Gordon Brown killed off Labour's chances of victory in the general election, not to mention his own career, with his off-the-cuff remarks about a pensioner he met on the hustings in Rochdale. The old lady in question asked where all the Eastern Europeans were coming from (one assumes Eastern Europe) and Brown, in the safety of the car, grumbled about the situation he had been put in by his handlers and denounced the old lady in question as "a bigoted woman".
Mainstream media picked over the comments at length and with more than a smidgeon of glee, other parties commented tersely and then moved on, while the comments boards of major media outlets were filled by very busy New Labour maggots posting repetetive comments asking "Since when has it been wrong to call a bigot a bigot"?
The question here is, were the original comments bigoted. It may seem bigoted to the sort of middle class privately educated twenty-somethings living in the better parts of the urban metropolises to question the provenance of immigrants moving not into the better parts of the urban metropolises but into bleak northern towns with little prosperity and few prospects, but then, with their Media Studies degrees and sinecures with Daddy's advertising firm, they will never really understand the concept of being pushed out of your job to make way for a Polish worker who will take £5k a year less than you, or of having your boss tell you that the alternative to you taking a pay cut, having your hours increased and your holidays reduced is for him to replace you with a Slovakian.
The fault lies not with the immigrants, of course, but the employers, who use the influx of cheap foreign labour as an excuse to lay off their British staff, saddled as they are with families and houses to maintain. The "bigotry" of Brown's "bigots" would be better directed towards these employers, who so often take the opportunity of illegal labour to welch on the National Insurance and Income Tax, and to pay less than the minimum wage - as this means that British workers cannot compete without breaking the law.
But the right-on Labour darlings infesting the comments sections of reports on CNN, the Guardian and every other news site you could name, for all their self-styled empathy with the Great Unwashed, will never have to deal with these problems. Rather than condemn the government's pathetic control of the UKs borders, or indeed the exploitative employers (after all, many of them are Daddy's friends), it is far easier to smear, Mandelson-style, the proles, who probably are all racist BNP voters.
One hopes that a Cameron victory will see this rabble of middle class turds rooted out of their public sector non-jobs. If they were to be replaced by Albanian asylum-seekers, that might increase their understanding of the plight of the uncultured Untermensch they share this country with.
Friday 30 April 2010
Sunday 25 April 2010
Access your MP
Went down to the next village along on Friday evening where outgoing MP was stumping for re-election. Asked a couple of questions, got some interesting answers and was generally impressed with his knowledge and connection with the issues. So much so, in fact, that I have decided I will vote for him after all.
All the palaver about the TV debates has helped to further obscure the fundamental point of our electoral system, which is that the voters are not voting for a Prime Minister or even a government, but for a man or woman who will listen to their concerns and protect their interests, even if that means going against the wishes of their own government. The people of Wyre Forest understood this when their local MP, a Labour party apparatchik, broke promises made to the electorate in order to further his party's interests and those of his own career. That's why they voted in an independent who has kept his promise to defend the hospital the Labourite undertook to keep open and then tried to close. The vitreolic attack launched by the Labourite against his former voters indicates that he also failed to understand the purpose of democracy, but then, he's not alone in his party on that score.
Most of the electorate, however, are under the impression that they are voting for Brown, Cameron or Clegg. So long as they make this basic and fairly easily amended error, they will continue to be piss-poorly represented by party workers parachuted in from London, who do not know or care what concerns their constituents have and will do or say whatever they need to to keep the office and the salary and the benefits flowing.
Brown, Cameron and Clegg do not need your vote to stay in the job, so they don't actually care what you think. Unless of course, you are one of the less-than 0.5% of the electorate actually represented by them in Parliament. Check out the candidates in YOUR constituency, choose the one you think will best represent your vision of the country, and once elected, make sure you keep them busy!
All the palaver about the TV debates has helped to further obscure the fundamental point of our electoral system, which is that the voters are not voting for a Prime Minister or even a government, but for a man or woman who will listen to their concerns and protect their interests, even if that means going against the wishes of their own government. The people of Wyre Forest understood this when their local MP, a Labour party apparatchik, broke promises made to the electorate in order to further his party's interests and those of his own career. That's why they voted in an independent who has kept his promise to defend the hospital the Labourite undertook to keep open and then tried to close. The vitreolic attack launched by the Labourite against his former voters indicates that he also failed to understand the purpose of democracy, but then, he's not alone in his party on that score.
Most of the electorate, however, are under the impression that they are voting for Brown, Cameron or Clegg. So long as they make this basic and fairly easily amended error, they will continue to be piss-poorly represented by party workers parachuted in from London, who do not know or care what concerns their constituents have and will do or say whatever they need to to keep the office and the salary and the benefits flowing.
Brown, Cameron and Clegg do not need your vote to stay in the job, so they don't actually care what you think. Unless of course, you are one of the less-than 0.5% of the electorate actually represented by them in Parliament. Check out the candidates in YOUR constituency, choose the one you think will best represent your vision of the country, and once elected, make sure you keep them busy!
Monday 19 April 2010
Vulcanology
Vulcanology has nothing to do with Mr Spock. It is rather the study of volcanoes, such as the unpronounceaable one in Iceland which has grounded most of the planes in Europe.
For the uninitiated, volcanoes are mountains which form above hot spots in the earth's mantle, relieving build-up of gas and pressure, causing mayhem and misery to thousands of people planning to go abroad for their holidays. Now, I haven't been on a plane for 11 years and am not likely to be able to afford to go abroad for the foreseeable future, so I really couldn't care less, but it is interesting to note that it is not until day 5 that the government starts to think about how to get people stranded beyond railway's reach back home in time for term, voting, whatever. It is almost as if the government thought the volcano would 'blow over' in a couple of days like snow or a thunderstorm. Perhaps Gordon has been jabbing a map of Iceland with his finger while shouting "Stop! I command you to stop!" until the point at which he realised it wasn't working.
Reality time, guys. This eruption may continue for weeks. It might even go on for months. It might represent the start of a period of intermittent activity which could go on for decades.
Volcanoes do not respect government, general elections or the desires of the middle classes. This could mean the end of cheap, regular air travel as we know it.
For the uninitiated, volcanoes are mountains which form above hot spots in the earth's mantle, relieving build-up of gas and pressure, causing mayhem and misery to thousands of people planning to go abroad for their holidays. Now, I haven't been on a plane for 11 years and am not likely to be able to afford to go abroad for the foreseeable future, so I really couldn't care less, but it is interesting to note that it is not until day 5 that the government starts to think about how to get people stranded beyond railway's reach back home in time for term, voting, whatever. It is almost as if the government thought the volcano would 'blow over' in a couple of days like snow or a thunderstorm. Perhaps Gordon has been jabbing a map of Iceland with his finger while shouting "Stop! I command you to stop!" until the point at which he realised it wasn't working.
Reality time, guys. This eruption may continue for weeks. It might even go on for months. It might represent the start of a period of intermittent activity which could go on for decades.
Volcanoes do not respect government, general elections or the desires of the middle classes. This could mean the end of cheap, regular air travel as we know it.
Sunday 18 April 2010
Liberal Democrats
The election got a whole lot more exciting after the first TV debate persuaded many that Clegg was fit to be PM, and I have to say that I am suddenly having doubts about what I thought was a cast iron dead cert prediction. The polls do seem to fluctuate wildly but the polls the media have fixated upon suggest that the LibDems are neck and neck with the Tories, with Gordon Brown's dying government crawling some distance behind. Other polls suggest that all three parties are tying, with the Tories slightly ahead and the LibDems trampling Labour to te bottom of the heap.
If this trend is representative of what is happening in the marginals, then all bets are off. The LibDems have taken vote share from both of the other major parties, which suggests that people who vote tactically and negatively are voting positively for Clegg's party. In other words, instead of holding their nose to keep their least favoured party out, they are voting FOR someone.
The danger inherent in this is that, barring a major swing towards one party, this guarantees a hung parliament. The Tories will not be able to form a working coalition - Clegg has already ruled out any deals with the Tories, although not in so many words - so those who switched from the Tories to get Brown out of Downing Street to the LibDems are helping to ensure that Gordy gets back into Downing Street - either as PM or Chancellor - so he can continue his wrecking spree.
Those whose priority is to stop this will probably switch their vote back to Cameron, which means the Tories will scoop up seats weakened by Labour's poll losses to Clegg, and potentially might end up with a bigger majority than might otherwise have happened.
If this trend is representative of what is happening in the marginals, then all bets are off. The LibDems have taken vote share from both of the other major parties, which suggests that people who vote tactically and negatively are voting positively for Clegg's party. In other words, instead of holding their nose to keep their least favoured party out, they are voting FOR someone.
The danger inherent in this is that, barring a major swing towards one party, this guarantees a hung parliament. The Tories will not be able to form a working coalition - Clegg has already ruled out any deals with the Tories, although not in so many words - so those who switched from the Tories to get Brown out of Downing Street to the LibDems are helping to ensure that Gordy gets back into Downing Street - either as PM or Chancellor - so he can continue his wrecking spree.
Those whose priority is to stop this will probably switch their vote back to Cameron, which means the Tories will scoop up seats weakened by Labour's poll losses to Clegg, and potentially might end up with a bigger majority than might otherwise have happened.
Friday 16 April 2010
The Big Debate
So the first debate is out the way, and reaction is mixed. The clash between Brown, Cameron and Cleggy may have been somehwat stilted, with pre-arranged questions and dozens of match rules limiting the scope for ad lib and reaction, and the three protagonists threw pre-arranged attacks at each other.
On the other hand, it seemed a lot more real and honest than a Parliament's worth of PMQs and a book bin full of manifestoes. Consensus is that all three did ok, that Clegg was the star of the show and if anything Cameron underperformed.
That's as may be, but it misses the point. Stick Nigel Benn and Chris Eubank in the ring and it is obvious what's at stake - the first man to lay his opponent on hs back for more than ten seconds gets a nice new belt to wear. But Clegg, Brown and Cameron were all playing for different reasons.
Gordon Brown knows that there is, barring massive electoral fraud, no chance of Labour getting anything like a working majority, so his strategy was to undermine his principle opponent and woo his most likely coalition partner in the event of a hung Parliament. He stuck to the attack-Cameron-suck-up-to-Clegg strategy fairly consistently, if somewhat clunkingly, at times.
Clegg, by contrast, knows that Brown cannot do without him and so felt free to attack both Cameron and Brown for their parties' records. He knew that Brown would have to swallow the insult. It also gave the impression that the LibDems will be willing to deal with either party, which is a fiction given that he pretty well ruled out setting up shop with the Tories a few weeks ago. Apart from one dog-snapping-at-spaghetti moment, when he struggled to answer one point (about the economy, if I recall), he seemed full of vigour and vinegar.
Cameron knew that the election is his to lose - stick to the script and don't cock it up and he may squeak a Commons majority. Screw up and he lets Gordon back in as head of a LibLab coalition. So his strategy was to charm the audience and not to take the inevitable bait (Eddie Izzard's pathetic performance on tonight's Party Propaganda broadcast shows how Labour plans to fight this election) while trying not to look too tight and controlled.
So nobody really made a tit of themself, apart from Clegg's waffle moment, Cameron's cringemaking anecdote about how he spoke to "a black man" and Gordon's quite frightening gurning attempt at smiling.
On the other hand, it seemed a lot more real and honest than a Parliament's worth of PMQs and a book bin full of manifestoes. Consensus is that all three did ok, that Clegg was the star of the show and if anything Cameron underperformed.
That's as may be, but it misses the point. Stick Nigel Benn and Chris Eubank in the ring and it is obvious what's at stake - the first man to lay his opponent on hs back for more than ten seconds gets a nice new belt to wear. But Clegg, Brown and Cameron were all playing for different reasons.
Gordon Brown knows that there is, barring massive electoral fraud, no chance of Labour getting anything like a working majority, so his strategy was to undermine his principle opponent and woo his most likely coalition partner in the event of a hung Parliament. He stuck to the attack-Cameron-suck-up-to-Clegg strategy fairly consistently, if somewhat clunkingly, at times.
Clegg, by contrast, knows that Brown cannot do without him and so felt free to attack both Cameron and Brown for their parties' records. He knew that Brown would have to swallow the insult. It also gave the impression that the LibDems will be willing to deal with either party, which is a fiction given that he pretty well ruled out setting up shop with the Tories a few weeks ago. Apart from one dog-snapping-at-spaghetti moment, when he struggled to answer one point (about the economy, if I recall), he seemed full of vigour and vinegar.
Cameron knew that the election is his to lose - stick to the script and don't cock it up and he may squeak a Commons majority. Screw up and he lets Gordon back in as head of a LibLab coalition. So his strategy was to charm the audience and not to take the inevitable bait (Eddie Izzard's pathetic performance on tonight's Party Propaganda broadcast shows how Labour plans to fight this election) while trying not to look too tight and controlled.
So nobody really made a tit of themself, apart from Clegg's waffle moment, Cameron's cringemaking anecdote about how he spoke to "a black man" and Gordon's quite frightening gurning attempt at smiling.
Thursday 15 April 2010
An Important Day
I had planned to use today's post to pick apart the manifestos of Cam and Cleggy, particularly Cameron's worrying idea to allow ordinary members of the public a greater say in running the country (yes, that means your neighbour, the one with shaved head and the tattoos), but something far more important has happened today, an event which kind of puts the Big Debate into the shade.
I'm talking about Simon Singh's court victory over the British Chiropractic Association, which isn't just one man's victory over a censorious organisation, or of commercial interest over journalistic licence, but a linked victory of freedom of speech over censorship, and of scientific rationalism over the creeping stifling of debate in the UK by the forces of religious reaction and obscurantism.
In short, Simon Singh questioned the methods and motives of individuals who make their living peddling healthcare-based claims with absolutely no scientific basis. The BCA sued him to silence him. Once upon society, realising the benefits that science and technology brought, would have laughed the BCA out of court. "You want to make money out of the gullible by claiming that twiddling with people's backbones cures asthma, prove it!"
No longer. Complementary medicines are available on the NHS, paid for out of budgets which might be better deployed using demonstrably efficacious medicines. Tony Blair has permitted the utter non-science of "intelligent design" to be taught in UK schools. Religious and other cultural norms are allowed to trump education, healthcare and even public order. And with the BCA's attack on Singh, the alliance of religion, superstition and ignorance hoped to set a precedent which would allow them to operate unchallenged among an increasingly uninformed public.
However, the judge allowed Singh to use the "fair comment" defence - in other words, confirming indirectly that Singh has the right to free speech. Seeing that their aim - to stifle free speech - had thus been denied by the court, the BCA folded. If Singh's comments were "fair comment" as indeed they were, and as the generation before ours would have taken for granted, then the BCA could not win. So they surrended.
Good for Simon Singh! His victory gets his chestnuts out of the fire, but his stemming of the tide of snake-oil science is only a small step. Given that homeopathy continues to thrive (and be paid for by you) despite numerous controlled trials which show that homeopathic cures work no better than placebos, superstition and ignorance will be with us for a long time to come.
I'm talking about Simon Singh's court victory over the British Chiropractic Association, which isn't just one man's victory over a censorious organisation, or of commercial interest over journalistic licence, but a linked victory of freedom of speech over censorship, and of scientific rationalism over the creeping stifling of debate in the UK by the forces of religious reaction and obscurantism.
In short, Simon Singh questioned the methods and motives of individuals who make their living peddling healthcare-based claims with absolutely no scientific basis. The BCA sued him to silence him. Once upon society, realising the benefits that science and technology brought, would have laughed the BCA out of court. "You want to make money out of the gullible by claiming that twiddling with people's backbones cures asthma, prove it!"
No longer. Complementary medicines are available on the NHS, paid for out of budgets which might be better deployed using demonstrably efficacious medicines. Tony Blair has permitted the utter non-science of "intelligent design" to be taught in UK schools. Religious and other cultural norms are allowed to trump education, healthcare and even public order. And with the BCA's attack on Singh, the alliance of religion, superstition and ignorance hoped to set a precedent which would allow them to operate unchallenged among an increasingly uninformed public.
However, the judge allowed Singh to use the "fair comment" defence - in other words, confirming indirectly that Singh has the right to free speech. Seeing that their aim - to stifle free speech - had thus been denied by the court, the BCA folded. If Singh's comments were "fair comment" as indeed they were, and as the generation before ours would have taken for granted, then the BCA could not win. So they surrended.
Good for Simon Singh! His victory gets his chestnuts out of the fire, but his stemming of the tide of snake-oil science is only a small step. Given that homeopathy continues to thrive (and be paid for by you) despite numerous controlled trials which show that homeopathic cures work no better than placebos, superstition and ignorance will be with us for a long time to come.
Monday 12 April 2010
That Manifesto in Full
Gordon says: No extension of VAT to categories of items not currently liable to VAT. That's not the same as no increase in VAT, no matter that he tried to deflect attention from this loophole by slating the Tories for their historic increases of VAT. "The Tories doubled VAT *GAPE*" he said, referring to events which happened so long ago that while we are trying to focus on this remote Tory tax hike, he'll be slipping a 1-2% VAT rise past our political myopia.
Gordon says: Targetted cuts and 'fair' taxes will enable me to half the budget deficit. The deficit that happened when "Financial Whizz" Gordon fell asleep at the wheel and crashed the economy.
Gordon says: Parents of children at underperforming schools will have the power to sack the management of that school. The fact that this will remove the onus from HMG and allow them to pass the blame to the public when our creaking education system finally collapses under its burden of bureaucracy and idiotic targets is not important, of course.
Gordon says: Every young person to have education till 18. Including special needs pupils, who then have to pay for vocational training when they have finished 2 extra years of remedial education. This was brought in by Labour. Nice.
Gordon says: There will be a cap on the costs of residential care for the elderly. What the cap actually is depends on what money is left in the pot when free residential care for the elderly in Scotland is paid for.
Gordon says: English tests for immigrants working in the public sector. What? Even doctors?
Gordon says: A referendum on changing the electoral system to Proportional Representation. This is SO obviously bait for Nick Clegg to come out and declare that he is joining an anti-Tory electoral coalition. Gordy obviously remembers how Tony Bliar not-quite-promised Paddy Pantsdown's LibDems a place in government. Ashdown and his followers lapped it up, and their positioning helped Bliar to bury the moribund Tories. No place at the top table was forthcoming, however. Hope you're reading this, Cleggy!
Gordon says: Votes for 16 year olds! From what I heard on "Any Answers" on Saturday, this is a widely supported strategem to capitalise on teenage lefty idealism to boost LibLab votes. What if they demand the right to lower legal ages for a host of activities currently not accessible to them. Hey kids, give the "Porn, Booze and Driving Party" your immediate support.
Gordon says: Strict controls on high street loan companies and doorstop lenders. what about high street banks lending to people beyond their means to repay. Didn't that happen recently?
Gordon says: High speed rail links to connect London to major cities in England and Scotland. I presume Salmond's Scottish executive, having responsibility for transport policy north of the border, will foot the bill for the Scottish part of this rail link. After all, is it fair for the English taxpayer to upgrade Scotland's transport network in time for the SNP to declare independence?
In short, this is a basket of policies remedial for the mess that Labour have caused over 13 years, policies aimed at increasing their votes, policies aimed at gulling the LibDems into playing Gordy's little helper, and vote-winning policies which Labour have no intention of implementing.
It could be worse. Let's see if the others can do worse.
Gordon says: Targetted cuts and 'fair' taxes will enable me to half the budget deficit. The deficit that happened when "Financial Whizz" Gordon fell asleep at the wheel and crashed the economy.
Gordon says: Parents of children at underperforming schools will have the power to sack the management of that school. The fact that this will remove the onus from HMG and allow them to pass the blame to the public when our creaking education system finally collapses under its burden of bureaucracy and idiotic targets is not important, of course.
Gordon says: Every young person to have education till 18. Including special needs pupils, who then have to pay for vocational training when they have finished 2 extra years of remedial education. This was brought in by Labour. Nice.
Gordon says: There will be a cap on the costs of residential care for the elderly. What the cap actually is depends on what money is left in the pot when free residential care for the elderly in Scotland is paid for.
Gordon says: English tests for immigrants working in the public sector. What? Even doctors?
Gordon says: A referendum on changing the electoral system to Proportional Representation. This is SO obviously bait for Nick Clegg to come out and declare that he is joining an anti-Tory electoral coalition. Gordy obviously remembers how Tony Bliar not-quite-promised Paddy Pantsdown's LibDems a place in government. Ashdown and his followers lapped it up, and their positioning helped Bliar to bury the moribund Tories. No place at the top table was forthcoming, however. Hope you're reading this, Cleggy!
Gordon says: Votes for 16 year olds! From what I heard on "Any Answers" on Saturday, this is a widely supported strategem to capitalise on teenage lefty idealism to boost LibLab votes. What if they demand the right to lower legal ages for a host of activities currently not accessible to them. Hey kids, give the "Porn, Booze and Driving Party" your immediate support.
Gordon says: Strict controls on high street loan companies and doorstop lenders. what about high street banks lending to people beyond their means to repay. Didn't that happen recently?
Gordon says: High speed rail links to connect London to major cities in England and Scotland. I presume Salmond's Scottish executive, having responsibility for transport policy north of the border, will foot the bill for the Scottish part of this rail link. After all, is it fair for the English taxpayer to upgrade Scotland's transport network in time for the SNP to declare independence?
In short, this is a basket of policies remedial for the mess that Labour have caused over 13 years, policies aimed at increasing their votes, policies aimed at gulling the LibDems into playing Gordy's little helper, and vote-winning policies which Labour have no intention of implementing.
It could be worse. Let's see if the others can do worse.
Sunday 11 April 2010
The Race Begins
Nearly a week in and already things are hotting up. My prediction is that after a couple of weeks of slow haemorrhaging of the Labour vote, there will be a last minute swing stampede from the LibDems to the Tories, who will win an overall majority of 35-40 seats.
A number of factors dictate this eventuality. First, Nick Clegg made a statement a couple of weeks back in which he more or less ruled out the possibility of the LibDems going into coalition with the Conservatives, so the electorate basically has a choice of Tories or Labour-plus-someone else. While those who support the LibDems for ideological reasons will likely stick with their principles, those who don't like the Tories but think that another five years of Gordon Browns hamfisted management of the economy would be disastrous are likely to see Clegg's speech as meaning that a vote for the LibDems will have precisely that result and will hold their noses and vote Tory. We saw something similar in 1992 - Labour were ahead in the polls in an election I planned to abstain from, but a last minute vision of Kinnock standing in the doorway to number 10, grinning and waving like an orang-utan in a cheap suit, forced me to vote Tory. (It also had the added pleasure of making the man who held his victory parade 2 days' before the poll was actually held look something of a prat.)
In addition to this, I confidently predict there will be widescale electoral fraud involving postal ballots. Most of this will be in Birmingham, with added pockets in Manchester, Leicester and Bradford. Some will involved ballots taken from people by their "community leaders" (read into that what you will) while others will be intercepted and sold to these "electoral agents" by bent posties. Expect re-counts and acrimony, and I will add that most, but not all, of these frauds will benefit the Labour party.
Just a hunch, you understand.
A number of factors dictate this eventuality. First, Nick Clegg made a statement a couple of weeks back in which he more or less ruled out the possibility of the LibDems going into coalition with the Conservatives, so the electorate basically has a choice of Tories or Labour-plus-someone else. While those who support the LibDems for ideological reasons will likely stick with their principles, those who don't like the Tories but think that another five years of Gordon Browns hamfisted management of the economy would be disastrous are likely to see Clegg's speech as meaning that a vote for the LibDems will have precisely that result and will hold their noses and vote Tory. We saw something similar in 1992 - Labour were ahead in the polls in an election I planned to abstain from, but a last minute vision of Kinnock standing in the doorway to number 10, grinning and waving like an orang-utan in a cheap suit, forced me to vote Tory. (It also had the added pleasure of making the man who held his victory parade 2 days' before the poll was actually held look something of a prat.)
In addition to this, I confidently predict there will be widescale electoral fraud involving postal ballots. Most of this will be in Birmingham, with added pockets in Manchester, Leicester and Bradford. Some will involved ballots taken from people by their "community leaders" (read into that what you will) while others will be intercepted and sold to these "electoral agents" by bent posties. Expect re-counts and acrimony, and I will add that most, but not all, of these frauds will benefit the Labour party.
Just a hunch, you understand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)