Tuesday, 30 June 2009
What I find rather ridiculous is that he is not giving the old excuse about retiring to spend time with his family, or to find a new challenge. Not Cohen though, no. He is seriously saying he is standing down because he is the victim of a BNP plot, see here. According to Cohen, whose honesty must be questioned based on his expenses record, a BNP member had the temerity to lodge an official complaint. By the way how does he know the complainant is a member of the BNP, surely they are secret? Still it all helps to let Cohen spin the image of a man hounded out by racists, he does not give names obviously.
So Cohen's off, though he is innocent of absolutely everything.
Now is it just me but if any normal, innocent, person was accused of something which they were totally innocent, especially as a despised member of a hated party, would you not fight to clear your name?
Would you give them their victory?
He does blather on about how the horrible media focus is affecting his wife's health and so he is going....but. If it were effecting his wife's heart would you not resign now to save here from the extra strain?
Of course you would, it is just an excuse to save the face of the dubious.
This is the person who has said he is a better MP than Winston Churchill ever was, see here, I suppose that this farcically bloated image of his own place in history is part and parcel of his thinking that it is acceptable to fiddle as much money as they can from the public purse.
What a sordid little man.
Anyway, it is all rather pointless, they don't have the time to make any improvement, and the new system they propose is so bureaucratic to be unworkable and costly....the two things that Brown does best.
When the ITN news mentioned this new initiative it gave that spin of a few weeks ago about how Brown is thinking of becoming a teacher when he is no longer PM.
The thing is it is all spin. There is no chance of Brown becoming a school teacher. We all know he has his eyes on higher things. At one time he wanted to run the IMF, or the World Bank. As part of this he is giving billions of UK taxpayer's money to these institutions. If he was to become the head of any of them it is costing this country a hell of a lot.
It is all part and parcel to the self-image he has about his genius and destiny.
I don't think his bankrupting of one of the largest economies in the world will improve his chances.
The school teacher malarky is all about spin. To give the gullible electorate the impression that Brown is not interested in honours or position but the best for the country. This from a man who is no a millionaire solely due to his being a MP.
More than that, Brown cannot be a teacher in any school apart from public school, i.e. private school, he is not qualified. He may be a untrained teaching assistant but not a teacher.
He is also old, 59 is a bit old to become a teacher.
The thing is, would you want a man without any social skills, and a history of bullying the weak and throwing things at them (phones, printers, etc.) to teach any children.
It would simply not be safe.
It short it is all very poorly executed spin. That's what this government does, spin not reality.
Monday, 29 June 2009
As I said, serious business.
They have nothing compared to the the next election. Brown hates Cameron as he thinks he is a 'toff' and has everything handed to him on a plate, nothing new there then. Cameron hates Brown because he does not like his politics. Again no surprise.
Just because you are of different parties does not mean you have to hate the person. Indeed I've always thought that hating people from other parties because of this fact rather than the person is a mark of an immature person. Prescott has gone on record as saying he disliked every Tory because they are Tory's...as I said immature. It is not that surprising how his childish sexual infidelity came to light.
In spite of all the ambition, and political differences, even personal dislike, the party leaders keep up the pretence that they are above such petty things. They spin their high-mindedness.
But all this changed yesterday. Cameron delivered a speech which he basically called Brown a liar, see here. Now that is both unparalleled and royally screwed Brown's relaunch (yet another failed relaunch, I've lost count of how many relaunches this is).
All the reports are about Cameron's attack and the study of labour's plans for cuts after the election, etc.
This is not a good thing if you are Brown trying a relaunch. Once again Brown has lost the initiative.
This is a devastating tactic for Cameron. He is voicing the rage and dislike of a large part of the population. But it is more than this. Brown was called a liar (well as good as to be strictly accurate). He said that Brown is lying about labour cuts that will come out after the next election.
Now labour have been trying to spin the 'Mr 10%-less' line in relation to Cameron. This spin is actually linked by labour adverts on this site! I've thought this line of a attack ugly, it is simply to ungainly a term to trip off the tongue, and to stick in the mind. It is also based on a labour lie.
It is much worse than that for Brown though. It has allowed Cameron to call Brown a liar. What labour and Brown have forgot is that most people are not stupid. We all know that labour are going to make massive cuts to public services, and raise the taxes. We are in a recession and have run out of money.
Brown will not admit this though. It is this inability to admit the truth in the face of all evidence and in the face of the public view means that Cameron's attack strikes home.
The inability of Brown to admit any fault, and mistake makes that people will agree with Cameron....Brown is lying.
It gets even worse than that. Cameron has admitted that there will be cuts. He is short of details of course, but that does not matter here. This means that the public see Cameron as a truthful man. People do not like being fooled, or lied to. So Cameron's honesty strengthens the Tory's just as much as it damages labour and Brown.
So we are faced with a very nasty personal election. With Brown being hampered by the corruption scandal, by the labour anti-Tory lie operation which ran from No 10, and the lies he is spinning, it is going to make his campaign much harder for him.
So all the politics, all the ideological differences has the added element of real personal dislike between Cameron and Brown.
Like I said, this is going to be a very nasty election.
Thia voluntary tax code just seems odd. What labour want banks to do is to sign up to this code. Once they do they promise to pay their tax.
We'll leave the fact that it is against the law to illegally under pay their tax, or the fact that it a voluntary code. Banks cannot be forced to sign up for the code. Labour are spouting forth about how banks are the recipients of public money so should sign up for it. They then go on and talk about Barclay's Bank, a bank which has refused all public money...this either shows ignorance or crude politicking on behalf of labour. Neither options are attractive.
What gets me is labour's call that banks, and their directors should comply to the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. This is important.
Directors of any business have a duty to their shareholders. These shareholders own the business. They employ directors to look after their business. They are there to maximise the profit for their employer's -- the shareholders.
This is how business works. This two stranded aspect works to give the shareholders the best return they can, but it also encourages any business to actually improve their goods or services. If the directors have the best interests of the shareholders at heart then they will work hard to actually produce goods or services that the buying public want. The better the product the more sales, the better return to the shareholders.
Obviously the system can go wrong, directors can fall down on their job, etc. However in the capitalist system they should be sacked if the fail their shareholders.
As part of their duty the directors and managers must ensure that they comply with any laws. This includes health and safety, pollution, as well as tax laws.
The new code of tax does not leave it at that; they want people to be prosecuted for not complying with the spirit of the law not the actual law.
This spirit aspect is really sinister. You could follow the law to the letter, you could even go further than the law; but you could still be prosecuted if the government say that you are failing the spirit of the law.
This is a very tenuous concept. It is akin to the medieval arguments about how many angels can be balanced on the head of a needle.
This is why we base our law on very detailed, and very boring details. The law exists to give us the specific details of what the law means, what is legal, and what is illegal.
To introduce a system, however voluntarily, that the law is not specific, that it can be stretched to meet any interpretation the government is dangerous.
We have no sympathy for the banks, but what happens if this 'spirit' concept is applied to other businesses, to other actions, to you? This a terribly dangerous way to run a country.
It is strange that this 'spirit' of the law is not going to be applied to all the corrupt MP's.....an oversight I'm sure!!!
Yet again this move that allows the government not to be constrained by the actual law is dictatorial, repressive. As such it is a reflection of the dictatorial mindset of the Brown. Having a god-given right to rule, as Brown thinks he has, means that such trivial things such as the actual law are irrelevant.
Be very wary of this spirit concept. It will apply to you if it goes forward. We really don't want that.
We don't want government to operate this way. It does not matter if you agree with the current government or not, this 'spirit' concept should have no place in the running of our country.
Saturday, 27 June 2009
Now the thing to remember is that he first resigned to spend more time with his family in 2003 only to return to the fray soon after. If I was going to be uncharitable I'd say that he wanted to spend more time with his family; but they did not want to spend with him....but that would be naughty!!!!
He may want to do other things other than politics but it is important to understand that Brown is trying to ban MP's from any other jobs, Milburn has currently well paid jobs outside parliament , including, Pepsi-co and Lloyd's Pharmacy, see here.
How can you square the two jobs: pharmacy (and is it acceptable for an ex-health minister to make oodles of cash out of being health minister), and a junk food firm?
Anyway, this is simply a way for a MP who has made a fortune out of being an MP to keep on making his fortune....how does that fit into the whole labour 'morality' of not being in it for the money?
The point I want to make here is not that a ex-minister who is exploiting his position to make fortunes, so many of them are around. No, the point is that when the announcement of his departure was made on Sky News, the reporter went out of their way to tell us that this is nothing to do with expenses fiddling. Don't you find that a sad indictment of all these years of labour sleaze that the media feel they had to make that point?
This is the damage Brown has done by his mishandling of the corruption and fiddling. This damage is doing serious harm to our political structure, and to our country.
All because Brown ditherers and is a coward.
Friday, 26 June 2009
Labour have made a carer of this bandwagon jumping. One of the most obscene examples of this is the sickening way Blair wrapped himself in the shrouds of murdered children in the run to the 1997 election. Using the murder of children and the bereaved parents in a political rally is contemptible. I am referring to the use of Dunblane Massacre tragedy. To use such horrific events for political advantage is beneath contempt.
Which brings us to Brown's attempt to distract the public from his disastrous premiership and to appear 'with it' is his public utterances about the death of Michael Jackson, see here. The fact that David Cameron also felt he had to contribute is sad.
I want to make it clear that I am not a great fan of Jackson, but it is a tragedy he died so young. My sympathies go out to Jackson's young children, his family, and his friends.
It is a tragic for such young children lose their father. This is the death of a real man; he death is personal and desperately sad. For all the media blizzard we are faced with it is a real human tragedy that has struck real, feeling people. We should never lose sight if that.
The way Brown tries to hijack this terrible event is rather pathetic. You could just about understand Cameron knowing something about Jackson, he is of the right age to have grown up with Jackson in his prime. You can imagine him taking an interest in music and other sundry frivolities. So perhaps his comments are justifiable. He gives his sympathies to Michael's family.
This is understandable.
Brown's comments are freakish. Can you honestly see Brown 'bopping' to pop music? Dancing? Going to a disco to find a girlfriend? Having fun?
No. Even as a babe in nappies he was middle aged. The autistic-like psychology of Brown means he has no empathy for anyone else. If you want an example of this, and to his attempt to spin this death for political advantage read his statement,
"This is very sad news for the millions of Michael Jackson fans in Britain and around the world,"
No real concern to the orphaned children or the family....only the potential voters.
Any they wonder why politicians are held in contempt.
Thursday, 25 June 2009
As I've had cause to mention here before Brown does much more damage to himself and his party than anyone else. What is happening is a reflection of the dark psycho-drama of his own personality. This is what has destroyed labour.
The case in point is the Iraq Inquiry. He'd promised one of course, but for a self-proclaimed moral compass guided son of the manse, he really is not keen on keeping them; see the ho-ha about the referendum on the EU Treaty/constitution, that was dropped as soon as he knew he'd lose.
Being a political creature Brown used the Inquiry as a way to divert public opinion and to get some good publicity for once.
And that is the start of the problem for Brown. Being a control freak with a penchant for rigging things to his own advantage (see becoming PM, the speaker, Georgina Gould, etc.) he set out to rig the Inquiry - no one can be blamed, to be held in private, not under oath, packed with cronies, etc. (see my previous posts).
So far so good.
That is what you can do if you are a control freak with no sense of morality with a whopping majority.
Not nice but there you go.
However Brown's psychological flaws cannot leave it at that. He's dithered and vacillated. Now he's buckled to such an extent that some of the Inquiry may be held in public, experts may be placed on the board, evidence may be taken under oath, blame may be apportioned, etc.
To my mind the may aspect is not good enough. The structure and terms of reference of the Inquiry should be debated in parliament and be wide enough, and stringent enough to do what the public demands. To get to the truth and hold the guilty to account.
The way Brown has mishandled the Inquiry is disastrous. He has shown himself to be weak, to dither, to hide and to panic. Apparently Peter Mandelson bullied Brown to set up a rigged enquiry in order to save Blair from blame, useful if his master wants to become president of Europe, see Stephen Glover.
So he has been damaged both by Mandelson's bullying, and by giving in to the press and public. The proverbial double whammy.
Brown has made a complete fool of himself. it is really a rather pathetic spectacle of a coward. The dead and injured of all sides deserve more. Being fundamentally immoral immoral he does not understand that.
Wednesday, 24 June 2009
they have been elected.
I have written before that the way to defeat these people is to engage with their supporters and win the argument using reasoning. You don't vilify and ignore them. This is the perfect way to strengthen the BNP's position.
What you don't do is to single them out for special treatment. I have dealt with the physical attacks on them in previous post. Now it is moving on to use semi-official governmental organisations to prosecute them. The government funded Equality & Human Rights Commission is talking about taking the BNP to court for their exclusion of non-British, and specifically non-white people from this horrible party, see here.
The thing is they are giving the BNP a propaganda coup; they are going to play on the fact that this official body is picking on them and only them, more than that, a official body run by a black man is picking on them...this is gist to their propaganda mill. It is a god send for the next election campaign.
I've said before that I cannot conceive of any ethnic minority would want to join this loathsome party. Since the BNP are not a new party and have been hated for decades I find it inconceivable that no one has thought to see if their constitution is actually illegal.
More importantly, this picking on a single party, however loathsome, is a mistake. Note they are not picking on the Islamic Party of Britain whose whole purpose is to show how much better Islam is to British culture or Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Liberation Party of Britain. Both these parties are political in nature, both these ban non-Muslim membership. both have serious restrictions on female participation and female rights. And what about Sinn Fein? If you are not Catholic you have little chance for joining, and all the Protestant parties in Northern Ireland?
They are not criticised....only one party is picked on.
I have no problem with parties being made to be open to all. However if one party is being taken to court, they all should be taken to court and not a single one. It does not matter if you support a party or not; they all should be treated equally.
If there is a court case there is a danger for the Equality Commission; the BNP will try to link their membership criteria with the membership criteria of thee other parties and organisations such as the Black Police Officers Association. If they lose then they can spin the 'fact' that white British people are second class citizens in their own country....a 'fact' that will be used to garner votes in the upcoming election. If they win it will mean that every ethnic group will be made illegal and any member of another ethnic group refused membership will be able to sue for their discrimination.
Hardly what the Commission want.
If the BNP are banned from holding their seats then what? If democracy does not seem to work some will be spurred to violence. It is the political elite disenfranchising just shy of a million people...this is not good. I also doubt that the banning would be legal under European law. this would bring more publicity to the odious BNP.
If the BNP win or lose any court case is irrelevant. Either outcome will give them massive publicity and will be used to increase their vote.
This is not how you win the argument. I urge the Commission to seriously reflect on their options.
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
The responded by election John Bercow.
No doubt some labour MPs - for he was voted in by labour and not the opposition - thought it a wizard wheeze to appoint such a opportunist person who is hated by the Tory party and who was about to defect to labour anyway.
the action has it's effect.
At a time when a speaker that has the support of the whole house was needed they elected one with no support from the Tory party. They simply do not trust him and despise him with a passion.
I cannot remember any other occasion when a newly elected speaker has heckled by their own party, see Letts, below. Only three of his own party actually voted for him, this shows you something. That does not bode well I fear.
What this means is that convention will be damned. Already there is talk about the Tory party ousting this joke speaker rather than allowing him to be reappointed after the next election, see here, though Guido says he is only on probation and it is too early to try to oust him.
To my mind this is both understandable and sad. The speaker should be independent of party. By the labour party making it partisan with Martin and with Bercow's election they have destroyed this .
The main point against the opportunist Becow though, as Quentin Letts says, see here, he is a worse speaker than Martin. So at a time we need a independent giant we get an incompetent nave.
All this is politics, but the damage they have done is much more serious than their schoolyard antics.
As I've mention previously they have elected a man mired in allegations of corruption and fiddling. A man who has had to repay over £9,ooo for falsely claiming (that is staling from the taxpayer), and a man who wants us to believe that he doesn't remember if he paid tax on the sale of his taxpayer bought house.
So there you have it; the MPs, or at least the labour ones, do not think stealing and corruption are important, well when they do it! At a time when public disgust at their corruption is growing it is a insult to the public.
More than that, by placing a partisan, and 'iffy' person into one of the most important positions in our political process, how long do they think he'll last?
You see the power in this matter is removed from the MPs hands. It is all down to the press and to whistleblowers. Do you think he'll last if the press go after his expenses, if every receipt, every dubious claim, every tax-avoidance scam, every decision is brought to light? The Daily Telegraph are already starting, see here.
The thing is Bercow cannot be sacked easily. And if the public are whipped into a frenzy at any 'iffyness' Bercow will remain. What this means is that the damage to politicians and parliament in in the run up to the next election will be massive and damaging.
So a labour joke will rebound on all of us.
My advice? Well to get rid of the creepy labour sycophant after the next election, and to change rules so that he does not get his massive pension and peerage.
Harsh but it is the only way to start to restore public trust in our parliament.
Monday, 22 June 2009
For it is today that the MP’s elect their new speaker. Cue drum roll!
Now I am sure that for most normal people who actually is speaker in the House of Commons was a fact we can live without knowing. And live quite happily at that.
Not now though.
We have seen a corrupt speaker ousted and a parliament rocked to its core by sleaze. So the new speaker matters.
It matters because it tells us something very important about our elected representatives. If they elect a person who has made dubious claims and fiddles and stole from the taxpayer then it shows how they still don’t understand the public’s rage against such corruption.
Simply put, if the elect a person who is mired in corruption to sort out their corruption then it proves that the MP’s simply don’t think that stealing from us is wrong.
The labour MP’s are allowing themselves to be whipped by the party to vote for the horrible Beckett. Now I’ve written previously about how she should not be speaker due to her being a ex-leader of a party, and how she has made some very dubiously claims….£12,000 for gardening??
If they vote for her would be wrong.
(apart from the good news of keeping that political and unprincipled opportunist Bercow and his turncoat wife out of the role (his wife was staunch Tory until labour got power then became staunch labour). Bercow was planning to defect to labour when Brown became PM but waited to long and saw how Brown was going to lose the next election….like I said unprincipled, as well as money-grubbing fiddlers)
If they allow themselves to be whipped to vote for Beckett it would simply show the world that they are not fit to be MPs. The point of the speaker is to stand up for the rights of the normal MPs against an executive. It is to stop the government being unaccountable. If they allow themselves to be bullied into supporting a government stooge it shows contempt and stupidity.
And Bercow? Well his wheeze is to pay every MP a £100,000 wage (plus expenses). Now this may go down well with the greedy, but if they even try to do this during a recession and against a background of MP’s corruption it will make the current controversy seem like a mild disagreement at a vicarage team party.
If the MP’s make the wrong decision it will alienate the voters. It will do massive damage to our democracy. It will make people sickened by all the corruption and contempt and will drive people into the loathsome arms of the extremists.
That is why today’s election matters
We need Ann Widdecombe to be speaker, she is uncorrupted and untainted, she is intelligent, independent, and well known to the public. She would be the only person who can start to restore trust in Parliament.
I think however that MP's don't understand our rage and anger. They will vote for whom they are told, they will vote for the corrupt and the greedy.
This is why today matters; it will either be the start of the curing of our politics, and the start of the real anger at the corruption. I predict greed will win...that is a shame.....for all of us.
Saturday, 20 June 2009
It also has published a list of what it calls 'saints'. These are the MP's who are not corrupt or made iffy claims. It is a list well worth looking at.
It is rather sad that my MP, and every MP around me is on the list...and not as saints. It is all rather pathetic.
One MP, a young woman at that, even claimed for a hot tub on expenses....in what mind is that acceptable?
The MP's are in a right pickle now. You see they hope to fob us all off with hiding their expenses with acres of black to protect the corrupt....Well that wont happen.
You see the Telegraph, which has got much worse since the new owners took over, has reaped an incredible coup. They have been the news for months. Their sales have gone through the roof. All the other papers have lost the battle for readers.
It is even worse for the Sun, they actually turned down the receipts.
What this means is that every paper is going to go after the MP's receipts next year. A lot of money is going to be thrown at any whistle blower out there.
This means is that there is not a cat in hells chance of the MP's expenses being kept secret. It does not matter what rules they bring out, their dirty little secrets will out.
This is good for us; very bad if you are a corrupt MP though.
This £2.4 million donation form Michael Brown was the biggest such donation and made their last election much easier for them. He was convicted and got a seven year sentence (though he has disappeared and is not in prison) for fraud.
It is however OK, according to the Lib-Dem's they do not have to repay the stolen money. I don't know why this is the case, it might be the fact that donating stolen money somehow miraculously cleans it...at least if it is given to the Lib-Dem's!!!
It does not strike me as being very moral and honest to keep money stolen from innocent people...it has also been noticeable that the media saint that is Vince Cable has not said the money should be given back.
So that was supposed to be it. The Lib-Dem's keep the stolen money and the police let them.
according to the BBC a US Tax lawyer, Robert Mann, has made an official complaint to the police and demanded that they investigate the Lib-Dem's under the 2002 Proceeds of Crime Act.
To me this donation would fall under section 77 of the act which deals with 'tainted gifts' , section 84(1) says this includes money, (see here). They could also be done under the Theft Act 1960 (22), see here which brings a prison sentence of up to 14 years.
This could get serious for the LD's. This would be a crime. The other danger is if this US lawyer takes action in the US courts to recoup the stolen money...with the current lopsided extradition treaty with the US it could be very nasty for them.
In my opinion it could not happen to nicer people.
Similarly that corrupting lie-spreader Damian McBride is back with his master Brown. According to the Telegraph this creep is doing what he was so recently 'sacked' for, that is advising Brown on spin...it is as if he never went away!!!
I cannot believe that Brown would be so stupid and out of touch as to bring this person who has done such damage to labour and to Brown by his lies and spin...remember this was the man (I use the term loosely), together with 'Dolly' Draper who spread lies about the families of opponents to destroy those opponents via the Internet and spin. Brown did his usual dithering and hiding but when it finally sunk in to his dense bonce (note to self use 'bonce' more in everyday uses) that this was damaging his political prospects he made great play of getting rid of him.
And that was it; McBride gone, Brown spun as the innocent and godly man, the son of the Preacher, etc., who was as shocked and disgusted as any of us and sacked the offending people as soon as he knew.
Obviously it was a lie as Brown has got where he is by bullying and lying. It was however the story put out in an attempt to stop the damage.
Only a complete idiot would actually bring back the creeps and liars. It does not matter if the advice is in secret; their help will come out and it will bring up all the disgust and make sure the damage to labour and Brown continues.
For the Tory's this is a gift that keeps giving. The more the story is about Brown, lies, spin, sleaze, the more their vote increases.
It just shows how out of touch Brown is. It also shows how much the nasty little man has no one else to help or advise him in his little bunker...he really is bunkerman.
As the Telegraph say,
'The problem with throwing mobile phones and trantruming with laser printers is that your staff cease to be loyal.'
You would have thought Brown would have realised this by now.
Friday, 19 June 2009
The worst aspect is the sheer partiality of the BBC. This leads to the ghettoising of the structure. It seems that favoured groups are getting preferential treatment. The worst example is with the fact that male white men are at a disadvantage when applying for employment with the Beeb, they just have to pay for it. The idea is that those from a disadvantaged background get help.
The trouble is I want equality. I want people employed because of their abilities and talents rather than because of their sex, gender, creed, or skin pigmentation. Discrimination is totally unfair regardless on who does it or for what their reasons are: it is unjust.
two things to bear in mind:-
1) the number of people who went to public school and who's parents are barristers has skyrocketed; the number of working-class men has nose-dived. The reason being that using such a simplistic factor as skin colour and nothing else means that children of rich middle-class parents who are of a favoured minority have the system rigged in their favour to the detriment of those poor white males who have had to fight for everything they get.
2) using artificial criteria rather than abilities has resulted in some seriously bad television. This loss of viewers and justifiable criticism of output is a danger to the whole BBC edifice.
The worst BBC bias is it's inherent pro-BBC bias. They have followed a single party so subserviently it is frankly embarrassing.
The examples of this bias surround us daily. I for one was sickened by the unedifying spectacle of the BBC's chief political correspondent being told what questions to ask Blair by the bully Campbell....this is not the type of behaviour that uncovered Watergate is it?
Even worse, two BBC reporters a couple of elections ago decided to stand as MP's. One Tory one Labour. The labour reporter got as much time off as he needed, on full pay, and is now a minister. The Tory reporter was refused time off, and when they took leave they were unpaid.
Which brings me to that spiv Alan Sugar. As I've mentioned previously he is going to be made a labour peer and be a minister/advisor to the labour government. Now this unpleasant, humorless man, has a BBC programme, The Apprentice. Now the BBC have had a complaint from the Tory's that it is unacceptable for a political figure to get airtime over the election period at the same time as having a political role.
The BBC have decided that employing a politician in a pro-labour role in the run up to an election is acceptable. That is somehow OK to give labour such a powerful propaganda coup, even though it is against the BBC Charter.
I have to say I agree with the Torys. It is obvious that labour are going to use Sugar's position on the BBC to garner votes. It is against the BBC Charter. When Melvyn Bragg was made a labour peer he was moved from his position dealing with politics on Radio 4. This is the correct way to deal with things.
The BBC have decided that things are different with Sugar. The only difference I can see is the fact that labour need all the help they can get to get people to vote for them.
Sugar's case is much more serious than Bragg's as Sugar's TV programme is seen by a lot more people.
The Tory party seem to finally understand the BBC's partiality and have made an official complaint to the BBC's Trust about this unjustified decision, see here.
I am no fan of the Tory's but this could be the test of wills between them and the BBC. To my mind it is a stupid fight for the BBC to instigate. It is not sensible that the Beeb should pick a fight with the party that will govern for ten years or more, especially at a time when BBC viewer numbers are falling and people are getting angry about paying for this edifice by threat of law.
The BBC should be impartial. This is not just my view, it is the law. If they are going to be biased then an argument could be made for seriously overhauling it, for closing down most of its stations, and for selling off it spectrum to other broadcasters for a large amount of cash to be used to help the poor in the UK or abroad (and how could the BBC media elite criticise helping the poor?).
Being biased can be costly. Hopefully the BBC will realise this, and hopefully the Tory party will realise they have to do something to either make the BBC unbiased, or get rid of it.
Thursday, 18 June 2009
Anyway, like I've said previously, there must be records of these receipts must exist in Blair's office so could be released.
What today's release of MP's receipts show is that Blair claimed £7,000 for his consistency house two days before he stood down as an MP, see here.
This is blatant theft from the taxpayer. It makes you wonder if he was stealing from us two days before he left office, what else did he fiddle during all those years as MP/PM?
I think we should be told, don't you?
It is as if the MPs have decided to comply with the law but do it such a way that they can say 'screw you' to the paying public.
The thing is that all the corrupt MPs and ministers would still be in position. We would never have got to know how many times they changed house designation in order to maximise their income, we would not have known that the corrupt Moran was claiming to have her house treated for rot over a 100 miles from her consistency, we would not know that certain ministers were stealing by claiming for non-existent mortgages.
If parliament had had its way the corrupt would have got away with their stealing.
This mind set that corruption is just part of the job is the problem. Until that is fixed, hopefully by speaker Widdecombe, this inherent corruption will continue. It needs to be fixed.
I'm sure you are are sick of people in your place of work who are constantly resigning on a whim. Oh yes people are always taking a pay cut, and damaging their promotion prospects by resigning for no reason.
or not as the case may be.
Anyway the Treasury Minister Kitty Ussher has resigned after being caught not paying £16,800 in tax, see here....it seems that tax avoidance was not a impediment for being a treasury minister.
Two things hit me, the first is that has been a long time since I have heard of anyone called Kitty. I feel there should be a campaign to bring back the name.
The second thing is that is not shocking anymore. That is a problem. Think of it, we are talking about a minister being caught fiddling her tax; now it is so commonplace it is barely news worthy.
It is utterly disgusting. It is more serious than a corrupt politician. It is damaging this country. It needs to be fixed. We need the corrupt purged and prosecuted.
As it is it is commonplace....sad isn't it?
Wednesday, 17 June 2009
His leaving is good news for us all.
However, as I've previously posted, the front runner to replace the incompetent Martin is the loathsome Tory MP John Bercow. By rights the next Speaker should be a Tory (then again the last speaker should have been a Tory by convention) but that is not the reason why Bercow is the front runner.
He will probably be chosen because labour know that the Tory's hate this slimy man. So they think they can put a irritant into the Tory side by choosing Bercow. As they know labour is going to lose the next election they want to put 'their' man in a position in power so it can help labour deal with the Tory government...Bercow is married to a minor member of the labour establishment and has spent years insulting other Tory's and sucking up to labour no matter how useless they are.
What I find interesting is what the appointment says about the labour party. Bear in mind that Bercow has been forced to hand back money to the taxpayer because of some very dubious expenses claims so is hardly the new broom needed to sort out corruption.
That shows how the corrupt have no intention of changing their thievery...if the parties and their members were serious they would not put such a tainted character in charge of the clean up of politics.
More than that, it shows that labour has no interest in the country. Their only concern is to rig the system for their advantage. This is despicable and damaging to this country.
It is simply ridiculous to appoint someone to one of the highest roles in the land, with massive wages, expenses, a guaranteed peerage, and prestige, someone just to piss of the opposition.
That tells us all we need to know about the partisanship and maturity of the labour party.
It is rather pathetic and very sad.
Quentin Letts in the Daily Mail has an interesting article on Bercow, see here, that gives history of Bercow well, it is no surprise that his dad sold cars is it?
The thing is I'm not 100% convinced that Bercow is the tool labour want him to be. This is a man who has gone from the extreme right-wing of the Tory party and has moved to the pro-gay, very political correct, pro-labour wing of well Bercow really. This does not show great ideals or principles. It does show the eagerness to suck up to power. He joined the Tory party when it was right wing as an extreme right winger, when labour came to power he became pro-labour, even writing treacly letters to labour ministers.
When labour is destroyed, maybe for a generation there is a chance that he'll do what he always does and suck-up to power: to the Tory's in this case. Especially since Bercow will be alone once his new labour friends have gone.
Partiality is not what we need. We need an impartial Speaker to stand up for the backbenches, and for the people of this country. We need someone above criticism to sort out the stygian mess of MPs corruption.
We definitely don't need Bercow.
Just for the record I should state that we should have Ann Widdecombe for Speaker. Personally I think she should remain after the next election as speaker. Even if she was to serve only one year to the election it would allow a new parliament to reassess the situation and, hopefully, to make the right decision.
The thing with Widdecombe is that you don't have to agree with her politically. The fact that she is not tainted by any corruption, is independent, is known to the public as a person, and have the wit and intelligence to do the job correctly. She would be the person to restore the dignity, and competency of the position of Speaker. She would also hopefully lay the groundwork for a new, unbiased, competent, and uncorrupted speaker.
That is what we need.
The fact we wont get it tells us all we need to know about labour and Brown, it is not a pretty sight.
Tuesday, 16 June 2009
The question is; has it worked? Are we fooled by the ruse?
Well the Daily Mail isn't fooled, in a very good column, see here, they call the inquiry an insult to democracy. They take up my point about the fact that no blame can be levelled on the guilty. They talk about how the war ends like it began with lies and spin.
The Daily Mirror, a very pro-labour paper, calls the decision to hold the public inquiry in private (now I'm sorry but this does seem like a contradiction in terms) is a spectacular own goal for Brown, more than that, Brown's actions are fuelling public cynicism against MP's by his actions, see here.
The Guardian think the inquiry is an establishment stitch-up, see here, they make the following very interesting point,
The upshot is that nothing will come out till after the general election, an approach that can only inflame cynicism and mistrust. The membership should have been chosen after cross-party consultation; instead, Mr Brown has hand-picked an establishment team that strains under the weight of its own baubles. The chair will be the former mandarin Sir John Chilcot, who also served on the Butler inquiry into intelligence on Iraq. Another member is Martin Gilbert, a distinguished historian but one who - as late as 2004 - argued that the standing of Bush and Blair "may well ... join the ranks of Roosevelt and Churchill".
Mr Brown said yesterday there was no point in apportioning blame. He has, however, given the war's millions of opponents a new reason to point the finger of blame his way.
So not terribly supportive then. I do find the information on the membership very interesting, and illustrative on how Brown rigs things.
Even the Sun, the most supportive of papers when it comes to the Iraq War (well their owner, Murdoch, wont have any criticism of the Americans as it would harm his American businesses) is not happy, saying that Brown should have had the courage to hold the inquiry in public as it is a just war, see here.
So as a strategy it seems rather inept. When pro/anti labour papers, and pro/anti-war papers criticise you you are in trouble. With a public sick of all the lies, spin and corruption, the whitewash wont work.
Labour really are not good at spin any more are they?
Monday, 15 June 2009
Will it work? Will Brown get brownie points for holding the inquiry?
The extreme anti-war movement wont be satisfied, but then again they never would. Regardless of what was offered some would never accept it; righteous indignation is too much fun to give up.
It is more than that though. Brown's Inquiry is just about spin, not the truth. You can argue about the merits of the war. That's not the point. Mistakes were made; the planning for the aftermath was inadequate; the lack of equipment (which is all down to Brown's hatred for the military) led to the deaths of British soldiers which is a mistake; the tactics and troop levels were wrong.
All these things need to be examined. Even if you agree with the war we need to learn from the mistakes in order for them not to be made again. This is the only way we can evolve our military and political strategy to minimise death and destruction.
But this is not what this inquiry is about, like I mention above. Certain things need to be understood in order to appreciate how it is all about spin:-
1) the results will not be out before the next election. This will allow labour to close down any debate on the war, its legalities, costs, and blame, by allowing them to say they cannot talk about it because it is a matter for the independent inquiry.
2) it stops any opposition party to use the war to garner votes.
3) it is held totally private.
4) even though they say it is independent one of the key parts of its setup is the understanding that no one can be blamed. So Brown, I mean labour cannot be held accountable for any illegal action (i.e., the war), or any deaths that resulted from the war. So Brown cannot be criticised for sending men to their deaths because he would not provide them with the necessary equipment...handy that.
5) no one can be forced to appear. So Blair, or Brown cannot be made to answer questions.
6) the evidence will not be under oath. Bearing in mind that labour are proven liars (see the whole 'dodgy dossier' argument) they cannot be made to tell the truth. No sanctions can be brought for even the most blatant lie.
As I said, all very pathetic.
For a self-proclaimed man with a moral compass Brown really does not seem to want the truth to come out, or for the criminal, the corrupt, or the incompetent to be held to account for their actions even when people have died because of them.....very moral (not)!!!!
Operation 'Save Gordon' is immoral. Any decent person would be ashamed of such underhand dealings...not Gordon though.
Sunday, 14 June 2009
They are words, nothing all.
I live in a heartland of a particular political party. This party, OK labour, takes this community for granted. There is a expression which goes something like,
"we are not even on the map"
when our council published a map of their area of influence we were not on this map. We are literally not on the map. Never have been. This lack of interest in us and the fact that we are taken for granted is reflected in this map.
Apparently one of strengths of our political system is the hustings, where prospective candidates knock on doors, tour the streets blasting out appeals using loudspeakers.
Not here they don't. I never seen a candidate here ever; no one I know has seen any candidate here for over 50 years.
We are taken for granted. And not just about labour. No prospective candidate from any political party has asked for our vote. We are not important.
It gets worse. This region has turned its back on labour for the last two council elections, though my community remained labour. Labour really want to get back in. However they do not waste their efforts on us as we are seen by them as being in the bag.
By rights we should have been bribed by the powers that be to keep us sweet. You know the sort of things, grants, new sport facilities, all that sort of palaver. Not us we don't. We get nothing, never have done. We actually get less than any area around us. Once we were going to get a very nice sports centre built, but it was taken away and given to a smaller, richer area who needed the bribe.
Now my point is not the lack of bribes.
It is the fact that politicians, for all their fine words, are totally self-centered. If you are taken for granted you get no consideration, no help, no voice.
My advice, which I'm sure you are eagerly awaiting, is never allow yourself to be taken for granted. If you do you don't get the help and investment any community needs.
Make our would-be work for our votes. Make them work for us.
Friday, 12 June 2009
The Cabinet :
1. First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Lord President of the Council – The Rt Hon Lord Mandelson etc.
2. Leader of the House of Lords and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster – The Rt Hon Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
3. Secretary of State for Transport – Lord Adonis
Other Ministers :
4. Attorney General – The Rt Hon Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC
5. Advocate General for Scotland – Lord Davidson of Glen Clova QC
6. Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (MoJ) – Lord Bach
7. Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (HO) – Admiral Lord West of Spithead GCB DSC
8. Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (DCSF) – Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
9. Minister of State (DECC) – Lord Hunt of Kings Heath OBE; and Deputy Leader of the House of Lords
10. Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (DOH) – Professor Lord Darzi of Denham KBE
11. Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (DWP) – Lord McKenzie of Luton
12. Parliamentary Under Secretary of State* (DBIS) – Lord Young of Norwood Green (and Lord in Waiting – paid)
13. Financial Services Secretary (Treasury) – Lord Myners CBE
14. Minister of State (FCO) – The Rt Hon Lord Malloch-Brown KCMG
15. Minister of State – The Rt Hon Lord Drayson & (DBIS) (jointly with the Ministry of Defence)Minister of State (MOD) – The Rt Hon Lord Drayson & (jointly with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills)
16. Minister of State – Lord Davies of Abersoch CBE (DBIS) (jointly with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office)Minister of State (FCO) – Lord Davies of Abersoch CBE (jointly with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills)
17. Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (DBIS) – Baroness Vadera (jointly with Cabinet Office)Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office) – Baroness Vadera (jointly with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills)
18. Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (FCO) – Baroness Taylor of Bolton (jointly with the Ministry of Defence)Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (MOD) – Baroness Taylor of Bolton (jointly with Foreign and Commonwealth Office)
19. Sir Alan Sugar
20. Glennis Kinnock
This illustrates what we know about Brown, that he does not believe in the niceties of a democracy. This comes down to the fact that he believes he has a god-given right to rule, a divine mission as it were. This mission is to important to be left to the uneducated public.
It also shows how useless labour MPs must be if he has to depend upon bringing peers into government because of the lack of labour talent.
It also shows that his pledge to revolutionise the country with 'democratic renewal', see the Guardian for details of this particular guff, is vacuous spin. If you are serious about democratic renewal and the engagement of the public into the democratic system you do not wait 12 years until you know you are going to lose the election and then use it as an excuse to rig the next election to remain in power.
More than that, you don't drone on about democracy and stuff your government with more unelected peers than any government for at least a century...this is not democratic.
All in all it shows the world that Brown is a hypocrite whose only aim is to cling onto power and is willing to lie, bully, and spin to achieve it.
Thursday, 11 June 2009
The position of Speaker is one of the most important parts of our democratic system. Their role is to ensure the House of Commons runs smoothly, to enforce the rules, and, most importantly, to allow MPs to hold the government to account. They are supposed to stop people lying, and make them answer a question.
As you can see an important job.
We forget that with truly awful Speaker Michael Martin. He dragged the role into the gutter with his bias, his ignorance, lack of understanding, and ability.
It was the convention that the position of Speaker was alternated between the main parties. The last Speaker should have been a Tory as the Speaker before Martin was another labour MP, who was a brilliant Speaker and a credit to parliament.
However convention is unimportant to labour who placed their own man in the position. So they placed a corrupt and incompetent man in the role. He did protect the government and allowed labour to get away with not answering simple questions and with lying....that is the important thing for labour.
Rather than lose the power of the Speaker, especially since this is the Speaker who will be in position during the next Tory government, labour are trying to rig the system.
This could be with putting a corrupt, pro-labour, Tory MP, John Bercow, into the role, even though he is hated by his own party, and has serious question about his expenses to answer.
In light of this up pops Beckett and royally informed us that she want to become Speaker.
Why you may ask, well it is a job for life. Again by convention no other party stands against the Speaker, they are supposed to stand as an independent. They also get paid a very nice wage, on line with a government Speaker, plus a guaranteed peerage when they finally want to stand down. And plenty of taxpayer paid perks, trips and the like.
All without having to worry about the silly voters voting the useless Beckett out of office.
I strikes me as ludicrous that Beckett can even stand. This is the position that is there to uphold the rules and the interests of the normal MP, especially the opposition. How is that even conceivable with Beckett? She has been a minister, including a very useless Foreign Secretary, has dubiously claimed £72,537 in expenses for a home without a mortgage and whilst living in a grace and favour home, free, and more than that, this is a former leader of the labour party!
When the labour leader in opposition, John Smith died, she was deputy leader and became leader of the labour party.
How can this be the person to be independent and not biased to labour?
It is simply impossible.
So why is she doing it?
Well, like I said money and power come into it, but with Beckett it is more pressing than that. She has been very badly mauled by her dubious expenses claims, and was held up to public ridicule on the BBC's Question Time when she said she had done nothing wrong and deserved the money.
This outrage, together with a collapsing labour party does not bode well for her reelection. The Speaker-ship would remove the nasty public from the equation and allow her to grow ever richer.
If she is elected, or any labour or pro-labour MP then the Tory's should reform the system to remove such biased people from the Speaker-ship. We need a good and above all independent Speaker for our democracy to work. If the system is so corrupted or compromised that it cannot deliver this; change the system. It is simply to important not to.
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
To my mind this is a nice quirk....until it is applied to BNP scum that is.
I was perusing the letters page on ITV's Teletxet (I was bored!) and I countered three separate letters from people sympathising with Griffin. They make the comment that they don't support the BNP and have never voted for this extremist party, but they feel that the attackers are exhibiting the type of violent thuggery that the BNP is accused of.
Even the most casual conversations about the incident have moved from being shocked and horrified by the BNP election success to disgust at the anti-fascists behaviour.
No one wants that to occur. No one wants to help the BNP however accidentally. That is why it is such a dangerous thing to do for the anti-fascists to physically attack them. As I've said previously, beating them in reasoned debate and dealing with the underlying anger and concerns that led people to vote for this despicable party.
That is how we can all make sure they are soundly beaten in the next elections.
The thing I worry about in these dark times is what such thuggish behaviour tells the BNP supporters. At the very time we need to engage them in the hope that they can be persuaded to move to mainstream parties and to become part of the wider, none extreme, political sphere, we see the people they elected attacked. And that's the point; it is the BNP politicians who are attacked here, ex-communists, or politicians who are linked to terrorist groups, murder, and torture, are not attacked. Only the BNP. Since it appears that the voters of the BNP are predominantly working class whites who feel under threat of losing their jobs, and feel that they are powerless and ignored, it is an attack on them.
This is not how you persuade people away from extremism.
It also tells the disenfranchised that it is acceptable to attack people who you don't like or with whom you disagree with. And apparently the police will stand back and allow you to attack these people.
That is truly dangerous.
What happens if the BNP supporter thinks it is acceptable to intimidate, to shout down, insult, and attack politicians who they dislike or blame for what they perceive are the faults of this country, is it OK for them to attack them like their elected representative has been?
To my mind, and I'm sure most people the answer is no, but they have seen their leader attacked and mocked with no consequences.
This is a despicable party, utterly beneath contempt. They have also just had 943,598 people vote for them.
What if a 100 of them turned up to attack a politician (I'm using politician here, white & male, rather than their more usual target of ethnic minorities, other religions, or genders) what happens then? What if a 1000 turn up, 10,000, 100,000?
A large number of angry people, especially if they are not soft and pampered is a massive danger. If the police use force to stop them they create martyrs to a sick cause, if there are huge number the police would lose and we all suffer.
Shouting down, ridiculing, or attacking the BNP creates a precedent. No one cares about the odious Griffin, however the precedent allows any politician or person anyone does not like or agree with to be attacked. That applies just as much to people we support, or indeed to us.
That is not how society should work. It will definitely not produce a harmonious one. It will drive people further into the hands to the extremists.
So I ask people, even the anti-fascists who are self-appointed defenders of the potential victims of the BNP (the BNP are legal and have no power to do anything...yet) to think of what you are doing and the effects of your actions upon voters. We simply do not want the BNP power base to grow and need their electorate to be persuaded not to follow the BNP. Patronising them, insulting, attacking, or ignoring them will make things worse.
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
Now I despise the BNP and all its works, I find it offensive and shaming that such scum could ever get elected in my country, and am immensely grateful the BNP came nowhere where I live, but it is a mistake to attack him physically and to shout him down.
It is also probably illegal to physically attack anyone, and scum like him have the same rights to police protection that we all enjoy. The police were not present and no one was arrested even though it was filmed...do you think if a labour MEP was attacked people would not be arrested?
I weep no tears over the egg attack, if anyone had to be egged I'm fine with the fact that it is the new BNP MEP.
What does concern me is the backlash such attacks will cause which will actively help the BNP in its rise to power. They are making political capital out of being the 'victim'. One of the most powerful lies they are spinning is that white working class people are being discriminated against by 'them' the political and media elite. Such attacks proves they are right...rather it allows the BNP to spin the story that they are being victimised....just like the people who they want to vote for them.
In a previous life I wrote a book about war crimes. As part of this I studied the Holocaust, and the people involved. Now I am going to state for the record the incontrovertible facts that it happened, I want no confusion on that point. As part of my research I looked at the Internet. I found sites linked to the far right which said it was all a hoax, not many died, or it was the result disease due to allied bombing, or that it could not have happened because of the mechanics and design of the gas chambers.
I was shocked. My immediate thought was to ban these lies.
But I would have been wrong. The anti-fascist Internet sites dealt with the problem brilliantly, and used the technology in a way that could not have done in any other media. What they did is to print the Holocaust denier site, with all their quotes, diagrams, etc., but after each 'fact' they gave the truth. The quoted documents, designs, and studies, with the relevant links that proved the deniers were utterly wrong.
In short they destroyed the deniers argument.
That is how you defeat these people. You do not shout them down or use violence, you prove them wrong. That is how you win the argument and reach the disenfranchised electorate. That is how you beat the BNP.
As it stands it allows the vile BNP to go to the people and say 'see they are trying to keep us down because we are speaking the truth'. People see unelected, metropolitan, middle-class people throwing their weight around, with the apparent compliance of the media and the police.
This is going to raise the BNP profile and ensure greater support from them from people who feel they are ignored by the out of touch political and cultural elite.
It also damages democracy. Though we may hate it Griffin has been democratically elected in a fair vote. To attack him, and only him is dangerous. They don't attack MEPs with links to terrorism and murder, just the BNP. If it continues then it will become the norm to attack people with whom you disagree. it could also lead to people going to even more extreme parties...if you ignore people and their legitimate concerns and seek to shout them down and disenfranchise them even more the extremes are their only option.
That is dangerous.
The only way we can prevail is to engage with the BNP. To win the arguments with reason and debate. To prove they are wrong, and they are wrong. We also need to listen to the BNP voter, and the others who will vote BNP next time. We need to understand their concerns and try to address them. If we don't then the BNP will only get stronger.
It may be fun to attack the BNP with eggs and it may be harder to win the arguments, but if you don't win the argument you are making the BNP much stronger and improving their election prospects hugely.
We need to think of the consequences of our response to the BNP scum if they are to be defeated democratically. This attack is making things a lot worse for all of us.
Monday, 8 June 2009
How can things have come to this? OK the leader of the BNP, and now MEP, Nick Griffin, has played a blinder. The way he has spun his party into being a multi-racial party who are against the immigrants from the EU. This is clever as it latches onto peoples valid concerns about the effect on social services, etc.
Well it's worked for him their share of the vote is impressive.
You cannot condemn their election though, they are a legal political party who have been democratically elected.. Democracy is democracy for better or worse. You cannot say you believe in democracy; until some member of the elite decides that this democracy is wrong when they give the wrong result.
In many respects the BNP are not the problem; the disconnect between the people and the political elite is the danger.
To my mind two things have come into play here. The first is the obvious disgust with political corruption (though seeing how useless BNP councillors are they may not be the best people to sort corruption out). The second is peoples justifiable concerns about uncontrolled immigration.
For the existing political elite, and the liberal establishment such concerns are not allowed. Rather than engaging the people in discussions about the issue, the pros (in their views), and the negative aspects (in their opponents views) to try to win the popular argument. They have labelled anyone who had questions or concerns as racist thugs who should be prosecuted (hopefully), and vilified (definitely).
These two things have created the perfect opportunity for the BNP scum to win seats in Europe. The disconnect between the people and the political and media class is very dangerous for our country. The vilification means that people are forced into the disgusting hands of the vile extreme.
There have been calls from the left, and the anti-fascist movement, to get the BNP banned. To my mind this would be a massive mistake. I doubt they can be banned under European law. More than that any attempt to use the law to make a political party illegal just when it took seats from labour when you don't make similar demands for political parties who have had links to terrorists will make the BNP into a victim. Victim status makes them ever more attractive to a certain minority of the voting public.
If they have no legal political outlet some, a minority of a minority, will move towards the violent extreme. No one wants that.
I've just seen a anti-fascist spokesman on Sky News saying the BNP should be banned because they are not open to other races. Two things strike me, the first is that political parties that are tied to certain races or religions are not criticised by this spokesman (I'm thinking about the Christian and Muslim parties here), the second is there a BNP ban on other races joining them? I seriously doubt that they would need such a formal, and perhaps illegal, ban; no on in their right mind would want to join them from the ethnic minorities. I also remember that ethnic minority people have supported the BNP in the past.
For the political and liberal classes to make a special target of the BNP will do far more damage to this country than engaging and defeating them with reasoned argument.
I blame the existing political powers for this shameful occurrence. Make no mistake this is a shameful result.
I have been on record suggesting that people do not vote BNP. It is only a suggestion, they are a legal party and I am in no position to demand that people not vote BNP.
The whole thing is that labour has built up the BNP into some kind of bogeymen as a way to terrify 'their' voters. The trouble is if you build up a bogeymen the danger is that people will get sick of you and actually vote for them.
It is a disaster for labour regardless, labour down 9%. The Lib-Dems vote is down 1%, this is an unmitigated disaster for them. They should be making massive gains form all the anger directed at labour...I'd be worried if I was them.
The Tory's won the most votes in Wales. and practically every other region. The results show that they won more than 9% more votes than labour.
Labour are finished.
I never thought the BNP would get a seat. I blame the mainstream parties of being so out of touch that the BNP scum could get in.
Sunday, 7 June 2009
As we all know Brown made a dogs breakfast of the whole D-Day commemoration. He couldn't give a toss, until his latest best buddy President Obama told the world that he was going. That changed everything for Brown. Well he thought he could get some easy headlines out of being with the man of the moment.
He then decided that he'd go as UK representative, leaving out the Queen, the only head of state who actually served during WWII. Still he thought it was a good idea to get all the glory for himself...and rest assured it was all about Brown rather than commemorating the incredibly brave men who died. It is all about Brown.
Well leave aside the whole u-turn on helping veterans make their final visit, or the fact that his scrimping meant that we had to beg the Germans for a band.
We'll also ignore the sheer unpleasantness of the ridiculous man who is French President in ignoring out head of state.
What happened was a disaster for Brown. All the attempt to spin the operation to improve his damaged reputation is for nothing. His speech was bad, he called Omaha Beach, Obama Beach (see Fox) his mannerisms made him look distinctly odd.
OK this is bad for a career politician who one would have thought is able to string a few words together.
Worse than that, much, much, much worse than that, and I can think of nothing like ever happening before, Brown was booed by the very people who were there to be exploited by Brown for political advantage. These brave, and elderly men booed him. See Sky News.
These Veterans expressed their disgust at Brown for the way he treated their Queen. This is not just because she is their Head of State, but because she is a veteran.
I simply cannot understand how Brown keeps missing the point of things, at how out of touch he is. The trip could have been a triumph for him. It could have brought him some good press. However the way he handled things, and his boorishness and lack of empathy has damaged him.
Saturday, 6 June 2009
The party of which I speak is of course the Monster Raving Loony party. This party is of course a party of eccentrics who stand in elections as a joke. It has to be said that some of their joke policies have actually been taken on by the mainstream parties, so I'm not sure who the joke is on.
Anyway, for the first time in their history they have actually beaten a major party in an election. In Cambridge they have beaten labour into fourth place, see here.
So Lord Toby Jug, of the Loonies, beat two labour candidates in a election. He also managed to raise £275 for the News Teenage Cancer Trust Appeal. So good for him, I actually like like eccentrics and the right for anyone to be able to stand for public vote.
More than that, it shows that labour is the joke party. This is not good if you are the party of government.
Things really are going from bad to worse for Brown aren't they?
So we are left with leaving to send time with their families, to secure a good job first for when labour is kicked out, or some fresh scandal is coming out about them that will destroy whatever remained of their political career.
I have no idea, but the timing is awful for Brown. When your luck deserts you it really deserts you.
Tell me something, how bad must labour be, and how bereft of talent and abilities of they have to drag Glynis bloody Kinnock to be a minister?
I really don't understand how she can become a minister, OK I know she's going to be because she is going to be made a peer (strange how some socialists forget all about the crap they spout about equality and all that when it applies to them), but she's been elected to another political body, the European parliament. People have elected her to this role, how can she screw them by not doing the very well paid job which she and her pathetic windbag have made millions doing?
Is she going to reign her European seat and call for a new election there? Or is she going to take all the money from both jobs and not put the time in? Or does she know she's lost her European seat? I doubt that it is the last as the whole European election system is rigged so the chosen ones get elected regardless of what the voters want through the part list system...perhaps the waste of space Georgina Gould should stand as a MEP next time!!
I think we should be told.
Friday, 5 June 2009
What is coming out I wonder as they do not say they are going for political reasons.
Time will tell.
Labour have lost every English council in this election. Every one. Labour are screwed right royally. To my mind the Lib-Dem's have had an even worse result. For a opposition party who have done well (in the press at least) out of the scandal, have lost every council they had up for election to the Tory's. At this time with this background this is terrible.
John Hutton has resigned, not good for Brown. To be fair he gave the old standby excuse of leaving to spend time with his family.
Caroline Flint has decided to go and to tell the world that Brown is more comfortable in the company of men. It is pathetic that she decided that she could no longer support Brown, just after she found out that she has not got the major promotion she thinks she is worth. Naked ambition of a person who is there only because she was politically connected and because she was female, rather than being actually good at her job, is most distasteful. Remember she is the minister who when she began having an affair with a labour MP had her then husband deported and he was unable to see his children for years....nice person eh?
And Darling remains. This is bad. It shows how terrified and powerless Brown is if he cannot get shot of a useless and corrupt chancellor.....he is weak.
The reshuffle is pathetic, fifth rate people promoted, and unelected people to become ministers.
You know how well and truly screwed he is his when he makes a TV personality a peer and a minister! Sir Alan Suger, a humourless businessman, who, according to the ex-wife of his son, is a bully, is made a minister. This is a business 'genius' who was the largest British computer manufacturer who stopped making computers just as they were getting huge, and who lost control of company. He makes cheap, badly made tat. You don't make a spiv like this a minister of the crown.
So Brown limps on impotently. There is no point in him continuing....but he will because he has nothing else in his rather pathetic life. Sad.
Thursday, 4 June 2009
The interesting thing is is that this person, who was famous for wearing very heavy makeup on his appearances on the BBC, has the ambition to become the next PM. So even for a politician he is very ambitious. He really wants to replace Brown.
So he has come to the decision that the wounded Brown is finished and has publicly resigned. He wants to be the person who goes down in history as the man who finished the man who has destroyed the labour party. This will allow him to strengthen his chances by being able to spin to labour members that he is the new broom to revive labour, that he is young, brave, and god knows what.
In short so he can be the next PM.
All very amusing.
Things are looking truly awful for Brown, and his chosen successor, that lickspital Balls. It is one disaster after another, corruption, Gurkha's, Smith, Blears, Elections, and now Purnell.
Any normal person would say, 'sod this for a game of soldiers' and resign to enjoy life. But Brown is not normal. He will not go at all, ever, unless he has no other choice.
And that's the key thing here 'choice'. Brown will choose not to go. This is all part of the deluded view he has of his abilities and genius. He is PM by right, he wont go.
Now there may be enough votes from labour MP's to call on him to go...maybe. But he'll not go. What he'll do is call their bluff. These people are concerned that they'll be out of a job, and since most of them are unemployable this is a big deal, so all Brown has to do is to tell them as PM that if they try to get rid of him he'll go to the palace and ask the Queen to dissolve parliament. That would mean they'll be out of a job a year sooner than they'd be if he stayed.
I think that'll do it.
Now I hope that I'm wrong that Brown goes and goes soon. It's just that I doubt it. Which is a shame.
That would have been wrong; I feel that we all have to vote.
Not to do so is a betrayal of all those who have fought for our vote. But more than that, not voting means that the corrupt vested interest would win. It does not matter if only one person votes for a corrupt politician, of no one votes against them, then they'll still be kept firmly in the manner they have become accustomed to. This is not good.
And finally, if you don't vote then you really cannot complain about the politicians, the damage they do, or indeed their corruption.
As I said, I feel you have to vote.
Wednesday, 3 June 2009
So I will cry no tears for her departure.
Interestingly she did not praise Brown or a single one of his policies. This is the accepted procedure for such resignations. This is openly contemptuous of Brown and does not bode well for him I feel.
Two things though. she is still intending to stand at the next election. She shouldn't, she should be prosecuted. I can only hope that the people who can vote for her show their disgust at her corruption and kick her to the curb. They deserve better than her.
The second thing is the timing. She was on her way out anyway, like Jacqui Smith, She was supposed to go at the next reshuffle when she could be used to save Gordon. Well that's shot to hell.
All these preemptive resignations do more than remove a line of defence from Brown. They drastically, and publicly, show how powerless and unliked he is. It may be getting worse, Guido Fawkes has reported that the minister Caroline Flint may be off as well. There have even been reports that if Brown appoints Balls as chancellor there will be mass resignation of junior ministers.
All this damages Brown personally and destroys his image publicly.
There is massive speculation now about if Brown can continue, ITN News even say that Brown's chances of being PM by next Monday are 50/50. Tom Bower, who wrote Brown biography said on Sky News he will not last a year, he also said that he was a weak, ditherer, and a coward, and he should know.
I would love to be shot of the unelected, useless Brown, really, but:--
1) it is simply untenable that we get two unelected PMs in a row. That will be an affront to the whole country. If he goes he should call for an immediate election.
2) he wont go now. You see his continuing as PM would be pointless. He has not the authority, or control to actually do anything. I'm not talking about doing anything good for the country here, I'm talking about doing what he wants with his premiership. All chances of that happening are gone. He will cling to power even without purpose. He is openly mocked and despised, even by members of his own cabinet. They wont do what he wants, they let it be known that they will not accept certain positions.... but he will stay.
All of this is a recipe for inertia. But he will cling on regardless. As I keep saying he thinks it is his god given right to rule, that he is an unparalleled genius, a giant amongst men. He thinks he is right about everything. He simply does not understand how anyone could not agree with this modest view of himself. He thinks we will all come around to this and reelect him as our hero.
This derangement means that he'll never leave, indeed if he could he'd cancel the election so he could 'get on with the job of fixing the country' he would. Lucky he cannot....bet he's thought of it though.
The final reason is simple; what else could he do with his life? He has plotted, bullied, and schemed to be PM since childhood. He as no real friends or social skills, and lacks the ability to function without power. He is a hollow man. This is all he has. Without it he'll be nothing. Worse, he'll be a joke man fighting the monsters in his head.
He'll cling on until he has no other option.
I hope I'm wrong.
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
In one single day he's lost
Jacqui Smith, The third most powerful elected politician in the country has let it be known via 'friends', that is Jacqui, that she wants not to be Home Secretary so she could fight to keep her seat. Utter garbage of course. She's got no chance of being re elected not with her corruption and the anger of the people in her consistency. It is also not very likely that she would willingly give up a lot of money in wages voluntarily....she dos seem keen on money you know :)
In reality she was sacked by Brown. She was supposed to be publicly sacked by Brown on Friday. She was being lined up by Brown, along with Darling, to take the blame for the European and local election disaster. They are supposed to make the ultimate sacrifice to protect Brown and allow him to cling to power.
Tom Watson, the Minister and attack merchant has said he's not going to stand for parliament at the next election
David Chaytor is going to stand down. You will remember that he was the MP who claimed for a non-existing mortgage.
Patricia Hewitt, the ex-minister is standing down.
Beverly Hughes a minster who was sacked for lying, but who was being brought back into power, is also going.
All this in a single day. Strangely all these people have decided to stand down on a single day. And all doing so for perfectly honourable reasons....so they say, so it must be true.
Nothing to do with any fiddling then.....pure coincidence then.
They really think we are stupid don't they?
Labour is well and truly screwed. Brown has lost any semblance of being in control of the situation. He simply losing power. He cannot do anything. So what is the point of being PM? His view of himself as having the god given right to rule does not mean he can do anything.
It is all decaying, everyday it is worse. It is now utter chaos as the corrupt scurry to leave before prosecution, and others jockey for jobs outside of parliament.
This is not how you run a country.