What a stupid stupid woman...

No, it is not Marry fucking Riddell actually it is the Toynbee woman this time.

In my political lifetime, I have never seen a more callous or inept crew in charge

Or, in my political lifetime I have never seen a government dealt such a rotten hand, with no easy solutions, no money to spend, no joy to bring and nothing feasible to offer but misery.

Still, let's pretend that's not true eh?

Though I suppose the article might be half convincing if:

a) other countries all over the world were boosting welfare spending. In reality most are imposing far more severe cuts than the present UK government,

b) Ms Toynbee ever had a good word to say about any Tory leader still alive, and

c) the prevalence of a culture where people see others live off a multiplicity of benefits which rewards them far more than any job they have any serious prospect of holding down is truly the myth that it is widely claimed to be by all leftist social commentators (and which directly contradicts the experience of most 'normal' citizens).

Probably one of the greatest pieces this month

Here is the link.

And here's the full piece.

Twenty-one years after being overthrown by her party's pro-euro faction, Margaret Thatcher still continues to exert an enormous gravitational pull on British political life. With The Iron Lady film soon to be released, there has already been much speculation about whether she should be given a state funeral (in fact, and sadly for Labour, Thatcher's death is more interesting than Ed Miliband's entire life).

As Charles Moore recently wrote, what other modern British prime minister, aside from Churchill, would be worthy of a biopic? (Blair has been portrayed on several occasions, but always as a slightly comedic salesman or trendy vicar.)

So it's entirely fitting that, as official papers now reveal, Mrs Thatcher was so modest that she insisted on paying £19 for an ironing board. As this paper reports:

Files released by the National Archives under the 30-year rule include a note about the cost of refurbishing the Prime Minister’s official residence, in which Baroness Thatcher pointed out that she and her husband, Denis, used only one bedroom and already had their own crockery.

She wrote: “I will pay for the ironing boards and other things, like sufficient linen for the one bedroom we use. The rest can go back into stock. MT”

As a rule the great leaders are not made great by having the most lavish balls, the swankiest private jets or the grandest titles. Looking back, it was obvious that the New Labour project would end in dismal failure when its leaders began lavishing a fortune on new wallpaper, sofas, and grace and favour mansions. And David Cameron – the £680,000 of taxpayer's money he spent refurbishing Downing Street does not bode well.

Of course we can't entirely blame Cameron, just as we can't entirely blame MPs for making the taxpayers fund their lifestyles. Thatcher grew up in an era of hardship and penny-pinching, but she also lived in an age of high social solidarity and restraint. Politicians rarely cheated because they were more likely to see the taxpayers as people like them; there were also a greater sense of national solidarity, and though religion was in decline, the general climate was still strongly influenced by Biblical prohibitions. When did all this change? Depending on political allegiances, once can either blame the 1960s or the 1980s, although personally I think things started to change in the 1990s, when conspicuous consumption became the norm, bling came into fashion, and the typical song format changed from "I love you" to "I love me".

It is not that people are more selfish – there is still plenty of altruism about, as the case of the woman who gave a kidney to a lady she met at a dinner party illustrates – but rather there are no social restraints or taboos or pressures forcing not-very-altruistic people to behave themselves. Like when Thatcher came to power, we're entering a period of austerity, when hundreds of thousands are losing their jobs and belts are being tightened across the land. Yet we also have among the richest Cabinets in history, with a prime minister worth somewhere in the low eight figures.

In Ireland the shock of financial meltdown has been met, by many accounts, with surprising levels of social solidarity; people have agreed to defer loans to people who might lose their homes; civil servants have handed over money from their pensions to help pay off the national debt. It's not quite Bedford Falls, the setting for Frank Capra's It's A Wonderful Life; that film continues to bring tears to tipsy eyes every Christmas because it shows how much social solidarity can help a community overcome financial hardship, but it's heading in the right direction. In contrast, Britain now displays one of the major symptoms of low social capital – when the rich do not feel obliged to help out those less fortunate to them. In the past decade less than £10,000 has been gifted to the exchequer by British citizens; why aren't any of our mega-rich Cabinet donating money? David Cameron's catchphrase "we're all in it together" was so pathetic (in the old sense of the world) because it was so plainly untrue.

Maybe I'm doing the man down, and secret papers will reveal in 30 years' time that he spent all his weekend caring for Aids orphans and puppies: but Cameron, unlike Thatcher, seems a fitting leader for our age.

Stolen Christmas Falklands Thoughts

1. What makes anybody think the US will help us?
2. They stitched us up in Suez.
3. They sat on their hands in the Falklands.
4. They sent guns to the IRA.

That is indeed a very special relationship, much like the one where the spouse is trying to, slowly, but surely, suffocate, his other half.

Really, why does Britain have so many useful idiots?

For example...

Christmas

All I want for Christmas is for the LibDems to be destroyed at the next poll. Merry Christmas.

Nick Clegg

...speaks five languages and rubbish in everyone of them. In the parlance of the good old British Army, what a mong.

The 'yoof' of today

I would just like to entertain fellow readers by showing them the following remark, issued by a privately-schooled relative of mine, a young lad in his late teens. The sort of person who, unfortunately, is the future of this country.

Hate dikheads that think there all big but clearly there not!!

Now I believe that if my analysis is correct, what he was trying to say was

'I hate dick-heads, that think they are all big, but clearly they are not!!'.

Thank you Labour. Well done.

What now and what of UKIP?

How on earth will this affect UKIP? I am totally at loss, perhaps we can call it "FU" or "FUUK" as in 'Fuck You United Kingdom' or 'Fiscal Union without United Kingdom'? Reader suggestions are welcome.

"Their views on immigration are stupid and myopic, but that is true of much of the public." - Amol Rajan

Ukip has policies far beyond Europe, and its members are generally patriotic, pinstriped types. Their views on immigration are stupid and myopic, but that is true of much of the public. As the whole European federalist project disintegrates, Ukip will appear prescient, and voters will give them credit.

Source to the person who thinks the general public is stupid. Clearly a vote winner that one.

11.11.11

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

We can see you...

This blog has been going strong now for a good few years, in fact throughout my time at university which is slowly nearing its end. It was set-up with the intent of promoting the destruction of the EU in every form, having realised early on that such a sinister project and ploy had been given far too much space by pushy politicians with broken moral compasses.

And to this we add the latest gimmick that there is suddenly a new grouping in Westminster that is supposedly 'eurosceptic' (don't flatter yourself boys; real eurosceptics know what a kin looks like and you are not one). First of all before we go into to the details of this absolutely non-sensical prospect lets consider the media.

Whenever ministers or a group of say more than 10 people aspire to convene or project something akin to real conservative principles the media have something not too dissimilar to a political erection. The like and metaphor of which would not even be tolerated in the most violent pornographic flicks. Even the adult entertainment world has the sense not to go too far in its sexual exploration for it can be dangerous to accommodate every single fetich in the world. By strange comparison the British media has no such reservations with its response to political events. Instead they go 'all-in' and respond with grandiose and euphemistic pieces of how all of a sudden, we have a minister, a true leader, who has finally seen the light and wisdom of the electorate.

Yet they do not even wonder why it has taken more than 38 years for a seemingly clever person to reach the conclusion that the EU is not good for Europe nor mankind and particularly not the latter.

Hence one should always take the media with a couple of pounds of salts for they are unbelievably gullible and are very much signed up to the party line, and as such will offer no real journalism and criticism where it is truly due and needed.

We do not need celebratory gunshots from hacks who think they have spotted what might be perceived as a bit of right-wing leg, we want to know that if that is really what it is then why the flaming feck has it not been shown before? Why all of a sudden? Do they think we are so stupid that we can see or feel political expediency when it is being shoved down or neck on a daily basis?

Then of course we have the hacks who have had a sudden epiphany, a change or heart or a change in salary is more likely. Either way one must question the reason for reading such tosh when the authors revise one of their most fundamental principles (vis a vis that the EU is a force for good) in the face of mounting opposition from, well, everyone. But it is not just that, a truly brave journalist, and one worth reading, would be he who dared stand his ground and defend his principles. Surely, one must be allowed to trust in and believe in the EU as a force for good, most electorates of most countries would disagree, but a brave man nonetheless. And one whose's opinions would be worth reading.

But this, this sudden outburst or patriotism? Jingoism? Bellicosity? I do not know what to call it. Either way this government has given away more power to the EU in a shorter timeframe than any other government before them, yet they want us to believe that overnight they rediscovered their people, their real political creed, the flag and most importantly their principles.

They truly do take us for fools.

I am often rather upset by Mr North's constant cynicism towards the ultimate goal of cutting loose the chimera that is the EU from the UK. Surely someone somewhere must be doing something good to further that goal? I am always pleasantly surprised whenever I read anything regarding a politician picking a fight with the EU, and then of course I go to Mr North's blog to find out what is actually going on. The truth is he has been playing this game much longer than me, and he knows the EU better than quite frankly anyone. Though I fully intend to have an autonomous mind, I am of the opinion that when a man has been vindicated as many times as Mr North one should really start to heed his words. And they are easy enough to replicate; this is the most europhile government we have ever had, the Tories are not eurosceptic and they will never ever hold an in/out referendum.

Thought of the day

We do not need a "closer union" we need a closed-down union.

Amazing what greatness can come to you during a lunch break.

Smear by Association

UKIP scares the bejeesus out of the three main parties and their shills in the media because on their big single issue they better represent the opinion of the majority of the British public, as demonstrated in opinion poll after opinion poll. It's therefore necessary to denigrate them wherever possible and to portray a party which represents a wholly mainstream view of the EU as "xenophobic" if not outright "racist" in order to make it seem beyond the pale and unacceptable by association.

This media strategy is so blindingly obvious and, to judge from those same opinion polls on public attitudes towards the EU, not in the least successful.

Autumn Update

Dear fellow bloggers, I would just like to add a quick update on my extended absence. My internship, as it turns out, is far longer that most of my peers' hence my time and energy on this blog is limited as of now. However term starts in just under a month and the 'informed' ranting will start again. Political events which I highly suggest you attend (I plan to) include Congress for an EU Referendum - hopefully you are not too cynical about us leaving the EU. I maintain that it will happen within 10-15 years.

French Riots

Might I just draw the attention of my fellow bloggers to the fact that French riots of 2005 lasted for a month and they were infinitely more violent than ours. Regardless of how you pitch it the French will always be crappier than us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_unrest_in_France

Side by Side

It is somewhat heartening to see that normal people are helping the police chase down the nimrods.

Link

London Calling

Nobody says you must laugh, but a sense of humor can help you overlook the unattractive, tolerate the unpleasant, cope with the unexpected, and smile through the day.

Our politicians are smiling in blissful ignorance for they wont do the necessary to quell the unreasonable walking the streets of London. And lest someone should like to play the racial card I advice you to look at the pictures. Black, white, yellow, brown and mixed - every ethnical colour of the rainbow is represented this ominous evening, and all the nimrods of each race are running a riot whilst our politicians look as paralysed as the French did a few years ago. Might it perhaps be an idea to ask the French how they sorted themselves out?

Hear the voice of those brave enough to venture out into the blistering infernos

Well as I write, various parts of London, Croydon and Birmingham are burning. But fear not, I have just read in the Guardian that the Home Affairs Select Committee are going to launch an inquiry into the rioting so that should resolve it PDQ.

This is no longer anything to do with the police shooting a gangster in Tottenham. It is nothing to do with police and community relations. It is nothing to do with police racism. This is about 30 years of a liberal ineffective education system. This is about people being allowed to behave as they wish without any consequences. This is about pandering to to peoples rights with no regard to responsibilities. This is about a criminal justice system that is totally ineffective and that holds no fear for criminals. This is about failing to imprison violent and persistent offenders.

This is the legacy of Blair, Brown, Cameron etc. This is the legacy of the liberal hand wringers who just want to help all these poor offenders and never set boundaries or consequences. Your chickens have come home to roost. The blame for all this will no doubt be pointed elsewhere. Last week the police were criticised for being too hard on protesters. This week we are too soft. When the ashes are raked over this will need a wholesale change in policies not just laying the blame at the door of the police, a la MacPherson.

This is not a popular uprising such as the Arab states as some cretin suggested. This is about 2% of the population who have been taking the piss for years with impunity from the justice system. The police can sort it out but the liberal hand wringers might have to accept baton rounds and a few cracked skulls. If you cannot accept that then let them carry on. The Government might have to have a rethink on cutting police officer numbers, and before they cut payments to officers for being riot trained and for being called back to work they need to think that one through. Thousands of police officers have been called in to help tackle the rioting tonight. Cut the payments and next time you will find no one answering the phones. Most of us are devoted to the job and are happy to take all the crap and criticism and inevitable shaftings, but don't expect it for nothing.

And to round it all off we have Mary fucking Riddell.

We "care"

There have been some rather disturbing events in Norway as of late. Not wishing to distract from the scale and magnitude of events, nor their geopolitical influence if any (the man appears to be plain deprived of his senses, no religion involved). I will focus instead on how we, supposedly, care.

It is common for my generation to respond to a crisis with a very typical form of gesture. This gesture is held in high regard on the vastness that is the internet. What you do is simply to attach some form of symbolic imagery of the event, and attach it to your profile picture on Facebook. Once this is completed your moral duties have been satisfied and you and others will labour under the aegis that you are a magnanimous and compassionate being. This imagery is usually removed within a week, the time usually allocated for a media event to pass, so that the MSM can spin into frenzy over something new, something which sells and preferably something which is utterly sensationalist to satisfy our fix for human misery. Not our misery of course, but someone else's.

It is a disgusting practise.

It is disgusting because no one really does care, but they want people to think that they do, they want to conjure an idealistic portrait of themselves in the minds of their patrons and friends. The latter will follow suite of course, they will be drawn to this gesture like mosquitos to a fire light. It is like drugs for the self-righteous brigade. For of course were you to point out this hypocrisy, were you to underline the notion that they are reaping the benefits of misery and destruction for their own personal gain, to say just to what extent it is wrong... you are castigated and castrated of any voice and reason you once had.

Challenging the accepted notion of false adolescent compassion is akin to social suicide.

For how could they truly 'care', how could they possibly attach any form of sentiment to people thousands of miles away, people they do not know, never met but briefly on BBC1. It is a common trait amongst traditionalists to highlight the strength of the human spirit in adversity and pain. There might have been true compassion once, a long time ago, when there was more to life than your appearance and what shows you follow on E4.

No, my generation cares so much for the victims in Norway that they place a little norwegian flag in the bottom of their profile picture, let it sit there for about a week, then they revert back to what they had prior to this incident, which they have so cleverly exploited for seven days. They revert back to the time in place where they were comfortable, happy and their conscience was as it is now; untarnished and untroubled by minions of people blown to bloody pieces thousands of miles away in a foreign country which they cannot even place on a map let alone pronounce.

That is the true extent of the human spirit in 2011; sympathy without compassion.

Balls

I am guessing that no British politician has the balls to do anything about this.

The fall of Cameron? I am taking bets

So dear friends and readers; who think this might just lead to the fall of Cameron? (fingers crossed, touch wood, and all that bollocks)

£5 says it does.

Any takers?

Bollocked by Hague via the EU

What a joke you are, Hague. Do you not realise the exponentialisation in the number of Conservative and ex-Conservative voters who hold you in contempt and who have no intention ever of voting Tory again without the promise of a referendum on withdrawal within three months of the next election?

I have voted Conservative in every general election since my enfranchisement (several) and I would rather stay at home and see Labour burn the economy to the ground than vote for quislings like you.

You are a damned idiot. There is an electoral premium to offering voters a referendum. Do you think you are going to win our votes by telling us in a Telegraph article that we are in the EU to help spread the EU's special brand of freedom? You are ****ing deranged if you think that your pompous and delusional words will do anything but sicken the millions of right and left wing people in the UK who have no illusions about what the EU is.

Who wrote that article for you? They should be shot. Did you write it? Do you really think we are buying this bull "In the EU but not run by the EU". We are imprisoned by a myriad EU laws; your new little law is like a prisoner in a prison cell making a declaration that he will accept no further shackles on his body.

Take your article and shove it. I can barely believe how much the Conservative Party sickens me these days, though I can barely believe what a pathetic excuse for a leader you are. I thought I'd vote Tory until the day I died, but I didn't figure that spineless, gutless, delusional quislings would take over the party and fail to secure this nation's future by not having the guts to extricate us from the EU quicksand which is threatening our prosperity and freedom. Are those little red boxes really worth it, Hague? Are your dinner dates with EU friends really worth sacrificing your principles and this country, Cameron?

We should be in EFTA, not the EU, or negotiate a separate bilateral trade treaty that suits us perfectly, and then we can get on with rehabilitating our country as a Hong Kong style economic tiger on the edge of the continent. Funnily, Norway and Switzerland get by outside the EU. And you, William Hague, should go down to Beachy Head and follow the Conservatives' electoral prospects in 2015 down to where they deserve to go for so long as you ignore and deride the will of the British people to leave the European Union.

H/T Fausty

Hacking and Tapping

I would just like to inform interested readers about the technological details the media seems to ignore. Now, as far as I am aware there has been no hacking but there has been tapping of telephones. This might be a battle of semantics but lets see where it gets us.

Hacking a phone is very difficult. Most of our politicians use the BlackBerry for a very specific reason: it is very impossible to hack. So difficult indeed that Indian spooks gave up and forced RIM (the makers of BlackBerry) to give them the 'keys' for the phone (i.e. the software encryption code). This should give the reader some clue as to level of intricacy involved in hacking mobile phones, and BlackBerrys in particular, used by all government and major corporations because they are deceptively hard to enter without permission.

What you need to ask yourself now is this: could a NoTW private investigator accomplish what the entire Indian secret service could not? The smart money is on 'no'. Hence we can but conclude that the media, as always when it comes to technology, got it wrong. Whenever they talk about malign computer breaches they speak of 'hackers' as well even though the correct term is 'cracker' - two very different sides of the coin.

What they with all certainty did do was not phone hacking (because they do not have the brains nor the equipment to do that - GCHQ does but they are a government funded spy department with 20,000+ employees and a billion pound+ budget). What they did do was phone tapping which Wikipedia defines as 'the monitoring of telephone and Internet conversations by a third party, often by covert means.' This is much more within the confines of their technological expertise. It is not particularly hard to do if you have the right stuff. Joe Bloggs on the street could do it with some basic instructions. And by the looks of it Joe Bloggs on the street did do the tapping, judging by the fantastic mess they have created as a result of their amateurism.

A snippet of news

Lets take a sample from the current political news and see how much of it is EU inspired malaise and rot. Ah, the Telegraph seems a reasonable place to start (and end).

Taxpayer handed huge bills for compensation claims; Our good old friend the ECHR which is supposedly not part of the EU even though the ECJ refers to it in its ruling and paradoxically enough, the ECHR refers to the ECJ in its rulings...

Give Scots more power, says Major; Devolution such an excellent idea. It has been the intent of the EU, since time immemorial, to break-up the United Kingdom. They are doing a good job of it.

First trucks, now trains: how EU rules kill off our industries; This is probably my favourite. EU procurement rules which only the UK seems to apply, and are at the same time stupid enough to not realise that there is no such things as a 'good european' - the EU contracts are not exactly piling up, now are they Mr Cameron?

Farage on good form, shame about UKIP

H/T Calling England

We need to talk about the EU, eh sorry, Kevin?

One should attempt to introduce a piece with humour if possible. I did so with this piece in trying to spoof the highly successful We Need to Talk About Kevin by Lionel Shrivel. I found the novel remarkably boring when I read it some years ago but it has the virtue of having a very useful title with which one can lay the groundwork for more important matters such as the vexations upon the British, well, everything related to Brussels.

Now there has been one could say an upsurge as of late, telling the hoi polloi that our cabinet is suddenly drawn into the hellfire, the hellfire of euroscepticism with such heavy weights as Steve Hilton and Oliver Letwin, apparently, concluding that we should withdraw. I will echo the words of Mr North, of EU Referendum, who was the inspiration for starting this blog two years ago, when I say that for our dear leaders to all of a sudden reinvent their eurosceptic credentials is complete and utter bullshit. They know that they cannot run this country because they have given away all power required to do so. Though I contradict myself with a previous post, our MPs must truly be morons if they all of a sudden are not content with the status quo with which they have entangled themselves. They did this, they know what needs to be done to get out of it but with Cameron in charge with his rag-tag gang of ministers we wont be seeing any change soon.

And thus we reach the purpose of this post which hopes to have the chutzpah to come to ends with certain anomalies we face. Lets consider some likely events which will feature in future volumes of the country.

1. Cameron will not call and EU Referendum
2. Red Ed will most certainly step down as Labour leader
3. Parliament will eventually have to accept the will of the people.

You might consider point number three odd given the track record of this ignominious parliament who spits in the face of its benefactors (the people) before relenting to its will. But I have faith in its worth given the vicissitudes of life meaning we live not in an isotropic world. It changes.

Now Mr North and other bloggers notably Autonomous Mind do not share my optimism with regard to the EU; I believe that within 10-15 years the UK will have left the EU for good. Their scepticism is warranted given that they have seen so much more of the leviathan that is the EU than I have, and have lived through some of the most awkward moments of our relationship with it. Which, we can conclude, has led to nothing but Pyrrhic victories for Britain and the Commonwealth. For all their faults (and sometimes they just want to make you break down and cry) I have faith in the British people.

Reverting back to point number one; Cameron will not call a referendum but will his successor? There are two men who are in a position to claim the Tory throne after Cameron, and possibly one woman. First we talk obviously of Osborne and Boris. First of all we have to accept that UKIP on current form wont be taking us anywhere near the exit. Sad but true. We have to place our hope with the Tories unfortunately and maybe, in the future, Labour.

Would George Osborne call an EU referendum? Tough question, the man must be fully aware regarding the infuriating amounts of gold we pay this pointless piece of huff-puff in return for nothing. He must know just how much money could be saved by simply withdrawing, by reinvigorating the economy, renewed fishing fleets, reinvented industries freed from Brussels red-tape, a financial services industry not subservient to the ones in France and Germany and perhaps even an art-market where we are not consistently denied competition because of EU rules. And perhaps most, there would hopefully not be any fucking carbon trading or any other bollocks like that. Wishful thinking anyway. Osborne knows the numbers but it all boils down to whether he has the backbone to do anything about it. My answer to that would be no. He likes to be part of an elite, a club for the powerful, paid for by the not so powerful. Like Cameron he has never held a real job. One should be most cautious of such people. They lack perspective of how difficult money can be to come by.

What of Boris Johnson?

At this point I couldn't be bothered to continue this post because it is pointless.

Rage Returns with Term

I am on summer intermission/hiatus where the broad theme of freedom will be heavily considered: how is it that a state and its government, which cannot even keep the pavements clean, have the right to tell its citizens what they can and cannot eat? It reminds me of a certain quote by one William Ralph Inge "In dealing with Englishmen you can be sure of one thing only, that the logical solution will not be adopted."

We need to step up our game ladies and gentlemen.

Who will you vote for?

Seeing as the Coalition has turned into precisely what we in the blogosphere said it would; New Labour all but in name, who are you going to vote for in 2015 (if not earlier)?

One should not bask in the glory of self righteousness but there is, inevitably, something regal, not to say grand, about being right again, again and again... Fret not, for I jest, but turning on a note of seriousness instead; every serious blogger from Mr North to Guy Fawkes said that this venture would go tits-up and they would just frolic in Blair's shadow, for secretly they adore him. That is highly inconvenient for us who don't, those of us who cannot find a single person who has been more detrimental to life in Britain, on every echelon, as a suitable analogy for comparison.

He truly is a nation-state destroyer.

The Americans have a very special military honour bestowed upon officers of absolute distinction. The honour is known as 'General of the Armies' and it is the equivalent of being a six-star general which is an exorbitantly high rank by modern day comparison. I mention this because Blair and New Labour ought to be bestowed this regal order for their dis-services to the United Kingdom. But what is more, the Coalition should do some deep soul searching before they enter the next election. Either they fight in Blair's shadow with the empty mimicry and zero principle approach to politics that was his zest. Or, they fight on their principles, from the spirit of their hearts; for what they truly believe in and for what is right.

I do not believe that 646 people who are well above average intelligence cannot see the problem with bowing to a foreign court, to disable the defences of the realm, to give money to those who do not deserve it, to those who would rather rip of the arm that feeds them, let alone bite it. It cannot be that 646 people of such statute, who have fought a campaign into that Mother of all Parliaments, should just lay down their arms and accept that status quo. I cannot accept such frugal subservience to power. People must have higher aspirations for their country, and especially MPs, than what currently passes for informed governance of Great Britain.

For make no mistake, if they do not change their ways, we will change their place come the next election. Right now there is no discernible difference between the three main parties, all we know is that the country would be better run without any of them.

HMS Invincible

You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.

Quote of the day

"We are so liberal we will eventually disappear"

A nugget of truth

The reason you get paid for a job is because they generally suck. If they were enjoyable you would do them for free with a smile or even pay to do them.

And this is the essence of life.

Scottish Independence implies English Independence

This is from the European Communities Act 1972, the bill with which Edward Heath, then PM, took the United Kingdom of Great Britain into the European Economic Community (EEC) as it was then known, and which has now transmogrified into the European Union.

This is from the introductory text from the above mentioned bill

An Act to make provision in connection with the enlargement of the European Communities to include the United Kingdom, together with (for certain purposes) the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Gibraltar.

You will notice my emphasis in bold. As has most likely struck most other ardent euro-withdrawalists, like myself, today's election outcome in Scotland puts the break-up of the United Kingdom back on the table.

If the United Kingdom ceases to exists as a political and sovereign entity then its commitment to the international acts and agreements signed in its name must be rendered moot, since there is no longer an entity in existence which can honour the accords within those agreements.

If Scotland breaks up the union we have one almighty constitutional crisis on our hands. Creating (or re-establishing) countries is usually seen as the business of Africa, but we are not South Sudan. This is and probably will continue to be a nation which, however much the socialists don't want it, shapes the events of the world to some extent. You will need to be a fantastic cynic or an unchangeable pessimist to deny this. If you still do then let me give you two events; Olympics 2012 and the Libyan crisis.

Moving on, if the United Kingdom is left to the books of history then England's membership of the EU will have to re-evaluated, it will have to be put to a new referendum. For there is no way that any politician could survive, today, signing up England to the EU. It simply is political suicide and they all know that as do we. For all Milliband's faults I think he is clever enough to realise that this would be a vote winner if actively put into their manifesto. And if they do put it into their manifesto so would every other party.

Hence it would appear, that the EU's policy of breaking up the UK (and that is their policy - Tony Blair did not grant Scotland devolution out of his good-natured heart) will lead to the EU losing one of its biggest sponsors namely England. One must not be too surprised at this stupendous policy; this is after all the EU. They employ only the greatest of fools and the most naive of politicians.

The wrong cast-iron guarantee

Will Scottish enthusiasm trumpet English indifference?

How very true...

The constitution

Quote of the Day

"Those who imagine that a politician would make a better figurehead than a hereditary monarch might perhaps make the acquaintance of more politicians."

- Margaret Thatcher

Monarchy

As is probably obvious by now, this humble blogger is a fervent monarchist when most of the world seems to be insisting that we change over to a republic to 'enter' the 21st century as it were. These are normally European countries who have republics or other forms of non-constitutional monarchy. They cannot really fathom why the Royal Family is held in such high regard, they sneer at their supposedly empty veneer, highlight their vices but conveniently forget their virtues. Virtues such as almost the entire family being members of the armed forces.

At the apex of feel-good spirit for the monarchy they still fail to see the attraction, and if they cannot see it now they probably never will. This country is a fervent monarchy and of that I am proud. It takes a lot of courage and a deep-rooted sense of conviction for a peoples to stay attached to such an old institution when seemingly all odds are against them. Of what odds do I speak? Those crafted by Mesrrs Blair and Brown.

They wonder why they were not invited. It was for a few very simple reasons.

Blair and Brown hate this country and their presence at the wedding would have turned the whole thing into a political gimmick for Blair, who loves the spotlight, and Brown who most likely would gone around accusing foreign dignitaries of being bigots. Their deliberate decision to open the floodgates and actively encourage unprecedented and irreversible nation-changing immigration, merely to 'rub the rights' nose in it' is a crime that should see them charged with treason. Their meddling with devolution has fragmented the home nations leading to inequity and resentment, and I would suppose, unfortunately, the eventual break-up of the United Kingdom. Their appalling handling of the economy has led to the worst economic situation in decades. Their obsession with multiculturalism and political correctness have ripped the unity of our once cohesive society and obliterated common sense from 'official' Britain. They took us into a war on a pack of lies, and underfunded our armed forces whilst doing so.

United we stand divided we fall; the monarchy has somehow managed to survive these two highly embarrassing excuses for statesmen. Which is remarkable for they arguable wielded more political power than the Lord Protector Cromwell ever did, and he was the first and only person ever to have instituted a republic on these isles.

Forever a Rebel?

Coming soon...

St George's Day; who are we?

This is a long standing issue which evokes a lot of arguments from both sides as to the answer to this question. It seeks to define a sort of line between patriotism and nationalism - where ones gratitude of the nation is flirting with ones disgust for the same. That is if we are to believe the status quo of course.

“Patriotism is proud of a country's virtues and eager to correct its deficiencies; it also acknowledges the legitimate patriotism of other countries, with their own specific virtues. The pride of nationalism, however, trumpets its country's virtues and denies its deficiencies, while it is contemptuous toward the virtues of other countries. It wants to be, and proclaims itself to be, "the greatest," but greatness is not required of a country; only goodness is.”
- Sydney J. Harris quotes (American Journalist and Author, He wrote a syndicated column, Strictly Personal, from 1944-86. 1917-1986)

I think this definition of the both types of 'pride' strikes the issue on the head.

Today is St. George's day but as is common in the UK you are not allowed to be proud of your culture for fear of insulting other cultures. That said, I would just like to state some recent polls: 72% identified themselves as Christians when asked what they identified themselves as - another 2% identified themselves as Muslim. The majority is thus not allowed to assert themselves for they might insult a Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, Jedi, Sikh or why not a Hindu. The problem is though that these groups are also English/British and they live under the English/British flag of government and carry a British passport so why are they raising qualms about English culture? That is precisely it though, most of them do not and are perfectly happy to wave the flag and join in the culture - it is the very vocal minorities however who are given media time and further hyped up and 'sensationalised' by the press which make it seem that the entire grouping has their opinions. In some cases it may be more than just a select minority but in most cases it is not and the government does not have the backbone to stand up to its own people because of religious sensitivities. I have of course not raised the most annoying issue that when minorities seek to celebrate their culture all doors are open regardless of whom they might insult, denying them their celebration is denying them their culture which is awful I completely agree but why is this so vigorously imposed upon Christians (i.e. most people) but not on the minority religions? Another shortcoming of this government, what a surprise.

Further the left is sorely not acknowledging that in other countries not asserting the national culture would be an act of great insult. I am sure you can think of some countries for yourself but just to name a few; USA, China or India are a few examples. Their gratitude for their nation is at times (quite often I should say) rather jingoist or why not say bellicose chauvinism - they often have the problem, as Harris points out, that they cannot comprehend or down right deny the country's deficiencies. But regardless of this, and the elements within, the population which deny the shortcomings are still proud of their nation irrespective of what we might think of them.

This is a typical conversation that often pops up here and there.

1 - "Gosh, I am proud to be English!"
2 - "Why are you proud of something you cannot control?"
1 - "What do you mean?"
2 - "You never chose to be born in England but you are proud to be an Englishmen - it makes no sense to be proud of something which is beyond your control."

The above conversation opens up a very difficult and profound discussion about existentialism. Nr. 2 presumes that Nr. 1 cannot possibly be proud over something, a decision, which is beyond his control - this argument is used a lot, I have heard it myself several times and find it equally ridiculous each time. But here comes the fallacy of Nr. 2's argument he presumes that he knows that we did not have a choice i.e. he is assuming, through his argument, that the choice of birth place is outside of our control. In doing so he assumes knowledge about life before birth. This is precisely as ridiculous as it sounds. How can he possibly know about life before this? He cannot, but he is claiming to do so through his use of argument which makes it a rather dim argument (not to say a rather dim conversationalist).

If one were to get even more drawn into this debate we could for arguments sake say that possibly we did have a choice in choosing our birth place. For example we chose England because in our previous life we led a very poor and monotonous life as a suricate on the steps of Africa, this time we would like to try something more exiting e.g. as a human being on the hills of Shropshire. You might say this is a ridiculous line of thought but then I must remind you that Hinduism (including Yoga, Vaishnavism, and Shaivism) is based upon a similar principle: If they lead bad lives as human beings they will be reincarnated as a lesser creature. It is all based on karma which is literally the sum of one's actions. Bad karma means bad reincarnation, if we for example deem lice as bad then it would be quite sad for the person in question to reincarnated as this. Perceptions also have to be taken into account of course. Good and Bad is not a universal scale but is decided upon by the individual. Just because society teaches us that some actions are bad and others good that does not mean that it really is so, there is no empirical evidence to claim that one action is preferable to another based merely upon human emotional response to the actions.

Going back to St. George's day and if we were to give Nr. 2's argument the benefit of the doubt, then we can and should reply with; if we indeed have no choice of our birth place then we should at least be grateful that we had the good fortune to end up in England - whatever means of power, logic, randomness etcetera got us here. New Labour with much help from the Tories, it must be said, have quite successfully wrecked Britain as a standing nation-she is now on her knees-but there are still far worse places out there into which one could have been born, based upon the predisposition that we indeed have no control as to this plight (if one believes in destiny or is agnostic, then it would be mighty rude to the higher powers that be, to be ungrateful of their actions in placing us in England - they could just as well have dumped us in North Korea and then we would really be in the thick of it).

All in all, be proud to be English even if "society" tells you not to, they are wrong. For all the monologues thrown about in the world, in the blogosphere, in the media, in Whitehall and in the street, we have yet to create a dialogue on this issue. This is England and we are quite adverse to the kind of patriotism advocated by America but we do not like the non-patriotism as exhibited by Finland, somewhere in between lies England but until everyone stops talking and starts listening we wont rediscover 'our' brand of patriotism.

Immigration and the cap

Seeing as we are 'allowed' to talk about immigration again, and the cat is out of the bag and all that, is it not odd that politicians are still lying to us?

The figure, not quoted by Mr Cameron, which tells you more about what is really happening, is the annual one for non-EU arrivals. For a long time now, that has been in the order of 300,000 a year. Add to it the illegals – 155,000 of whom, says Mr Cameron, were found to have been illegally claiming benefits. Then add EU citizens, who all have an absolute right to come here and use our public services. In sum, you have a society which, in large areas, would have been unrecognisable only 20 years ago. When Mr Blair declared, with apparent absurdity, in 1997, that Britain was a “young country”, perhaps he meant that he intended it to be something it had never been before. If so, he succeeded.

The upside is, I suppose, that voters appear to be privy to this state of affairs as well. None of the comments on this topic believe Cameron will do anything substantial (why are dependents of students given visas?) and if they do, they point out that it is far too late.

Only time will tell if they are right.

Oxymoron

'Socialist Worker' ...

Surely an oxymoron if there ever was one?

Thick as a Brick and still getting a degree. Welcome to the UK.

How long before someone musters the balls to say what everyone is thinking; Not everyone is clever enough to go to university. The sooner they realise this the more money they can save by stopping people studying mickey mouse degrees. And instead stick them in real vocational courses which will actually benefit them and their intellect. Oh yes I did go there; lo and behold, only a very tiny cohort of the population are clever enough to study STEM subjects. The rest are not. Do you know why? Because they are hard, very hard; it is not a coincidence that every great scientist and inventor hitherto had an intellect the size of Belgium. It is not a coincidence that all our literary works and historical accounts are written by people with an almost bizarre flare for language. History, Maths, Physics, Classics or what have you require commitment. Scholarship for the masses? Pull the other leg. How many people between 20-25 years of age, do you think are prepared to spend four years of their lives writing a thesis? Very few because it is very hard, very arduous, strenuous, nerve wrecking, stressful, harmful, damaging to your health. The only reward you get is a semi-pamphlet with your name on it written in golden letters, and a title - a title which only a handful of people in the world know enough about to provide informed judgement. That is the reward for scholarship.

But hey what do I know, why train scientists, engineers, writers, historians, musicians and doctors when it is clearly holistic therapists and puppeteers that Britain needs. We all know that they make enough cash to keep the welfare state going...

Update:

Having received two very incisive comments I thought I would share my experience of applying for bank internships this summer. Now before we go there I would just like to say that I am forced to apply to banks because my academic guideline (my tutor) is a complete moron. And for various reasons, best left undisclosed, I could not apply to what I really wanted to this summer. But such is life.

Banks have little time or regard for the politically correct liberal BS system that today is education in the UK. They do not believe in "soft" degrees such as Business Studies or Management. If you want to get a job with a top bank they will laugh at you if you present that. No, 9 out of 10 times the applicant has a degree in either Economics, Computer Science, Maths, Engineering, Physics or some combination or derivative of these. Naturally the banks are obliged to say that they do consider 'other' subjects as well. But this is largely smoke and mirrors. Very few if any interns have done any other degree that those stated above.

But it gets better.

On initial screening they effectively weed out all but people who are from 'target universities' - now there remains some uncertainty which these actually are. It is without doubt Oxbridge, LSE, Imperial and UCL. But then internet forums on this issue tend do disagree whether banks view Warwick and Durham as target universities as well. Safe to say only a very small number of people from non-target universities get through the initial screening process. Naturally some do, and good on them for theirs is an uphill struggle.

Then they move on to grades.

They are very blunt in this regard; top grades or nothing. They have a section where you can write about your special circumstances should your grades not be up to scratch [some banks - not all]. They look at your extra curricular, your societies, your charity support - they even have a special section for this, i.e. it is assumed that you do charity work. Naturally a lot of applicant make this section up for most do not do charity work. But it just goes to show what kind of people they expect to recruit.

Then they go on to psychometric testing.

To ensure that the applicant is not just lying on his application and CV (which they will check if you are successful) they make you do tests in maths and logic. These are timed tests. Typically it is a 20 minute test with 23 questions which require a lot of calculation. Rumour has it that the benchmark is quite low because they are so hard. The logic bit can be either reading and context or figure logic. Fun but demanding. Naturally you could get a friend to do this for you but they make you retake these tests at the assessment centre should you be invited.

Then there is a telephone interview.

This is to ensure that you are not Mr. BS and actually know a thing or two about banking and that you are who you say you are. This is quite easy most of the time, some people manage to fail it which is rather amazing, but most who have got to this stage pass it (so I am led to believe). They tend to ask mostly competency based questions and few technical, mostly because it is usually administered by the HR department of the company. Hence they know of nothing technical.

Then there is an assessment centre if you have got this far.

These tend to start at 0830 in the morning and end late in the afternoon. Where you are subject to two to three interviews by senior management, ranging from competency to technical interviews. Group discussions to test your ability to interact, presentations before managers, more psychometric testing. Also you tend to get lunch which is nice.

Depending if you suck or not they give you an offer. Mind you, they usually invite about 20 people to an assessment centre but only 30% of those get offers. But this differs from bank to bank.

Such is life in the sector which does not care about the government's multicultural targets, its diversity objectives and political correctness. Equality? They laugh at the word. They want the brightest people and will go through any length to get them.

3%

3%

(Very hard resisting clicking on that link, is it not?)