ludicrous, but we can push it through by saying you are not allowed to oppose it. You are sexist or racist, whatever. Clever eh? You don't have to be right, just take control of the debating ground.

Everyone is equal, although some are more equal than others. I think everyone can understand that.

PM And The EU: Bossiness

David Cameron has said 'ooh aren't those EU types bossy? That will have to stop. I'll renegotiate it', or something like that. It is therefore going to come as a surprise to Mr. Cameron when the EU points out that, since we handed sovereignty to them in 1973, they re in charge. Not so much bossy but rather 'the boss', then.

Here are some suggestions for Mr. Cameron though. If you don't like Britain being bossed around by Brussels why not declare the United Kingdom to be an independent country. It could work. Canada, Australia, America they all have given it a go and so far so good.

I know you want to be a part of 'Europe' David, really I do. (I was going to insert reasons why here, but there just aren't any so I'll call it empathy). And here is how I think we could solve this, for you, intractable problem. You know all those things we have to do, because Brussels says so/ They are because of things called 'treaties' that allow them.

As an independent country we could still have treaties David. No, you can. Goes on all the time. And, as an independent country you won't have all those other EU countries pitching in to influence you. You can do what you want. (Yes, you will still get Obama phoning up with his latest crazy idea and can he get discount at Harrods - just use the opportunity for practice, in case someone with real ideas phones up).

What you could also do is start exporting ideas. As an independent country, we could suggest things that might make things better in the EU. Target making the lives of the ordinary people better, it is easy to do in the EU and will get lots of response. You could suggest a system called 'voting' to elect political leaders (the Greeks will like that one). You could perhaps see what they think of the people owning the law and politicians not being above it (ah yes, that's the reason for liking the EU).

There is a reason from Marlborough, through Wellington to Churchill that Britain has helped Europe get over its little upsets and has herself never had a revolution and it isn't because we are not enough like our Continental neighbours. I mean if we really wanted the Code Napoleon (on which much of EU law is based) what was all that stuff about in 1815? Why did we believe in democracy then and not now? Is it because Tony Blair made Britain a 'modern' country?

Is it possible that Cameron cannot bring himself to promote an independent Britain because that might make the Conservatives the British Independence Party, or the United Kingdom National Party? Surely not, he is a serious politician. (I wrote that without laughing).

Odd Rod Liddle

I like much of what Rod Liddle writes, particularly recently. He seems to have matured and is a bit more conscious of the stupidity of much of the Left's output. Obviously much of the stupidity is just poorly thought out tosh, to hide what they are really up to, but nevertheless, it's there.

But at the weekend Rod, who has been claiming these days that he is not so sure about AGW, wrote a piece that said the Met Office has accounted for the lack of a temperature rise since 1997, by agreeing and predicting that it will be like that for another 5 years.

Well that's OK then. Now that there is categoric proof. I mean it must be, because the even-handed Mr. Liddle goes on to suggest anyone disagreeing is a 'loon'. I think he was suggesting that everyone who feels at liberty to question a scientific theory believes there is a world wide communist conspiracy behind it. I guess the possibility that the Judean Popular Front and a number of other organisations of a similar name, have the same desired objective without agreeing on details, is not likely

If there is no conspiracy, it isn't happening. Well, I'm sure there is no conspiracy, certainly not in the James Bond understood context that seems to be all that occurs to Rod, but it is clear a mindset exists that thinks Western civilisation is a cancer of the planet and should be (at least) reined in. I remember this being a popular view among the 14 year old girls in my art class at school. People generally grow out of it when they have to assume some responsibility in  life.

Some people though clearly don't get past this stage and, frustrated by both everyone else and reality not chiming with their views they dig in. Sometimes they just rant at the moon, but sometimes they kill people who try to find cures for diseases by experimenting on animals. They don't bother to look into, or understand the object of their rage (and there might be some legitimate things to oppose), it is their image of animals derived from too much Peter Rabbit that drives them.

Is it ironic to have a complete lack of humanity, whilst complaining that you think someone has a complete lack of humanity? But back to Global Warming. Rod says that you cannot argue that the world's temperature has increased. Which I don't think anyone does argue with. What the concern is Rod, is why.

Your faith in the Met Office is touching, being a sort of religious faith requiring no reasoning. The Met Office of course has until now been hiding the fact that there has been no warming since 1997. Why would you hide it? As a scientific institution? Why does a body such as the Royal Society say that this particular scientific subject is unique and must not be discussed; we have arrived at the absolute truth. To continue to research the area, or propose alternate theories would be, well, heresy.

The Met Office even produced figures to prove our recent rainfall was part of an extreme weather pattern, due to AGW. To get the figures to appear scary though, they omitted two dry years. But we should trust these people explicitly, yes? Their computer models are wrong, but it is ultimately the basis for all the stupid spending by government, of our taxes on energy policies of no utility.

Sure they make some individuals and energy companies rich, by giving them subsidies (a political measure, given to companies when it is clear it isn't self sustaining), but for the rest of us, it puts us in jeopardy of having no fuel in the near future and paying through the nose when we do get any. (Actually, for wind power, we pay even when they don't produce. Nice deal eh?)

The easiest way to get money in modern Britain, is to con the government. Obviously, management consultants have been doing this, on an enormous scale for many years. Now more people want in on the action, not least MP's. Now, riding on the backs of ideological ignoramuses, arch capitalists (or thieves, really) are using the poor confused government as a milch cow.

Not maybe what the greens wanted, but hey, if it undermines Western democracy and destroys their societies, it is all the same. And it allows post destruction finger pointing that much of it was due to 'capitalist greed', which would be true.

So, to help Rod a little, here is what a sceptic actually thinks; the world has shown some warming. It is not dramatic yet and could be considered benign, but it is valid to ask what is driving it and come to understand the implications. Currently we don't know, but the cyclical patterns we see from Earth's history and our understanding of solar activity, it is probably mainly the sun.

What it definitely isn't due to is Man's output of CO2. Despite the recurring theme of the central importance of Man on Earth throughout history, we really aren't that significant. Strange really, the current Left attempts to undermine civilisation by saying that Man is heating the planet, is based on their view that Man is insignificant, Mother Earth is the important 'one'.

We know, by using not abusing science that CO2 concentrations have spiked some 400 years after global temperatures rose. This was the area for a big lie by Al Gore, who slipped the graph the other way round when talking about it on his gloriously (and no doubt intentionally) mis-titled 'An Inconvenient Truth'.

Pollution however is unpleasant and probably largely unnecessary, but we are not looking hard enough for alternative solutions to our energy needs, partly because of the efforts of the Greens sucking funds to their organisations and projects. But also, partly due to the fact that a huge oil and gas infrastructure exists and that is not going to be rendered redundant overnight whilst politicians can still be manipulated and bribed!

So the 'conspiracy' is just the convergence of the activities of a large number of ideologically Left organisations working to undermine our current system of government and society. They have to work this way, to achieve power and then introduce their much better style of government, because no one would vote for it. What does that tell us?

And Global Warming might be happening and it might not. It is very probably something beyond our control and entirely natural if it is happening. There is an enormous amount of energy potential all around us (an apple contains the equivalent of a million tons of TNT) we just don't know how to get at it. And thanks to the Met Office and other harmful organisations, with the unthinking support of people such as Rod Liddle, we are not really looking into it.

Left ideology has been and continues to be, very harmful in societies, but for science to be subsumed by it is both  unforgivable and dangerous.

Friday, 11 January 2013


The reporting about the activities of the late Jimmy Savile is astonishing. Bear in mind that the Left, then and now think that there is no such thing as paedophilia thinking that any one should be able to do whatever they want, as long as it causes 'no harm'. Still, the media, mainly left leaning of course, report shock at what the man got up to and over such a long time.

But they aren't shocked and don't care at all. The BBC, beyond belief reporting that 'hospitals allowed access, just based on his celebrity' to children, when they created and maintained his fame and quite clearly covered up what he was doing, not least on their premises. There is absolutely no way, whatsoever that the management did not know what was going on.

The BBC news never highlights their own involvement, merely mentioning it went on in some of their offices. Is it not strange that now he is dead and cannot say exactly what went on, a whole raft of authorities, police, CPS etc admit they could have done more, that they ignored evidence. That isn't really good enough though, as it is more likely they deliberately didn't act, due to the religion of celebrity.

We see today just how rabbit-in-the-headlights authority figures are regarding celebrities. When Tony Blair created the 'Me' generation where self regard must be the guiding spirit, those with the highest profile of course attracted their attention. Blair was constantly seeking their company. To prosecute one was unthinkable and particularly if it embarrassed the BBC  (and of course they didn't consider Savile's actions as  crimes).

Then, we have the Leveson enquiry endlessly seeking wronged celebrities to sympathise with (over a fairly straightforward crime) and desperate to do their bidding and gag the Press, as required by a Left keen to suppress criticism of itself. Hugh Grant may have decided to join a left wing political organisation to demand the banning of press freedom, but a civilised society would just laugh at him. When he matures and has grown up views, maybe he can join in.

The EU 2013

Apparently Jose Manuel Barroso had a word with Santa and all the EU's troubles are over. Oh and they were never caused by EU policies. Yeah, right.

Still, new ideas about our relationship are absent, just the old 'we should stay in' with the renegotiate caveat added. Renegotiate? The EU allows no such thing, so now what? Well, undaunted, the true believers are suggesting that Britain has a moral duty to help make the EU a better place. Oh please.

The only way any British input would make the EU a better place would be if the EU adopted the nature of British democracy for all its peoples. If Common Law and Habeas Corpus were implemented throughout. But that would fly in the face of the founding principles of the EU. It is designed to be anti-democratic, the people should have no say whatsoever.

Far reaching police powers are needed (the EU arrest warrant being a key part) so that citizens anywhere can be dealt with from the centre. That those people must realise that the state exists and must be served by the people (in the UK, the people used to own the law).

Question Time last night found time to try to ridicule a Tory, Nadine Dorries for taking part in a TV show (of no merit) but had no time to discuss the fabric of law and the protection it offers being removed to suit EU politics.

And as for Obama's administration saying we should stay in, that is like asking a thief if they could hold your wallet. I know it is not politic these days to point out failings of real substance, but when the last leftie in the US forced mortgages on people who couldn't afford them and seeded the subsequent banking crisis, I'm not sure they have a moral ant-hill to stand on, let alone any high ground.

Is the EU a good idea? If you think so, ask yourself a question. When was the last time a totalitarian government was a good thing? When you think how feeble Britain was in the face of the German war machine of 1940, yet Churchill knew we had to stand up to a tyrannical regime no matter what, how did Edward 'Quisling' Heath answer the demand to surrender sovereignty with a cheerful, 'yes, most certainly. Peace in our time'?

This tripe that the EU was designed to and indeed has prevented European war is laughable. The fact there has been no war in the EU countries has many causes, none of which wander anywhere near EU politics. And the EU's complete and utter failure to assist in the wars following the break-up of Yugoslavia proves that a) Europe is in no way united and b) the EU is an incompetent construct capable only of creating and hiding large scale corruption. Which was of course, its real intention from the outset. (And why Tony Blair so keenly wishes to 'lead' it).

Monday, 7 January 2013

How Thick Is David Cameron?

David Cameron is aware that most people in Britain want out of the EU, but he keeps promising to 'renegotiate' our deal with them, knowing he can't and that we have heard all this before from Blair. He goes on about Green issues despite a) all the evidence that it is a scam becoming more and more commonly known and b) that it is responsible for severe distress to the poor and old, due to the increases in energy prices to pay the get-rich-quick 'renewables' industry.

He supports homosexual issues that were in no-ones manifesto and are immensely unimportant at best, ahead of economic recovery policies. And today he is insulting UKIP even though the number likely to vote for them keeps growing (probably every time he berates them). UKIP of course are irrelevant he claims, but just seem to have policies that chime with most people and are traditional values of Conservatives.

Or is Cameron really more rattled by the on-going stories of the money Blair is raking in, touring the world's despots and bankers seeking advantage. Mandelson might still be the king of unprincipled snakes, but he has stuck more closely to politics and influence. Blair is better at getting money. His wife must be delighted. Socialists all. Don't worry David, you are fully on track to take on the Blair fatuous money making when your party and the country bore of you.

*In the interest of balance, I should point out that Cameron is not as bad as Clegg. And Clegg also has a wife who makes money out of policies he espouses, just like Cherie used to insist. Cameron is a little lacking in that respect.

Friday, 4 January 2013

HMRC - Her Majesty's Riotous Comedy

It gets beyond satire. The Treasury and HMRC are crowing about the 'top UK tax cheats'. And that £994 million is being 'invested' in HMRC to tackle tax cheats.

Do these recent captured tax cheats, combined equal what the Revenue so diligently let Vodafone off? Why do the Revenue need quite so much money to find tax cheats? Is it because, when details of a tax cheat (Ed Balls) are published in national newspapers, it escapes their notice?

Just what is the definition of a tax cheat in the eyes of the Revenue? Because it seems to be the painter and decorator taking cash for a job. Anything bigger might be a 'friend' and so immune it seems.

Gordon Brown. Why?

Who on earth voted to keep Gordon Brown as an MP at the last election? How can so many stupid people all live in one place? (Clearly they don't; other people voted Labour elsewhere, but he is the worst). Just what would someone have to do to get these people to turn their backs on him?

Brown is off around the world, earning money from fools all over the place. I guess there will always be someone stupid enough to think he has something interesting to say. They may convince themselves that, as he was at the centre in the UK when the financial crisis broke he might have some insight. Well, he does, but it is only 'don't do any of what I did', but I doubt that is what he is saying. As a humble man of the manse, he is way too confident of his own superiority in matters fiscal.

Maybe he is seen more as a travelling freak show. The upshot is though, that he isn't turning up in parliament, the job the taxpayer generously funds him to do. Talk about malfeasance in public office, it surely is blatant misrepresentation (by not representing!).

There are a large number of Labour politicians for who a correct and just sentence would be a spell in prison, but none of them find themselves there. I mentioned this in an earlier post. And it is not only due to cringingly inept, left leaning police.

Ed Balls

Ed Balls, architect of our current financial destruction, today says that people fiddling their benefits claims should be dealt with harshly and we can but agree. He does however have a very different view of Mr. Ed Balls and his wife fiddling their tax and expenses.

He quite happily switches the claim as to which of his two homes is the primary one, to suit his advantage in each case. It's against the law but he is a politician and so it is never pursued. And that raises an interesting question. Whilst we are not surprised by the hypocrisy of this man, nor his intention to deceive on a number of issues, not least where he gains financially, but who lets him get away with it? Who knows and is in a position to act but doesn't and why?

You see, Balls cheats because he can and thus gains, but why would someone cover for him? Where is their gain? It is clear that the Establishment have some unwritten rules to protect themselves to our detriment and that is shameful. It is just the same as the BBC providing the opportunity and cover for Jimmy Savile and others to behave as they did. Provide the environment and corruption will flourish. A back-scratching elite.

Heads of state and Prime Ministers are keen advocates that killing other heads of state is wrong. No assassinations  This is not a noble principle but one based on self preservation. If you break the rule, then consider yourself a target. Strange how incentive works isn't  it? Or not.

Going back to Balls though. It is a good idea to never listen to a word he says and certainly don't trust any of it. He may be right sometimes but that will be him seeking advantage and doubtless someone reliable will also be saying it. He and his gormless wife are both irrelevant when it comes to ideas.


It has been raining a lot recently, have you noticed? It is more than a flipping nuisance to many people flooded out of their homes. And insurance becomes a problem. I think that any homes that are built on land where earlier maps had the words 'flood plain' should not be the responsibility of insurance companies, when they do flood. I think the local authority should meet the bills.

But, and this is an important aspect, the planning authorities that OK'ed the build should be sacked. Oh and the builders should chip in too. You see these problems occur because no-one is ever held accountable, so there is no incentive for them to care about the outcome of their actions.

Of course, some notice of extreme weather conditions would be nice and the Met Office have a now much rehearsed dramatic warning system. Realistically they can only give a day or so warning, but a little is better than none.

But the Met Office, so lamentably wrong in their longer range weather forecasting, continue to insist that we should pay great attention to their pronouncements. We should expect more of these 'extreme' weather conditions, due to global warming they say. (Which wouldn't make them 'extreme', but hey, it's about drama).

Previously, the Met Office had insisted that global warming would lead to drought and warmer winters and that made sense. When this turned out not to be what was happening in reality (and ordinary people seem to lack the Left's ability to ignore reality) they had to modify their stance. Now, any weather is due to global warming. Hot summer, well yes of course. Snowy winter, global warming. Washout summer. Naturally. Just as the Met Office predicted.

It used to be a joke that the Met Office could improve their weather forecasting if they installed windows in their building, so poor were they. But instead they extended the ridicule by insisting that they understand weather in the finest detail and are able to accurately predict its course years into the future.

Not if it is going to rain in Basingstoke on a Saturday 15 years from now, but that the entire world is going to fry. Or freeze. Definitely, our computer models say so. They didn't predict the lack of any rise since 1997 and running their models backwards to predict weather we have already had, proves them to be completely hopeless. But, nevertheless, they are right. Apparently. It is our insistence on holding on to 'reality' that is the problem.

Like Marietta Higgs, who abused parents and their children in the 80's, the Met Office are in the grip of an ideology. They are blinded to the truth because they are not looking for it, they are looking for evidence to support what they already believe, already 'know'.

One of the most damning comments made about Higgs was they the technique she employed was, at the time she was using it, completely unverified and had not been subjected to scientific rigour. We were more serious about science then. But with global warming, so desperate are the ideologues that the Royal Society has even insisted the science is settled.

This is contrary to all the tenets of science. It is never settled. Sean Carroll in his recent book, The Particle at the End of the Universe says that scientists live to challenge theories and are delighted by the unexpected. I can assure him, those in the global warming sphere aren't! Some (at the University of East Anglia) are beyond this though. They know they are lying and try to hide evidence that contradicts their assertions.

The Met Office is a bunch of over-funded, over-paid amateurs, They are amateurs because they fail to apply scientific rigour to their work. A man in control of his senses would take a broom to them and start again.

Thursday, 3 January 2013

The Falkland Islands

The corrupt Argentine president, Kirchner, says that Britain should 'give back' the Falklands and that we are flying in the face of UN Resolutions and are being 'colonial'. I suppose if Argentina owned them, that wouldn't be colonial? Even though the population wants to maintain their relationship with Britain, not a lot of them, not a majority but almost every single one of them, it seems that the over riding UN principle of self determination should be ignored.

Argentina claims that they once owned the islands and Britain took them. History has a habit of doing these things. We want to stop that kind of aggression, but Kirchner it seems wants to continue it. There is a reason of course, that she speaks Spanish rather than Aymara or Quechua. I suppose she could always get rid of the indigenous population once she 'gets back' the islands. That wouldn't be 'colonial'.

Kirchner should stick to conning people in domestic issues, like dodgy land deals from which she gets rich, rather than try the same limp techniques on the wider world. You can fool some of the people, dear.

I suppose, if some batty left ideologue at the UN decided it was anti-colonial to forcibly seize a territory from a government its people desire and hand it over to another power, we could follow up the logic ourselves. The Falklands are some 400 miles from Argentina, but Ireland, an island we used to 'own' is much closer. So perhaps, under 'Kirchner's law' we should take back the whole of Ireland? Maybe the terrorists McGuinness and Adams could move to Argentina - I think their skills are more appreciated there.

Watch Closely

I really mean that, watch closely. We are in a recession. It was primarily caused by banks being greedy and a raft of government watchdogs around the world, well, not watching close enough. So we have had to take a deep breath and find a way to deal with debt.

In your own house you would cut back spending. Nights out? Not any more. That kind of thing. A bit of pain now, but you need to get things back into kilter. And the bank would probably stop you borrowing more anyway!

Strangely though, the left seems to think we should just carry on increasing the debt. Cuts are squealed about daily by the Unions and other left wing, vested interests. But the idiot non-Conservative bit of the Coalition we have isn't cutting, it is increasing the debt. So the public receive a blatant lie as factual information, helped by the BBC and the Guardian reporting these slurs as fact.

Councils are cutting important front line services (their actual job) and continuing to advertise non-jobs, pay off executives with large cash sums (for no discernible reason) when they leave and have put large sums of money in the bank. Whilst 'broke'. All supported by people who openly lie about the situation, knowing it will have an impact and no adverse consequences for them.

Come on, if you can get people to believe in global warming, without any evidence to support the assertion (and any 'facts' you invent are proven wrong), then you should be able to get away with anything. And what's the worst that can happen? If someone actually shows some sign of caring, issue an apology for being wrong on that one point. And think up a better lie.

Why for instance is no blame apparently attached to Labour who overspent to such a degree that when the banking crisis broke, we were in the worst possible position to deal with it? And why is it not more widely known and again, the left vilified, that it was Clinton, forcing banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, that was the driver and incentive for the banks to come up with the dodgy financial 'instruments in the first place?

This is not a battle of ideas, because a battle of ideas is about things that may help all of the people. This is a battle against evil, against the kind of ideas that Hitler and Stalin espoused; centralised power for a small, ruling elite. And we need to fight it on the basis that it is real and of immediate importance. We cannot adopt the Chamberlain position with left ideology any more.

Happy New Year!

I see the Jimmy Savile business is bringing the Left and its undying support for paedophilia into the open. The Guardian have a nice, supportive piece about how children are not harmed by sex, if they volunteer. Strange, I thought children were not mature enough to make decisions like that. Perhaps, if they are, then there is a group agitating for recognition, children who, being mature enough to consider these things want their voices heard.

But no, there are only adult paedophiles and Left ideologues spouting this dangerous nonsense. Perhaps Harriet Harman could give us her views. She, on behalf of the opposition, deplored the activities of Jimmy Savile, but once defended the position that paedophilia was OK. How does she manage to hold these differing views? Maybe she has changed her mind. Or maybe Savile supporting Thatcher was his real crime, in her eyes.

Now we are used to hearing all manner of things about the Tories and why they are 'nasty' and some of these things are true. But somehow real stories of dangerous left wing activity and ideas don't seem to go anywhere. That's because most of the media is in thrall to left ideology and the Tory supporters rarely go in for witch hunts and fabricating stories. Perhaps the public should awake from their torpor and take more responsibility for what happens in a democracy. While we still have one.