Tuesday, 31 March 2009

New Labour = Thatcherite Free Market Conservatism

New Labour are supposed to represent socialist ideas as epitomised by the Fabian society. They were frantically upset back in the 80's when Thatcher and her Tories went around selling all the public companies of the United Kingdom including such prominent features as the National Engineering Laboratory (we sure could need that now when we when there is hole of 20,000 engineers missing in the British industry sector). There is a common misconception that New Labour have been better and that they have not been vigorously trying to forward their own personal agendas, by that account I mean of course feeding their on psyche by getting richer and richer all the time completely disregarding the ideals of socialism. To date what have these hypocrites sold of since they came to power in 1997 (this is an ongoing article which I cannot possibly compose in one go since there are so many national industries that have been disposed of since 1997).

DERA (Defence Evaluation Research Agency)
Royal Mail
London Underground
British Energy
Council Housing
Royal Mint (This has not actually been sold, yet, but they are planning to. Which again highlights the economic/financial brilliance of New Labour: Who in their right mind would sell anything in these times?)

(The picture accompanying this article allures to what kind of people you will end up with if more and more of his daily services become more expensive by the day, suffice to say the government will need more than their largely defunct (in the sense of public appreciation of) police service to stop a hoard of him. It is not for nothing that the government is buying up large amounts of riot gear in what will most likely prove to be one of the hottest summers in memory - in both senses.)

Monday, 30 March 2009

The EU CAP (£10.3 billion a year) Smashing, innit?

Smashing, innit?

Wednesday, 25 March 2009

Stepping on sore Toes

I was discussing politics today with a friend who is not very interested at all but has an opinion once in a while. The EU is very dear to him and I from time to time contradict him on virtually all the 'truths' he holds to be facts, he does not seem to mind as there are so many 'truths' (that is virtues in his eyes) of the EU so a little dent here and there cannot possibly be bad, the greater good of the EU prevails - always.

I think he hit the nail on the head there with regards to the general stance by the media in their stance to the EU at least the FT. They think that the accumulated errors of the EU still does not justify the reform of the institution or the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. They think that we are getting our money's worth (and it is so much money...)

What happened next in the conversation was, to my amazement, the same thing that happens in general when you try to topple the views of a eurocrat they respond with hostility and mockery. Whilst my profound belief is that mockery is the weapon of those who have no other, it lies in the eye of the beholder what exactly virtues and vices are. Facts and numbers are not enough to justify a menace in their world.

L'Idiot de Portugal at it again.

"I would like to urge all political leaders not to use this political crisis in a way to make the Lisbon Treaty hostage to domestic problems. That would not be fair to the other countries of Europe," Mr Barroso said at a press conference in Strasbourg.

It must thus be assumed that it is "fair" to ignore the people of Ireland, The Netherlands and France.

It must also be assumed that it is fair to ignore the rule of democracy.

When will it be fair then I wonder to start ignoring the EU and setting our own agenda much as was done pre 1972?

Everyone should watch this

Anyone and everyone who stands for truth, dignity, liberty, justice and the end to non-accountability should watch this. It is Gordon's greatest day for he finally got to hear what everyone was thinking (what everyone was thinking was probably a lot harsher but we must be cordial, even if it means being cordial to a political asinine).

Royal Mail

The Tories have unequivocally stated that they will support Lord Mandelson's Bill whereby a 30% stake in Royal Mail is sold to a private partner in the form of TNT of the Netherlands.

The Tories are hoping to get elected next year.

The Tories are hoping to get a elected with a majority government, not a hung one.

The Tories are hoping to set the country right yet not even Thatcher dared to touch Royal Mail.

The Tories are supposedly Euro sceptic yet the fail to see that the bill was born in Brussels.

They are not exactly trying very hard to be populist, the thing they are most in need of. They are still, whether they like it or not, the nasty party and they only get votes because there are no other options. Not a very respectable mandate; government by default.

Royal Mint next?

(EDIT: Epic fail in my spelling of 'hoping' -> hopping... apologies.)

Sunday, 22 March 2009

Military Hospitals

With the abject failure this government has provided for the armed forces in the form of the broken Military Covenant, Chinooks, Vectors Vehicles, Snatch Land Rovers, Airbus A400M, Jackal, Pinzgauer High Mobility All-Terrain Vehicle, The Viking and many many others - all this coming from a nation who once upon a time was extremely proud of its military engineering. It all became politicised a long time ago sadly.

If they are going to politicise the procurement of military hardware to the detriment of serving personnel then surely, one would have thought (grown out of common sense), they would have provided space and care for the injured soldiers (the dead ones are another matter) when they came back to the UK, there are roughly 150 or so injured soldiers arriving to Selly Oak in Birmingham each month and they have 14 beds.

Normally the ills and evils and mischief and malaise of this decade have been born out of the political tragedy that is New Labour. But the failure of the care for military personnel is, believe it or not, not one of their many many misdeeds.
Seven of the eight military hospitals have closed since a Tory government review in the early 1990s and the last in Haslar, Hants, will shut this year. Now of course since a British government is not bound by the decisions of a previous government they could have overturned these decisions taken by Major and Co. They did not, well it is at least good to know that Labour are not being hypocritical in their stance towards the armed forces; they truly could not care less.

What happened in the early 90's then you might wonder, why were the Tories so rash in their decisions to close down the military hospitals and shrink the size of the defence medical services? Well certainly the Cold War was at its end and subsequently it was assumed that all the evils of the world had gone away with the Soviet autocracy. Perhaps they thought Perestroika and Glasnost meant Peace and Prosperity to the western world?

Down to business then, the Defence review called in 1990 -one year after the wall fell- was aptly named "Options for change" (change has become the new synonym for 'completely shatter what is working and replace with something completely unfit for purpose'). The reason given for closing these sometimes two centuries old units was that servicemen could be better cared for by civilian NHS personal with their specialist equipment and specialist personnel, apparently. Yes the NHS is certainly specialist in one thing and that is complete and utter mismanagement.

These are the wards that have closed:

1. Cambridge Military Hospital, Aldershot (formerly Army hospital), closed in 1996.

2. Princess Mary’s Hospital, Halton, Bucks (formerly RAF), closed in 1996.

3. Duchess of Kent’s Military Hospital Catterick (formerly Army, closed in 1999.

4. Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital, Woolwich (formerly Army), closed in 1996.

5. Princess Alexandra Hospital, Wroughton, Swindon (formerly RAF), closed in 1995.

6. Royal Naval Hospital, Stonehouse (formerly Royal Navy), closed in 1995.

7. Princess of Wales Hospital, Ely (formerly RAF), closed in 1992.

(ohh did I mention that they were closed because the Tories wanted to save £500 million over 10 years - we now have a gaping hole in the defence budget of over £2 billion. I am glad it all worked out for them.)

As you might have imagined the utter folly of this decision has had dire consequences for servicemen around the world since there is just not enough place for them all. The decision was taken so that the government could save money and undoubtedly spend it on something else which would benefit themselves rather than the people - this seems to have been the general trend since Heath, I wanted to say Atlee but he did provide for free universal education which is always useful. Not even Sir Mike, the former head of the Army, though this was a good idea - he was terribly accommodating when it came to giving away British armed forces to the EU but that is another story.

A group of people (well, all 113,973 of them) petitioned the Prime Minister to Create a dedicated Military & Veterans Hospital within the UK.

What was the response? (well what do you think...)

I shall provide two for your:

In a blatant lie

"MILITARY top brass have snubbed calls for a hospital dedicated to Britain’s Armed Forces and veterans, the Daily Express can reveal today.
In a pointed rebuff to UK troops, they insist current NHS provision is adequate and defiantly refuse to see the need for a specialist military medical unit.
The Army’s most senior medical officer has said the case is now closed and he is not willing to discuss the issue any further."

Nr. 10 was not much better:

"In terms of providing a dedicated hospital for veterans, it is worth noting that since 1948 it has been the policy of successive Governments that the NHS should be the main provider of health care for veterans. The range of general medical treatment required by veterans is in most cases no different from other civilians, and it would be wrong to expect them to travel large distances to receive treatment at a single hospital, especially when excellent care is already provided closer to their home and families."

Gordon.. just because successive governments have indulged in the same idea does not mean it is a good idea. As for the medical officer well he seems like a delightful fellow clearly the man the squaddies should talk to when they come back from operations (which are set to get worse this year) with their gun in one hand and their leg in the other, and cannot get appropriate treatment but have to be heckled by not-so-intelligent members of the Muslim community who cannot see the difference between the the decision makers (those who started the war) and those who are only following orders.

The Tories running slogan today is "time for change" and on their webpage they claim they will "will repair the broken Military Covenant, respect our Armed Forces, and ensure that Forces’ families and veterans are taken care of". If they plan on staying more than four year I do hope that they reconsider their early mistake of the 90's or they might just find themselves without its armed forces when the going gets tough on the streets.

This is funny

Did you know that the Foregin and Commonwealth office are actually quoating Gordon Brown? It is true look!

"The European Union is essential to the success of Britain and a Britain fully engaged in Europe is essential to the success of the European Union."- Prime Minister Gordon Brown

They certainly have got their priorities all tangled up.

And whilst the FCO is faffing around the ridicule of the EU wont go away... This is an old story I know but be so sure that it will come back and haunt us as always.
I put this as challenge forth to all of you: On the FCO homepage there is this section which is very interesting. It states what the EU has done for us and it even has a little link to common misperceptions. I challenge you to contradict everyone of these statements and send it to the FCO in two weeks time. If you accept tell me so at 13th.spitfire@gmail.com either way I shall be doing it myself and will post it here before I send it to them.

What happened to freedom of association?

The BNP may not be the most likeable party in this country or this planet for that matter, they indulge in some fairly loony policies and clearly are not a big fan of immigrants. Fair enough that is their agenda most of us, certainly myself, are not particularly supportive of their means as a party but in the spirit of democracy they do have the right to make their voice heard and we have the choice to not listen.

I was not aware that a ban on police joining the BNP was introduced by the Association of Chief Police Officers in 2004. Surely this much breach every single treaty since Magna Carta was signed in 1209? The Human rights act, the European Human Rights act, the Bill of Rights and many others I am sure. I 'was' sure is probably a better stance on the matter since clearly this fellow has just lost his job over it.

One cannot but wonder why this arrogation of freedom of association just passed us by. British politicians can happily change the laws for a couple of K's, they are more than happy to sign away the remaining bits of British sovereignity, they love to indulge in expensive past-times paid for by the tax payer not to mention that they are actually giving tax money to organisations far worse than the BNP.

The BNP has views and opinions most of us regard as complete nonsense, they surely are at the best of times. But while their popularity is rising you cannot just strip members of the public from associating with them, public office holders or not, it should not be within the confines of state power to remove such a fundamental right. It is like saying we should not associate with dangerous 'elements' on the TV "thou shalt not watch porn". This is a fair point I suppose some would argue but is it not really a bit ridiculous. The TV does not advocate racism I am fully aware of this but it advocates something rather more sinister, a picture of the world as it is not really, that young people should idolize the behaviour and style of second rate celebrities whose soul contribution to the world has, well, not been substantial. Maybe this just turned into a long rant but it seems that if you remove a human right for one thing then why not be done with them all?

Saturday, 21 March 2009

Ohh no Independent you are not

We often like to style ourselves of commenting of the political classes across Britain and Europe. The really good stuff however, the revelations, come not from here [yet] but from the people over at EU Referendum. With that in lets have a look at piece written by Andrew Grice in the Independent.

Rarely has a comment been so factually inaccurate with regards to public opinion and political response to tough questions raised in parliament, whichever it might be. Mr Grice starts of with this line

"Mr Cameron would demand Britain's withdrawal from the EU social chapter of workers' rights. That would swiftly be rejected by all 26 other member states."

I am not sure if Mr. Grice has fully comprehended the extent to which British voters are truly sick of the EU. When they finally do impose the working hours directive (you cannot work more than 48 hours a week) on these islands they will effectively be guilty of murder, take surgeons who cannot possibly work under those conditions or the police officers etcetera... Not to mention the average worker who just wants to put a bit more money into the household. Mr. Cameron's demands will be quickly rejected by the EU, but how on earth do they think that will reverberate back here in the UK? They EU is not exactly popular over here (84% want a referendum on 'In' or 'Out'). When the EU starts to reject Mr. Cameron's demands they will be building upon the pressure to have that referendum. In concert with this the LibDems will most likely start the pressure train by adding in their manifesto precisely that referendum - the beginning of the end some might say (I do not really think so but it certainly spells a new high for euroscepticism).
Thus they can and will reject all demands, but the popularity of the EU (already abysmaly low) will drop down dead like a man who has had too much to drink.

Mr. Grice goes on...

"There is bemusement here in Brussels about Mr Cameron's decision to take his party's MEPs out of the mainstream centre-right group in the European Parliament, the European People's Party (EPP), after elections to it in June. It is too federalist for his tastes, and he believes it is dishonest to say "one thing in London and another in Brussels".So the supposedly modernised Tories will walk away from the parties of Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel to form a new gang with a motley collection of Eurosceptics. The only two members signed up so far include an anti-gay rights Polish party, one of whose MPs warned that a Barack Obama victory would mean "the end of the civilisation of the white man", and a Czech party whose founder describes climate change as a 'global myth'."

Lets have a look then who is in the EPP shall we? (that said we are not condoning the statements made by the Polish party as for the climate change myth see further down). Again Mr. Hannan must be thanked for his excellent research into the EPP, he is an MEP so understandably his research would belittle any produced by ourselves.

- There is a party in the EPP which ran for general election in Italy with the poster "Daddy and Papa? This isn't the family we want!"

- There is a party in the EPP whose first minister called for deportations "We have too many criminal young foreigners... Germany has had a Christian and Western culture for centuries, and foreigners who don't stick to our rules don't belong here".

- There is an austrian party who called for the banning of burqas "If we allow consultations to be held in Turkish, we will one day become Turkish ourselves".

Mr. Grice also said this, which he must have though was awfully clever of him "It's a bit odd for Mr Cameron to expend so much energy on erasing the Tories' "nasty party" image at home, only to join the nasties in Europe." I am sure that is rather obvious now who did their homework and who did not which begs the question why do these people get to write commentaries?

As for the climate change "global myth" echoed by, I believe it was Czech president Vaclav Klaus (feel free to correct me on this) well we are not going to jump on the bandwagon because everyone else believes it is fashionable to do so. When there are so many prominent scientific authorities out there who clearly reject the claims made by the globa warming lobby, not to mention the rescent snow falls..., we're not going to look the fools just because we were not clever enough to have an opinion of our own (and by this virtue accumulating the arguments of both camps) - unlike Mr. Grice.

"The British public may not love Europe but they don't want to pull out of the EU. The financial crisis has illustrated the need for governments to act together. Mr Cameron accepts the need for EU co-operation on climate change. Recessions, too, do not respect borders."

The poll mentioned above have it that 55% do indeed want to pull out and this figure (this figure fluctuates between 35% and 65% neither a vindicating figure for Mr. Grice). As for acting together, well I am sure Iceland has a thing or two to say about that in response to Mr. Brown and eventhough their economy is not in the best of sorts at the moment they still do not want to join the EU much to the dismay we must believe to the EU apparatchiks seeing as they wont get those massive fishing zones currently controlled by Iceland. Or why not mention who pretty much every goverment in the EU despises Brown's economic stimulus plan - indeed great cooperation.

"Close allies predict Mr Cameron will concentrate on the economic problems he will inherit and let sleeping European dogs lie. But Europe could still rise up and bite him."

At this point I must agree with Mr. Grice but he is again forgetting that the in or out referendum is building momentum as we speak and any negative news coming from the EU will only alter the pace of that momentum for the better. Mr. Cameron may not bite hard but you can as hell that the Labourites and LibDems will make short work of him if he does not deliver upon his manifesto, they know that EU wont go away and they know that it will tear the tories to pieces if they do not get their act together on this explosive question.

Out of the ordinary

My normal posts are normally concerned with all matters politics and as such trying to bereft the the great vastness of the malignity that spreads like bush fire. Rather it is a more philosophical quote and I would also think quite emotive for the issue at hand should not be dealt with light heartedly nor should it be treated with scorn and contempt.

Honour is a concept which I believe has for the most part died out in society today. We think or at least one is lead to think that honour is characteristic trait often found in warriors. Warriors were once the men and women who in the olden days were sent to protect the villages from advancing warlords or bands of thieves. If they return, alive, they were put on a social pedestal from where they could be adored by society in a different manner - not in any way alleviating their status or standing but rather adding that new found respect to their personality as a result of having done a good deed. If we believe in altruism then yes one must also think that good deeds exists, some might say that soldiers of the past were forced to go to battle, I sincerely agree for the most part they truly were but who are we to deny them the right to their ends when any action taken by us, for them, would be dwarfed in comparison to their actions for us (even if it was forced).

To be continued at a later stage...

Friday, 20 March 2009

Now this is a parliamentary orator

Yesterday we had the Business of the House questions coming around the bend, again. Much to the dismay of Mrs. Harman anyone could imagine. Alan Duncan, shadow leader of the house of commons, made the process short, bloody and quite frankly hilarious.

"May we have a statement on the Prime Minister’s recent visit to Washington? It seems that the DVDs that President Obama gave the Prime Minister—rather like the Prime Minister himself—do not work in the UK. We are told that one of them was “Psycho” and the other “Gone with the Wind”.

So those are our requests for debate: there is a rotting encampment outside Parliament; there are failed NHS managers with bloated pay packets; the fate of our reserve forces is left dangling; FE colleges are collapsing; Equitable Life pensioners are betrayed; dysfunctional Select Committees are set up; we have a dysfunctional Government; and the Solicitor-General insults the unemployed. How can the Leader of the House defend any of that, without hanging her head in shame and apologising?"

Thursday, 19 March 2009

Scorn of the day

"If the Lisbon Treaty is not yet in force at the time of the next general election, and a Conservative Government is elected, we would put the Treaty to a referendum of the British people, recommending a 'no' vote. If the British people rejected the Treaty, we would withdraw Britain's ratification of it."

This came from here.

There is something in the world of logic knows as iff, that's right and i followed by TWO f's.

Wikipedia defines iff as this "the truth of either one of the connected statements requires the truth of the other, i.e., either both statements are true, or both are false. The connective is thus an "if" that works both ways."

With this in mind we can rewrite the conservative policy like this instead, as to save words and seem 'down' and 'hipp' with the hoi polloi (ambiguity is a favourite past time for all party apparatchiks why they can never produce a policy which is written in plain English).

We would put the Treaty to a referendum of the British people, recommending a 'no' vote iff we are elected and the treaty has not been ratified.

Now with the logic explained above, in mind, this means that they would not put the treaty to a vote if they did not come to power (this is reasonable) and they would not put the treaty to a vote if they had come to power but it had already been ratified (this is not reasonable). They would do nothing should both statements turn out to be false.

There you have it. Make more sense? Not really.

Dr. Liam Fox and Defence cuts (almost rhymes)

Dr. Fox has made a speech.

Does it not strike anyone else as odd (apropos defence cuts and Liam Fox) that terrorists still manage to kill British soldiers even though supposedly superior protection is provided for them in the form of civilians, hence ending the stag requirement for soldiers.

Surely if they want to save money a start would be to let soldiers be soldiers and relieve the incompetence that is the Northern Ireland Security Guard Service (NISGS). Naturally it is easy for us in all our relative comfort to pour scorn on these guards who most of the time have very tedious not to say boring job. But when soldiers are killed, at home and not in AfghanIraq, then one must but wonder; if they have such massive problems with funding (which they clearly do) why on earth are they employing relatively low armed civilians to protect, for all intents and purposes, soldiers in whose training guard duty is a requirement.

As has become popularised by students who want something to fight against but cannot seem to find a better target, their "out of Iraq" campaigns are rather catchy at times, they certainly have got the ear for fine battle hymns. Might I be so bold as to suggest a similar approach for the armed forces "Civies out of the Army" - who knows it might just work?

Monday, 16 March 2009

I just had to add this

Now I know this is very late out, most people have already talked and blogged about it but I still find it so very funny.

My response to Mrs. Blears is this: Try and stop us.

What happened today?

I cannot really say that anything particularly interesting happened today in politics, as sorry as I am to say I would have enjoyed a proper slating of one or more of our politicians in the UK or why not one in the EU. Now when I say that 'nothing' has happened I am not being completely honest with myself and yourself for there is always one person which will always deliver when the going gets though, recall how he helpfully suggested that "the people who matter" are rethinking something.

Well not to keep you guessing any further Mr. Barroso is at it again I don't know what we would do without him and his idiotic comments, he complements Mr. Brown rather well I must say and not to mention speck of dirt that is the Rt. Hon. Keith Vaz MP who tried to get a judge to halt a case which concerned his friend.

But to the matter at hand just what has Le Idiota de Portugal come out with today? (please excuse any grammatical translation errors I do not speak Portugese but hopefully the language of belittlement is a fairly universal one.)

Barroso's "regret" over the Tories' exit from the EPP be a badge of honour for Tory eurosceptics? we read on ConHome.

Where to begin I wonder? A non-elected non-leader demurs the loss of the Conservative party from the EPP. I shall echo what some other people have said that if Barroso is not happy about this change in the uniform body that is the EU that can only be a fantastic sign (then again Barroso is a very stupid little man, it seems that most of the time he is unaware the he is only adding to the Eurosceptic feeling in Europe but most profoundly so in Britain). Daniel Hannan for example has told many a time how how suddenly he became much freer in his daily business in Brussels after having been kicked out of the EPP it is not a far step to consider how free the Conservatives will also be once they have left - this is what is scaring Barroso, he is afraid that the legacy of Monnet is about to be undone when the second largest national grouping suddenly discontinues its conformity to EUropeanism (we love Europe we despise the EU, there are 47 nations in Europe 27 in the EU if the eurocrats started doing their homework the world would be a much better place).

But then again what most likely will happen is nothing in the long run we wont regain national sovereignty and they will keep on breaking the clauses in the Magna Carta as if it were never signed in the first place. With the EU there is only one way theirs or none. We have to decide once and for all if we want to be part of a larger state, United States of Europe, like the German constitutional court said. The problem is that I do not think that the current Conservative party which is the next in line goverment will be able to deliver upon this issue because they are as much part of the problem not the solution. They think that we can have the cake but at the same time eat it.

This pains me to say but I think it will be the next Labour government that in 10-20 years takes us out of the EU because they will have realised by then that taking Britain out of the EU, printed in their Manifesto, is as sure a win as night follows day. Only difference between then and now, they will have reformed the party, as did the conservatives, to be once again electable but all they have to do is to promise a referendum on the EU and the Tories will rip themselves to pieces.

The Tories should be worried, very worried and so should we

Sunday, 15 March 2009

Why do they always do this?

We read in an article from the Guardian that they are once again pouring scorn on Oxbridge for having "too few students of ethnic minorities". In the politically correct society we have come to inhabit today there are certain things you can and cannot do as public sector institution (and indeed also private sector business) that is to disobey the powers that be on political correctness. This is their first and prime golden rule:


Where the government is seen to be hiring more ethnic minorities and women as a de facto statement that they are indeed upholding their own policies and at the same time turning away the people who are more qualified because they are of the wrong race or the wrong sex or even worse (in the eyes of the government) both.

What the media and certainly the governments needs to start understanding is that Oxbridge has been around for longer than both of them (well 'ish', the Magna Carta was signed in 1215 by King John and Oxford was founded around 1200 with Cambridge in 1209). Most of their prominent employees had their education at Oxbridge and then they have the audacity to come back and say that they should take more ethnic minorities (read, positively discriminate against some groups of people) because the rest of society has gone completely mad in terms of political correctness.

No, my dear right honourable gentlemen and ladies, rest assured that Oxbridge are fully capable of choosing the right students without any kind of social engineering courtesy of the government, particularly this one which is, I think most would agree, the worst one we have had in over a hundred years. The sooner the media and the government step down from cukokoo land and step in to the real world, the better for all of us they should be ashamed of themselves for even contemplating criticism of Oxbridge - they have turned out some of the finest minds over the past centuries but suddenly they have to stop because it is not deemed polite to the ethnic minorities to have a student body which is overwhelmingly not made up of ethnic minorities? Ethnic minorities are fully aware of what bullshit the government is coming out with as well, they are not stupid (why anyone would even begin thinking that is also beyond me) and hence they do not need 'extra' help for their children to get into Oxbridge. The overwhelming admissions rule is this at Oxbridge: If you are clever you will get in, finito. It is not academic racism when a black child fails to receive a place but a white one does. If anyone realises this it is the dons at Oxbridge.

Leave them alone and for that matter leave the ethnic minorities alone. In fact would the government be so kind as to leave all of us just bloody alone. We have had enough of you.

(Here is a hint: If you really really really want to eradicate racism then possibly you should not make it [insert exceedingly rude word] government policy.)

"I am a preacher of hate!" MPs: "Really, want some hypocricy with that?"

Now to be fair our MPs did not really say that if the truth is to be told (not that this is in plentiful supply at Westminster but whatever no ones seems to mind).

We have the story of a 'delightful' middle aged man named Anjem Choudary. He is an Islamic cleric, whose supporters led a hate-filled protest against British troops returning from Iraq in Luton last week. He has urged his followers to give cash to front-line mujaheddin fighters. Mr. Choudary is a self-styled sharia judge and former leader of the banned group Al-Muhajiroun. On a tape which has emerged he heard telling his followers to stop spending their money on their families and divert it to Muslim soldiers waging jihad, or holy war. What a noble man indeed.

What is the moral of this story then you might ask?

Here it is:
Hypocrites are the poltroons of society regardless of shape, skin colour, race, religion or any other attribute you chose to brandish a man - his 'soul' (if such a thing is believed to exist) will be perpetual. We are not exactly seeing Mr. Choudary going over there to fight the jihads instead this coward extraordinaire huffs and puffs how other Muslims should give up their daily bread so that people in a far away land can fight for a cause they do not even understand (derived from a book dictated by old men who also themselves have no hope in hell in understanding). This is a classic case of old men talking and young men dying, in a sense not very different from our MPs. For all the malign mischief that has disposed itself from the darkest bowels of Mr. Choudary (who can comfortably avoid any prosecution or extradition thanks to that delightful Human Rights Act) our MPs have far more to answer for. One day, when the world has comfortably moved on to the next piece of sensationalist populism and when vox populi has again been ignored, they will answer for their actions. People do not forget just because the media does.

Friday, 13 March 2009

New Labour = Thatcherite Free Market Conservatism

New Labour are supposed to represent socialist ideas as epitomised by the Fabian society. They were frantically upset back in the 80's when Thatcher and her Tories went around selling all the public companies of the United Kingdom including such prominent features as the National Engineering Laboratory (we sure could need that now when we when there is hole of 20,000 engineers missing in the British industry sector). There is a common misconception that New Labour have been better and that they have not been vigorously trying to forward their own personal agendas, by that account I mean of course feeding their on psyche by getting richer and richer all the time completely disregarding the ideals of socialism. To date what have these hypocrites sold of since they came to power in 1997 (this is an ongoing article which I cannot possibly compose in one go since there are so many national industries that have been disposed of since 1997).

DERA (Defence Evaluation Research Agency)
Royal Mail
London Underground
British Energy
Council Housing

(The picture accompanying this article allures to what kind of people you will end up with if more and more of his daily services become more expensive by the day, suffice to say the government will need more than their largely defunct (in the sense of public appreciation of) police service to stop a hoard of him. It is not for nothing that the government is buying up large amounts of riot gear in what will most likely prove to be one of the hottest summers in memory - in both senses.)

Wednesday, 11 March 2009

A few heres and a few theres

I picked this up from ConservativeHome, where a lovely little eurocract named 'Justin' posted this:

As a Conservative campaigner, (I am already working hard to get our London MEPs, headed by Charles Tannock, re-elected. Unlike Mr Helmer, I'll be focussing of the many positive aspects that membership of the EU brings to member states like Britain. Here's a recap of what they are:

Safer and Cheaper Flights

The EU has provided us with not only safer flights but also cheaper flights and increased competition between carriers registered in the Member States. Cheaper flights are the knock-on effect of a huge improvement in air traffic management and increased competition.

Student Exchange Programmes

Within the last 10 years the EU has created different education programmes in order to give students the possibility to experience different national cultures and broaden their personal horizon. Up to now 1.2 million students have benefited from the ERASMUS Programme and many more are expected to experience it in the future.

The Single Market

The Single Market is one of a kind as it guarantees ‘free movement' of people, goods, services and capital. At a practical level, it provides the possibility for EU citizens to live, work, study and do business throughout the EU, as well as enjoy a wide choice of competitively priced goods and services.

Protection of Intellectual Property

Intellectual property deals with two areas: industrial property and copyrights. Basically, it means that you are not allowed to use somebody else's ideas, for example, if your best friend has written lyrics to a song, you can not publish it in your name. The EU's efforts in this area have resulted in laws aiming at protecting company's or individual's knowledge.


Peace in Europe was first created when an alliance was made between Germany and France and the European Coal and Steel Community was founded. Europe has come along way since with a lasting peace amongst its Member States. International security is now a major issue for the EU: with increasing threats to a peaceful society in different areas of the world, the EU has put in place many policies to combat such problems.

The Euro

The single currency, the Euro, is now part of our everyday life but not all of its benefits are well known. From the practical advantages of travelling with a single currency, to the benefits of economic growth, to the strengthening of the EU international role and its political integration, the introduction of the euro has achieved much more than people expected.

Regional Funds

Unity and solidarity are some of the most significant aims for the EU. One important reason why the European regional policies have been created is because the EU is of the opinion that equal standards and rights should be provided to all citizens.

Cheaper and Better Phone calls

The liberalisation of the telecommunication markets in 1998 and the ongoing development in the field of technology have resulted in a steady decrease in prices within the EU. This means that it is cheaper to call your friends and family and choose between different operators.

Consumer Protection

NEW: Consumer protection and the safety of food in the European Union are two issues that have always gone hand in hand. The Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General's main responsibility is to provide laws and regulations on the safety of food and consumer rights.

A Healthier Europe

The public health issues dealt with by the EU are numerous and cover a number of different areas. They concern both men and women, young and old. The EU has also introduced the European health insurance card that is your guarantee if you should fall ill when going abroad.

Environmental Protection

In the EU, environmental issues including initiatives concerning protection have been underlined as some of the most important points not only for discussion but also for action. For instance, the EU is leading the "Kyoto" drive to reduce the air pollution that causes global warming.

Equal Opportunities - Against Discrimination

The promotion of equal opportunities and the fight against Discrimination are considered some of the most important issues within Europe and many directives have been put in place to combat inequalities that occur in the Member States. 2007 is officially the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All. Additionally the "Roadmap for equality between women and men 2006-2010" was launched outlining 6 priority areas for EU action on gender equality.

External Trade

External trade for Europe has always been very important to the success of the European Union. In recent years our level of trade has increased and we are continuing to grow as major players in the world of trade. Today, the EU accounts for 20% of global imports and exports and is now the world's biggest trader.

This is what he got in reply which is equally entertaining:

For Justin

Safer and Cheaper Flights

Could have been achieved with a open skies treaty. The EU has been dragging its heels over such a treaty with the USA.
Student Exchange Programmes
Why should the majority care. Erasmus is a programme to promote the EU
The Single Market
Not the same as free trade, brings a huge mass of regulation and stops free trade with non EU countries.
Protection of Intellectual Property
We didn’t have laws on that before? News to me. No doubt when China joins the EU, the real problem will be solved.
Without the EU the Belgians would no doubt have invaded Bulgaria. NATO and the cold war are irrelevant?
The Euro
Screwed Ireland and Spain by inflating the bubble, so led to a bigger bust. Is creating huge dislocations today because countries are not able to devalue.
Regional Funds
Taking our cash, spending half of it here, and demanding we be grateful for it.
Cheaper and Better Phone calls
We led the way in liberalisation, not the EU
Consumer Protection
Presumably before hand, we were all dying of food poisoning. Much of this regulation is just protectionism, and the rest we could have done ourselves anyway.
A Healthier Europe
EU restrictions on working hours led to a shortage of doctors in our hospitals.
Environmental Protection
You are joking right? The CFP has completely denuded our seas of fish. CAP has led to over use of fertiliser and loss of habitat. EU countries talk a great game on CO2, whilst subsidising coal miners.
Equal Opportunities - Against Discrimination
Feminist activism on a continental scale. Men cannot get a beter deal on life insurance despite dying earlier, women on car insurance despite being more careful drivers.
External Trade
They stop it. They screw the poorest in the world with agricultural tariffs.

The EU is essentially an anti freedom organisation. Unfortunately only the cost message will bear fruit though.


For Justin....The facts:
By 2008 Britain will have made total contributions to the European Community (EC) Budget of £230.4 billion gross or almost £68.2 billion net.
By the end of the current EC budget period Britain will have made estimated total contributions to the EC Budget of £315.4 billion gross and £101.4 billion net.
By 2007 Britain had an accumulated trade deficit with the other EU member states of £383.7 billion.
The Common Agricultural Policy costs Britain at least £16.8 billion per annum.
The Common Fisheries Policy costs Britain at least £3.275 billion per annum.
Over-regulation on business costs Britain at least £28 billion per annum.
In 2008 membership of the European Union costs Britain almost £65.675 billion per annum gross or almost £55.775 billion per annum net.
GDP is £1,459 billion. Tax:GDP ratio is 36.8% (excluding Council Tax which is fixed). Therefore 2% more GDP would be approximately £10.73 billion more tax every year.
Source: 2008 Budget Report

£14.6 billion would enable the basic rate of income tax to be cut by 3.65 pence. It would alternatively enable the Personal Allowance to be increased by £2,703, so that you would earn £2,700 more than you currently do before paying tax - taking millions of lower paid workers out of charge.

The combined benefit of £10.73 billion more tax revenues and saving the £14.6 billion paid to the EU would enable the basic rate of income tax to be cut by 6.23p, or increase the personal allowance by £4,685.
Source for calculations: HMRC Ready Reckoner for 2007-08

This is my contribution:

I find that it must be much to the detriment of the EU that all their ad hoc arguments about their relevance can be so easily derided on an online comment section where we can assume that the majority of people are not politicians nor judicial people with extensive knowledge of institutional law of the EU as well as the indigenous workings of the nomenclature of law in the UK (not to mention that people are just that ordinary people who can spot the cracks in the EU bubble without them even trying very hard.)

We want a loose trade agreement with the EU. That is it. You can only ignore the people so longe before they do something wholly undemocratic - this will be to the detriment of the EU not the UK.

While we are selling things

I wonder, in the wake of selling public property, should we not also consider selling the BBC, the MoD, RAF, Navy and why not also the army? Surely there must be a contractor out there who can perform these services better than some snobby old civil servant who has spent too much time behind his desk and too little time in the real world where we live. Has he not seen the overwhelming support for privitisation of all things public recall what a fantastic success the sale of DERA was and how profoundly the public and the National Audit Office supported the goverment to rid itself of this awful institution which did nothing good, whatsoever, for the continuted excellence of the state of Britain.


Monday, 9 March 2009

Interesting Graph

Where are we going?

Sunday, 8 March 2009

A preference

Personally I would prefer all countries to have their own currency, foods and Traditions, that was part of the enjoyment of traveling abroad, it is these things that make being human interesting, so what if it gets in the way of the Globalists.

We are Humans, not Numbers and commodities and the World should be operated with that fact in mind other wise you end up with what we have now, companies like Haliburton lobbying for Wars of plunder using our children as cannon fodder and Millions dead.