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?)

My Emails with UK Uncut

Email Nr 1, almost entirely lifted from George Pitcher

Dear UK Uncut,

Further education is hardly worth the Government investing in, if the standard of research behind Saturday’s student demo against spending cuts is anything to go by.

The breakaway group that headed for Piccadilly had evidently chosen their target, or “secret location”, well in advance: the grocers to Her Majesty, Fortnum & Mason. This target presumably represented to you, the inheritors of the finest traditions of direct action everything that was Cameronesque, fat-cat, exploitative and privileged.

To which the only reasonable response is the one that students might most readily recognise: “Duh!”

Fortnums is owned by the Weston family, which probably ranks third behind the Wellcome Foundation and all the Sainsbury trusts added together in the amount of money it gives away – yes, gives away in addition to the tax it pays – to exactly the causes that are close to the heart of UKUncut and the services that it was supposedly marching to maintain.

Now, pay attention at the back, especially the youth that I spotted in the Fortnums atrium holding a sign saying “Share the Wealth” without any apparent sense of irony. The Garfield Weston Foundation owns nearly 80 per cent of Wittington Investments, a company registered in the UK, which is the ultimate holding company of Associated British Foods, Fortnum & Mason and interior stylist Heal’s. Dividends flow upwards to the Foundation, principally from ABF given that retail is having a tough time and Fortnums has just been through a major investment programme, which then distributes grants (a word students may still be familiar with).

Typically, the Foundation distributes about £40 million a year, though in good times much more. A glance at the trustees’ report – I presume UKUncut’s organisers know how to use the internet – would reveal that the Foundation gives grants to schools and universities, as well as to hospitals and housing associations. The Weston Foundation gave £25 million, for instance, to Oxford University last year alone for the development of the Bodleian Library, so I hope any Oxford students who “occupied” Fortnums will honourably refrain out of shame from using that facility for the remainder of their studies, out of respect for the Westons.

There is barely a new college benefactors’ plaque in the country that doesn’t bear the Weston name. So much for “Share the Wealth” (you muppet). And it’s difficult to think of an institution more likely to step in to the gap left by Government funding. The trustees’ in their latest report explicitly say that they have prudently made some reserves because they “have also been mindful of the possibility of requests for urgent funding being made by charities which have had their funding from other sources cut due to the difficult economic conditions”.

So well done, you students. Of all the locations you could have picked, you’ve actually chosen to bite one of the hands that promises to feed you – and one of the most generous hands at that.
Not that these were particularly hungry protesters. Not exactly in the Jarrow tradition. I hear these sons and daughters of our bourgoisie made their way through the food halls to loot the fine wines and Champagne. Clearly close to the the harsh realities of the 21st-century.

Incidentally, I also hear that afternoon tea was served throughout on the fourth floor, with André undisturbed at the piano. Which I suppose means that it really was a thoroughly middle-class riot throughout – while the children played downstairs, their mummies and daddies were properly “kettled” upstairs.

So all I can say is 'thank you' for having comprehensibly pulled off one of the dumbest protests ever, and I must say I do not think I have ever seen such a pathetic spokesperson as was on BBC tonight – she was even more evasive than a real politician and that is saying something. You never even got a flying start, shame really, perhaps next time when you have learnt a thing or two about economics your impact might be more sustainable.

Kind Regards

XXXX XXXX

PS. Again I must just marvel at the sheer incompetence of the whole operation. I do not think I have ever seen anything quite so stupid.

Email Nr 2

Further I just noticed that you have put up a blog post titled 'Why Fortnum & Mason' http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/blog/blog-why-we-sat-in-fortnum—mason

Presumably you did this to screen yourselves from the incompetence you have shown in not doing ANY target research, seeing as the date of the blog is dated the 28th. It would have increased your credibility if you had posted it during the protest rather than after; retrospective defence is rather vacuous (google that word if you do not understand it, and I trust you understand how to use google), particularly since people like me and others have since the protest informed about the actual roots of F&M.

But again, thank you so much for the comedy it's been pleasure, truly.

Kind Regards

XXXX XXXX

UK Uncut Reply (who would have thunk it)

Listen XXXX, it is a little hard to post up blogs during a protest, and after it everyone got arrested and was in jail for over 24 hours. We did it as soon as we could.

We released a press released on the day, and there were also speeches inside F &M which explained our prior research with tax experts.

D

You see UK Uncut is such an organised gathering of intelligentsia (read: rag-tag random gathering of wannabe marxists on benefits with private education) that even its press officers get arrested. It is mighty funny that they did not ask their "experts" how to not get arrested in the first place. This of course being the same experts who told them to attack a charity...

I think I will have to extend them a big fat wet kiss if I ever see them, this really is priceless comedy.

UK Uncut Blog Post

(back to applying to banks.)

Graeme Archer; My Hero x

We don't visit the West End much, being adopted East Enders; but, just like characters in the Walford soap opera, we do make occasional forays Up West. Get yourself a treat, love, Keith says, tossing me a tenner. Get a cab 'ome. (OK I made that up). On Saturday I began to wonder what curse we were born under, because both occasions on which we've ventured into a W postcode recently have coincided with the descent into central London of several thousand violent hooligans. To make matters worse, other than in prompting me to write this piece, we appear to be cast as icons of the Tory middle-class, either (the first time) picking our way past chanting 'students' in order to buy a new table-lamp from John Lewis, or (Saturday) trying to take a cab to St Martin's Lane for the theatre (Ghost Stories, since you ask, and yes, it's very good). We had to walk from Holborn, thanks to the protestors. And this made me think.

Because, of course, whatever else Keith & I are, we're neither properly middle-class, nor characters of Austen-esque gentility. Neither am I by instinct anti-protest. In the 80s, I went on a spectacularly unsuccessful 'kiss-in' to protest the iniquity of Section 28 (no-one wanted to kiss me, predictably enough, which left the 'demo' somewhat lame). We both turned out to shout our disgust at Gordon Brown's fawning over the Chinese Olympic torch, as it made its shameful procession through our streets. My feelings towards climate-change camp border too strongly towards fondness for most readers of this website, I'd bet. And I have written, here, about my concerns over the leadership of the Metropolitan police. Watching the riots on Saturday, however, as we prepared to make our way into town, my over-riding feeling was gloominess. And something else it took a while to put my finger on.

You see, I read about the Miliband family's property empire, and reflect that our own household is never more than a handful of salary payments from homelessness. I listen to trades union leaders' hysterical speeches about very mild changes to public sector pension schemes, and am reminded that our guaranteed income in old age, other than what the state will give us, is (despite saving more than a quarter of our salaries every month into 'defined contribution' schemes): nothing. I watch BBC journalists breathlessly mouth their horror at the prospect of a small reduction in public sector staffing levels, and remember the thousands of colleagues I've lost to redundancy in the last few years. I wade my way through Polly Toynbee's sanctimonious and hypocritical rages about Tory tax-avoiders, and remember that I'm in that lucky band of people who are taxed at a rate you wouldn't believe (trust me: there is a bigger problem in our tax banding than the 50% rate), and that thanks to the Lib Dems, I can't look forward to this ever being reduced.

And then I saw Ed Miliband's boyish little face on the screen, mouthing platitudes to the crowd, at the same time as real violence started to happen. (Is this is one of life's rules? I wondered: Labour lose an election, so a cohort of the Left starts to vandalise central London, repeatedly?). And I thought about Keith, not just for the obvious reasons (we were going to the theatre to celebrate his birthday, and I could already feel I was going to write this piece, and he hates it when I mention him), but because he's my living, solid link to what Labour in government did to working-class men and women.

Every housing benefit payment that's higher than the mortgage of the people who fund it: the working-class pays for them. Every skilled job whose wage is suppressed by the immigration deliberately engineered by Labour: the working-class pays for them. Every school with more first languages than you can shake a stick at: the working-class pays for them. Every fat-cat council chief executive, every knighthood for services to banking awarded to any spiv who caught Mandelson's eye, every penny on every trillion of the debt interest: the working-class pays for them. Most of Blair's wars too: the working-class certainly pays for them.

And I thought, watching the blaze take hold at Oxford Circus: this is no more real than the play we're going to St Martin's Lane to see this evening. You don't get angry enough to throw a brick at the Ritz because of small reductions in the future growth of public sector spending. You can see it in Miliband's face: he's excited, yes, like any actor receiving the adulation of a multitude, but he's not enraged. He must have to practice really hard to simulate the emotion of anger.

I don't. Not any more, not after Saturday. Ed Miliband, until your party faces up to the squalid way it has treated the working-class; to admit that it has become a cypher for trades union bosses, student activists and various Hampstead millionaires; to wonder just what happened to your historic mission to empower the working man; until you've apologised for all this, then you can burn as many stupid paper horses, you can glue yourself to as many Top Shop windows, you can rant about Eton as much as you like. For nothing. We don't mind paying to watch a horror story in a West End theatre. But we'll never vote to put one into power at Westminster.

Source

Labour loves the TUC, whilst the rest of just wished they got a room

David Cameron must be so happy that his opponents are so comprehensibly stupid. Milliband speaks at the TUC rally and Balls has the balls to propose that there is another way even though they planned to HALVE the deficit in this parliament with their proposals. In the meantime of course the violent element of the TUC, the anarchist if you will, are attacking the police and the logical discourse is to connect them with Labour. Labour will of course condemn any form of violence, lefties always do (yet look at any major conflict in the past century and see how many were caused as a direct result of left-wing ideology; and I dare you mention the nazis at your own peril), but the fact remains that they willingly associated themselves with a violent demonstration that had a significant element of destruction embedded within.

Never get involved with trade unions.

My fellow blogger and equally nerdy political geek Dizzy has succinctly wound up the matter.

In the meantime I am going to continue to read my book called 'All you need to know about the city' by Stoakes. All-in-all fuck you, you tax-eating, good for nothing lefty-wankers.

(Just to round-off with some irony; Marx's seminal work was called 'Das Capital' and it spans three volumes).

An addendum, I am going to write this from my perspective as a proper student once more. Most people in my class have got internships this summer with some very large companies and a lot of banks. Some have already landed their first permanent job offers. It would be fair to say, arrogantly of course (but you must surely be used to that by now), that the majority of my class will be net contributors to society via the extortionate amount of tax the government already makes us pay. But let me ask you this; do you think we will stick around forever and wait around for these tax rises to remove every hard-earned penny we have? Do you think I am going to work 80 hours a week in a bank just so that I can see my money being spent on £197bn worth of a British well fare state? The answer is no, I will leave and take my skills with me and so will others, and we wont return until the tax regime is more favourable. Where we get to keep the majority of our earnings. Why the flaming fuck should the government be allowed to take 50% of my money just because it happens to be above some arbitrary threshold, a threshold which they themselves could never aspire to reach because they have studied unproductive subjects like english and history. Do not get me wrong we need writers, historians and artists, but why is it so wrong to start a company and make money from that venture? Why is it wrong to work hard and see your ideas come to fruition? Why is it wrong to be clever and use your talent in a company (or, shock and horror, in a bank!)?

Who is going to fund your socialist shit hole once we are gone?

Daniel Hannan is spot on as well.

US, UK and France go to War* in Libya

Here

...would be quite nifty if we had some planes to do with. It is not entirely out of order to suggest that the British defence review must surely, by now, hold the speed record for becoming outdated.

*This is a declaration of war, a nation which does not control its airspace does not control the nation.

EU Referendum Campaigns - which one?

Am I the only one who is currently a bit confused by all the EU referendum campaigns which are currently running along side each other? To date I can count;

• The People's Pledge
• EU Referendum Campaign
• The EU Referendum pledge

Now as far as I can understand these three bullet points are all interlinked in some way. But I am not entirely sure how, all I know is that it is very confusing and if they truly hope to consolidate and concentrate support then surely that would be a lot easier with ONE website and not three.

If anyone is in direct relation to the campaign please forward these concerns to them.

Downtime

One does sincerely apologise for not gracing the world with his incisive commentary on the day-to-day cock-ups of the people in charge. University is gearing up with several reports due in before revision period starts, and after revision period we all know that exams usually tend to follow. This makes for a potent mix of despair which I can but bow before but will not kneel.

Thank god for our politicians

Thank God for this. I am not a smoker and I have always been afraid to go into my local newsagent to buy anything in case I catch a glimpse of a cunningly designed cigarette packet that will compel me to buy one and light up.

Interesting...

H/T Guido

Cheating at University

I think this is a very interesting article. It is on the subject of academic malevolence one could call it, others call it cheating. It is funny since we have that to an extent as well, but more than people just tend to copy work from friends from the years above.

Apparently they think they wont get caught out but what is more they do not seem to realise whilst their mark may be sky-high once they come to that all-so-important job interview they will be exposed for what they really are; cheaters who have no place in a serious workspace.

Our exams are a different story altogether though. We had one exam just after we arrived back after christmas holidays. It was interesting to say the least. The fellow on my right left after 15 minutes and the chap to the right after about 30 minutes - both laughing. When people opened the test most people let out a yelp of amusement or at least bemusement. Everyone started laughing when the invigilator left the room for five minutes, which he really is not supposed to for then people can cheat and that is exactly what happened in this exam, or at least it was attempted.

What was the source of all this amusement you might one, university exams are normally very serious business particularly at a real university like my own.

It was very simple; people were laughing, I was laughing, because the exam was so hard that no one could do it. Half the room was empty after 45 minutes and it was a two hour exam. Some of us decided to soldier on, to little or no avail most likely. But such was the extent of the exam that some 60 very bright minds, all scientists with straight As at A-level, just could not do what was put before us because it was too hard. It was several magnitudes harder than the previous year. When the invigilator left, conversation broke out amongst students, a serious breach of examination regulations; they could not even help each other that is how hard it was.

What do you do when you realise that you have failed an exam minutes after attempting it? You laugh.

Advice for the EU Referendum campaign

It is now becoming increasingly clear even to the people outside of London, that we must leave the EU or we will be consumed into it. Some people like this and some don't I and many others are part of the latter community. However there needs to be a more concerted effort to make people join the campaign for the EU referendum. We have already seen the Daily Express putting on a valiant cape of defiance when it delivered more than 350,000+ pieces of opinions to Nr. 10 saying that we bloody well should have a referendum on the leviathan that now controls our lives more than the local police.

The insurance industry is the latest clique to have been assaulted by the EU preceded by doctors, fishers, nurses, bankers etcetera. What needs to be done by the campaigners is fairly simple. They must, nay need to, capitalise on the sudden outburst of fury that inevitably will strike into the minds of senior management and directors. There is blatant fury within the banking industry as a result of the EU takeover, but they cannot speak out for fear of being seen as 'anti-Europe' the same story goes for every other sector which is being increasingly regulated by the EU and not Parliament and its constituent bodies.

Send out emails to all sectors, mangers, directors and even the workers. Go there and inform them very simply what needs to be done, and why they should lend their support and their funds. I hear the campaign is amassing thousands of new signature every weeks so it is doing well already. Make sure that they know that there is a concerted effort to have a referendum. The government can ignore the people now but once the numbers start piling on and we are reaching figures of millions who want a referendum then it will be hard to ignore the masses. It is obvious that there will be a bust up over Europe sooner or later and the government needs to choose a side fairly soon, and pray that they choose the right one. It will be a nasty day indeed when they stand apart from their own people and stand against them. The latter will not be forgiving to say the least.

My own impression is that many people feel there's nothing they can do about the EU so they'd rather not think about it. They may even resent being reminded about it, because to remind them of the extent to which their country and their lives are now subject to EU rule is to remind them of their own impotence. I would include a fair number of MPs among those people who've simply given up in the face of main party leaderships which are united in their conviction that the British people should not be permitted to govern their own country and their determination to prevent that ever happening.

roamrage

EU hypocricy

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39998

Just one month after the U.N. and EU launched a furious campaign against Israel's security fence, culminating in the International Court of Justice ruling that the fence is illegal, the EU announced it's planning to build a separation fence of its own, and invited Israel to participate in the construction.

H/T Mr. North

Defence Cuts and Libya

I have looked around everywhere for a post or article on this topic; the SDSR with regards to Libya. It seems that people are avoiding this topic like the plague, perhaps because it is monumentally obvious that if we are going to play any part in military action against Libya then we simply cannot go ahead with certain parts of the SDSR. It simply is not possible, why I will explain in a few minutes. First consider in full, again, the cuts as envisaged in the SDSR courtesy of Wikipedia.

British Army

• Challenger 2 tanks will be cut by 40%.
• The British Army presence in Germany will end by 2020.
• Overall personnel numbers will drop by 7,000 to 95,500.
• The number of Challenger 2 tanks will be cut by 40% to an estimated number of just over 200.
• The number of AS-90 heavy artillery will be cut by 35%to an estimated 87.

Royal Air Force

• The Harrier will be retired in order to maintain the Tornado as the RAF's main strike aircraft until the Typhoon matures. The latter and the F-35 Lightning II will constitute the RAF's fast jet fleet in the future.
• Personnel will be reduced by 5,000 to 33,000.
• Nimrod MRA4 project, after spending £3.2 billion and the first aircraft being completed, to be scrapped. RAF Kinloss, where the aircraft were to be based, will close.
• Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft procurement will go ahead, as will the Airbus A400M. These aircraft, along with the current C-17s, will form the future air transport fleet. The VC10 and TriStars are approaching the end of their service lives and the C-130 fleet will be retired 10 years earlier than planned.
• 12 Boeing Chinooks will be added to the current fleet, a cut to the original order for 22.
• The Harrier GR9 will be withdrawn during 2011.
• The RAF's future fast jet fleet will be based on the Typhoon and the F-35 Lightning II. The latter, which will also be flown by the Royal Navy, will be the more capable and cheaper F-35C version. The UK has originally planned to buy the F-35B, a Short Take Off and Vertical Landing aircraft. The F-35C has longer range, greater payload capability and the MOD envisages life cycle costs to be 25% cheaper than the F-35B.
• The Sentinel R1 will be retired once it is no longer required to support forces in Afghanistan.

Royal Navy

• The Royal Navy flagship aircraft carrier, HMS Ark Royal, will be decommissioned "almost immediately" rather than in 2014. The Joint Force Harrier aircraft will be retired. Both of these measures will save money for the purchase of the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers.
• One of the Albion class landing platform dock ships will be placed at extended readiness.
• Either HMS Ocean or HMS Illustrious to be decommissioned, whichever is least capable as a helicopter carrier.This was decided in December 2010, Liam Fox stated "HMS Ocean should be retained to provide our landing platform helicopter capability for the longer term. HMS Illustrious will be withdrawn from service in 2014".
• One of the Bay class landing ship dock vessels (later identified as RFA Largs Bay) would be decommissioned.
• Replacement of the UK's nuclear deterrent, based on the Vanguard class ballistic missile submarines, will be delayed by four years, deferring £500 million in spending. Changes to the size of the missile tubes will save £250 million.
• 7 Astute class submarines will be built as previously planned.
• The surface fleet of frigates and destroyers will be reduced to nineteen ships; the current thirteen Type 23 frigates, the three active Type 45 destroyers, and the three Type 45 destroyers currently under construction. The remaining Type 22 frigates and Type 42 destroyers are to be disposed of. "As soon as possible after 2020", the Type 23 frigates will be replaced by new Type 26 frigates.
• The strength of the RN will be reduced by 5,000 (to a total of about 30,000)

And that is it, few might wonder why we even bother having an armed force when there is no one in it, not our politicians of course they do not wonder any such sensible thoughts.

What is currently being planned to stop Gaddafi going all 15th century on his people, is to impose a no-fly zone. What is this? A no-fly zone is a territory over which aircraft are not permitted to fly. Such zones are usually set up in a military context, somewhat like a demilitarized zone in the sky.

Now the Geography of Libya is somewhat arduous if we are to contemplate using post-SDSR resources to corner Gaddafi. As you will see from the map on the left, Libya is not exactly surrounded by tea-loving cricket monkeys; Tunisia, Algeria, Niger, Chad, Sudan and Egypt are not our best international allies bluntly put. In the north there is water, a lot of water, so much water in fact that you need a ship. A big ship, something on the scale of an aircraft carrier. Why? Well, the americans have a lot of bases dotted around that region which can accommodate fighters jets of our pedigree, and they also have the tech needed to service them. Moreover the closest ally which uses the Typhoon is Italy, though they might not be over-joyed by the prospect of lending their bases to pesky Brits they would probably relent if leaned upon a bit. But that is a big 'if' and the italians have not been known to favour big expeditionary military missions since about two millennia ago - crossing the Rubicon and all of that. They are more embroiled in their Prime Minister's latest shenanigans. Hence were we to take part in the no-fly zone operation it would almost, without question, be with the help of the Americans. But then one must ask, why should we take part at all when they US Marines boast more fighters jets than our Navy and Airforce combined? Wont we just be in the way of a properly equipped fighting force? Chances are that this would be the case since we have no means of fielding any heavy equipment of our own except for choppers.

We still have a lot of craft which can accommodate choppers, and substantial numbers of them as well; that said a chopper is peanuts compared to a fighter jet and it is like comparing apples and oranges if you are to analyse a no-fly zone whilst only keeping choppers as your option. They are useful for close support but certainly not for patrolling an area four times the size of the UK.

The current UK flag-ship is HMS Albion, a grand lady indeed, but she cannot carry aeroplanes only choppers.

We have sold, scrapped or decommissioned the following Invincible class carriers; HMS Ark Royal and HMS Invincible. What remains is HMS Illustrious due for decommissioning in 2014 after HMS Ocean has undergone extensive refits.

Lets make this abundantly clear to those of you who do not yet realise the significance of an aircraft carrier. It is a floating bit of sovereign space. It is a tiny floating UK which can blow stuff up very quickly should circumstances so require it. Circumstances are not requiring it yet in Libya but if every armed conflict to date is anything to go by, they will. There is a difference between being belligerent and pragmatic and knowing your history and ignoring it. We are terribly good at forgetting our history in the UK and as a result tend to repeat an awful lot of mistakes which could have been avoided if people in command where not being so optimistic about the prospects.

They know that they need Illustrious more than ever, they know that they can halt the sale of HMS Invincible to a Turkish scrapyard and re-install the Rolls-Royce engines at the blink of an eye. But they wont for the simple reason that they will look weak and incompetent for having completed botched the SDSR. If any of them are reading this let me make this very clear; you already look like amateurs for thinking that no aircraft carriers would be needed during an entire decade. It took four months -four months- for your defence review to become obsolete. To save some face, or at the very least, listen to the people in the know, you can reverse some of these decisions. There is waste in the MoD, yes no one denies this, but there is also a time when you have admit and consent that you were wrong. Own up to your shortcomings and move on. These assets are gravely needed for a no-fly zone cannot be established without them, it simply is not possible since no one, down there, likes us enough to lend us their airbases and we would just be in the way of the americans as said.

What is more; the Typhoon cannot fly off aircraft carriers, it is not a carrier jet like the French Mirrage 2000. The Harrier GR9 can, but like everything else useful, it is being scrapped to save money. The Harrier and the Carriers are perhaps our most valuable asset right now, one cannot topple Gaddafi with nuclear submarines nor with Cyber Commands no matter how intriguing the prospect of that might sound.

The Government knows what they have to do in order to remain a significant player in the world, but they wont since they will loose face if they do. We have had so many politicians like that who were afraid to do the right thing, and as a result history only remembers them for their failure to do the right thing. Not for all the good they also did. What will the Coalition be? A Chamberlain or a Churchill?

Update:

Word is catching on...

Since the Libyan crisis began, the Coalition has faced repeated criticism over the decision last year to decommission HMS Ark Royal and the Royal Navy’s Harrier jets, leaving Britain without a functioning aircraft carrier. Dr Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, insisted that such criticism was a “red herring” because the base in Cyprus meant Britain could still operate jets over Libya if required. And would it, pray, still be a "red herring" if this had happened in Zambia instead, where are no conveniently placed RAF stations. I cannot believe that this man is using geography as a defence for scrapping HMS Ark Royal. What an idiot. A five year old could pick holes in that defence.

And for our daily dose of idiotic comments, the Guardian never disappoints when it cannot understand why special forces operations are kept secret and furthermore argues that they should be publicised. Why are lefties so fucking stupid?

Mr. Mercer you EU mong

Mr. Mercer,

As an elected representative of the British people, it is your duty to explain to us why our govt. has agreed to replace the British military with an EU Military, without our approval, consultation, or consent.

In particular, I ask the following:

Why did our govt. sign this EU-SOFA agreement (UK sig. on page 10), which merges the militaries of European nations into an EU Military?

Link: EU-SOFA agreement, signed by UK

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2003:321:0006:0016:EN:PDF

Why did our govt. agree to ATHENA, an EU mechanism to administer the 'common costs' of military operations on behalf of 'Europe' ?

Link: ATHENA

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage.aspx?id=746〈=EN

Why did our govt agree to ERASMUS MILITARE, an EU mechanism to create a common defence culture via exchange of young military officers within training colleges around the EU ?

And why did our govt agree to the EUROPEAN SECURITY and DEFENCE COLLEGE to train military personnel from EU member states for a mission defined as 'To support a Common Security and Defence Policy and to promote a common European security culture.' ?

MP Mercer, this is not only a betrayal, it's a pre-meditated, wilful a betrayal by stealth.

I suspect that there will soon come a day where the British people remind those they perceive as traitors that betrayals of this magnitude have a way of consuming, in very unsavoury ways, those who perpetrate them.

Defence Policy; Coalition vs. UKIP

It must be a bitter pill to swallow for the coalition when "a bunch of fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists" have a more realistic and grown-up defence policy than the government. I sincerely agree with Labour and Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary when he added his voice to those calling for the SDSR to be reopened. He said it already looked "out of date" and that many of the assumptions about it had been "shaken over the past month". True, Labour is the majority party responsible for this shambolic state of affairs in the MoD but it was the coalition's choice to slash %7.5 of the annual defence budget, and they decided to do so in one of the most mysterious ways yet known to man; e.g. rip apart newly constructed surveillance aircraft with CAT diggers... WTF? What did the Nimrods ever do to Dr. Fox to deserve such an inglorious end?

Hence I reproduce here the full result, thus far, of the Coalition's approach to defence and if you scroll down a bit further you will see that of UKIP. I know which party I would like in power if my country went to war.

• Reducing the planned purchase of 22 Chinooks to 12
• Delaying Trident for political reasons that will cost billions
• Cancelling Nimrod MRA4
• Reducing armour and artillery, if reports are to be believed, to the bone
• Reducing surface vessels
• Reducing Tornado
• Withdrawn Harrier GR9′s
• Withdrawing Sentinel
• Slashing allowances and expenses
• Setting up the armed forces for a post Afghanistan change in terms and conditions of service
• Implementing a 2 year pay freeze
• Reducing pensions
• Reducing service personnel by 17,000
• Reducing the MoD Civil Service by 25,000 which will likely result in more work for service personnel
• Removing the External Reference group from reporting on the Military Covenant
• Trying to convince everyone that the SDSR was a considered and balanced review (thats my favourite joke of the year)
• Sacking 25% of RAF trainee pilots
• Reducing size of army to an estimated 80,000 troops, after the Afghanistan campaign

And from UKIP's website is the following:

UKIP promises:

• To defend our national interests, maintain the NATO alliance, support our traditional partners. We want to disentangle our forces from the EU and moves towards EU armed forces. UKIP will keep our independence by retaining – always – ultimate command and control over our national forces.

• To stop trying to buy defence on the cheap UKIP will spend an extra 1% GDP per year on defence – an increase of 40% on current budgets ( a £14.76 billion increase ). UKIP believes in establishing a defence budget which will properly sustain Britain’s defence commitments. To keep defence costs down by smarter defence procurement, and with more involvement of British industry wherever possible.

• To increase the Army to at least 125,000 personnel (trained requirement) in order to enable it to cope with its existing deployment and roles. To double the Territorial Army in size from 37,000 to 75,000 soldiers.

• To restore the Navy to its 2001 strength, with 3 new aircraft carriers (one extra), 4 assault ships, 30 destroyers and frigates, 12 Fleet Submarines, 25 coastal vessels and 50 Merlin helicopters, with around 7,000 extra personnel to 42,000 (2003–41,550). UKIP would guarantee the futures of naval ports Plymouth and Portsmouth and base ships permanently in Rosyth and so return it to a proper naval port status.

• To increase the Air Force’s capabilities by enlarging the tanker fleet, modernising the transport fleet, buying more helicopters and 50 extra JSF aircraft, and increasing RAF personnel to 50,000.

• To restore many traditional regiments, such as the Black Watch and Staffords, subsumed as battalions of EU-inspired ‘super-regional’ regiments such as the Royal Welsh, Royal Mercian and Royal Regiment of Scotland, in order to serve in EU battlegroups.

• To renew the Covenant between the Country and those who are asked to risk their lives on its behalf: through better pay, generous compensation for injury, restoration of Crown immunity, private medical and dental care, reinstatement of military hospitals, decent accommodation, an offence of treason for those UK citizens who seriously attack serving personnel, and above all, respect and support. We will also introduce a National Service Medal to be awarded to all servicemen and women to thank those who have seen combat, and those who have not, in their service of their country.

• To reappraise our operations in Afghanistan to a single clear and achievable mission or seek to negotiate a withdrawal with our NATO partners.

• To maintain Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent with existing Trident submarines, and then replace them with four British-built US missile armed submarines.

• To retain and increase Army and Territorial Army personnel through better pay, free medical and dental care for them and their families, retention ‘warrants’, school recruitment and other incentives.

• To introduce a National Defence Medal to recognise ‘Forgotten Heroes’.

One can promise a lot when in opposition, but their mettle can surely not be worse than the Coalition's.

What is all of this born out of? Our pathetic excuse for assisting British nationals in Libya. Utter humiliation. What is becoming more apparent though is that there are no military assets to send out there because it would appear that we have scrapped everything even remotely useful. Word is doing the rounds that a no-fly zone should be imposed on Libya but of course that would necessitate an aircraft carrier as there is no way a country out there would play friendly host to a squadron of British fighter jets. We do not have any aircraft carriers anymore. The coalition in their infinite wisdom scrapped them. You can see whence the argument travels from here.

In essence for every year you travel back in time the probability that we could have managed this shit storm of a situation, professionally and authoritatively, increases exponentially. In 1950 the Royal Navy would have had an entire carrier group out there by now, and in 1980 at least one Invincible class carrier would have watched the Libyans with fiery eyes, Harriers at the ready and Nimrods on the go (though remember 'could' does not imply 'would' since there is geopolitics to take into consideration as well). There would be no beating about the bush, no incompetence, people who risked other people's lives would have been sacked quicker that you can say 'BBC'.

But what is really, truly, amazing is that the news channels are focusing solely on the hardships of a few Brits who are stranded in the back and beyond. I sympathise with them of course but in the background people are being slaughtered for what they believe in. Poor little Brits cannot get out, boho, whereas the Libyan people are having their own armed forces used upon them, mercenaries brought in to make them toe the line, air-to-surface missiles used on a crowds of people, humans, like you and me, non-combatans, non-lethal, non-hostile, or at least not hostile enough to ever warrant the use of laser guided precision weapons, normally employed to neutralise tanks.

No, who cares about that? Lets focus on the gallant HMS Cumberland which has just "rescued" stranded nationals in the most pathetic of manners. To top it off, she is being decommissioned after this final operation. What if this had happened 6 months from now?

Finally do you know what the really tragic thing is? Somewhere someone down the line will have to rebuild all this capacity since this simply wont fly. All of this scrapping is thus pointless and wont save any money in the long term since it will just need to be rebuilt anyway.

Excellent

Think Defence

Labour, EU and the Independent - what the flunk?

Yeah I am as confused as you are.

Celebrity Support?

In my mind there seems to be a logical fallacy somewhere in announcing that you have celebrity support. The AV campaign has committed actors Helena Bonham Carter, Colin Firth and Stephen Fry. And surely others. Sea Shepard, a whaling conservation society, counts among its advisers Pierce Brosnan and Sean Penn.

What the fuck?

What on earth does Pierce Brosnan know about bloody whales to make him qualified to be an 'advisor' to a wildlife conservationist? Is he a marine biologist, is he a scientist, does he attack Japanese whaling ships in his free time? No, he is James Bond and that is it.

Colin Firth backs the AV 'yes' side presumably because he falls for every populist political ploy that the system wants him to back (see his previous support for the LibDems quickly retracted whence they backed the tuition fee rise). But lets assume not. Lets ask this; is he a constitutional historian, does he have a degree in international relations, has he done a dissertation on the merits of AV alongside FPTP? No, he is George VI and over and above that his support for either side should make little or no difference.

Do you know who I count amongst my advisers when I write my scientific reports on the most abstract of concepts? Babar, Lady and the Tramp, Paddington, Doctor Who (obviously), Luke Skywalker (his knowledge of particle physics dynamics is second to none), Darth Vader (Luke's arch nemesis, yes, but give them a cup of tea and Darth will tell you everything there is to know on sub-molecular fission interactions) and how could I forget; the gummy bears - savvier engineers you will not find, their approach to elasticity and aerodynamic viscosity problems would make any thermodynamics professor blush.

Bang on, bang on...

Courtesy of the European Commissions' Eurobarometer. Knowing the EU I can guarantee you that even the above results have been "updated".

Ruled by Retards

We truly are ruled by incompetent fucking retards. Not even Labour were this stupid. This particularly pisses me off, since a fair few of my friends were intending to go down this route. Bloody fucking idiots that is all I can say, the party of the armed forces my fucking arse. This is their record so far, try convince anyone to vote for them come the next election. UKIP are going to have a field day.

• Reducing the planned purchase of 22 Chinooks to 12
• Delaying Trident for political reasons that will cost billions
• Cancelling Nimrod MRA4
• Reducing armour and artillery, if reports are to be believed, to the bone
• Reducing surface vessels
• Reducing Tornado
• Withdrawn Harrier GR9′s
• Withdrawing Sentinel
• Slashing allowances and expenses
• Setting up the armed forces for a post Afghanistan change in terms and conditions of service
• Implementing a 2 year pay freeze
• Reducing pensions
• Reducing service personnel by 17,000
• Reducing the MoD Civil Service by 25,000 which will likely result in more work for service personnel
• Removing the External Reference group from reporting on the Military Covenant
• Trying to convince everyone that the SDSR was a considered and balanced review (thats my favourite joke of the year)
• Sacking 25% of RAF trainee pilots

A conservative is someone who believes in reform. But not now. Just slash and slash and slash until the blood is flowing, and then the wolves will come... I am all for cutting public spending but not at the cost of national security.

Military Procurement; US-style vs. EU-style

This is of course not a commanding example and more sample data is need to draw conclusions, but it is fair to say that when dealing with the US you get more of your stuff in time, on budget and it does what is says on the tin. Again I know that this does not apply to everything (see JSF e.g.) but compared to cooperation projects with other European nations (to foster some spurious belief in a future EU armed forces, and supposedly to reduce costs), the Americans drift across the pond like white feathers whereas the European partners are more like bowling balls (which sink).

Boeing has announced that it has successfully completed -- ahead of schedule -- its industrial participation (IP) programs for the first five C-17 Globemaster III aircraft operated by the Royal Air Force (RAF).

Lets compare this with

According to a February report to the French Senate, the A400M is €5 billion over budget, 3 to 4 years behind schedule, and 12 tons overweight; aerospace experts estimate it is also costing Airbus between €1 billion and €1.5 billion a year.

Not exactly the fiat of business integrity.

British Politicians, the small print and the EU

There is no point in me writing a post on this myself, Mary Riddell has done a fine job of that already.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, rhubarb, rhubarb, order in the House, 'physically ill' and the rest of it. All I can say to the Commons over this votes for prisoners dispute is: just shut up and pull the trigger and get out of the Council of Europe. Or admit you are too timid to pull the trigger, so shut up anyway and submit in the manner that suits men who are cowards.

This noise about how Britain may now stand against to the council's European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is at best naive and in most cases (yes, you, David Cameron) is synthetic. What Cameron has done on this one is pretend this is the crucial line he won't cross. Meanwhile, very much more quietly and apparently without a moment of squeamishness (odd that, how selective the prime minister's stomach is on parliamentary sovereignty), his Government hands over more and more power to the European Union.

What he has done by stirring up this prisoners' votes business is simply give the euro-anxious Tories a different kind of 'European' bone on which to chew. Yet this issue is not the meat. The ECHR and its decisions are not the things most endangering Britain's sovereignty now.

Still, if MPs are really so determined to stop this so-called 'encroachment' by Strasbourg, maybe a technical note first. Britain freely (and foolishly) agreed long ago to give the court at Strasbourg all the powers that the ECHR has since been using. This so-called 'court' at has never invaded Britain -- the supine British opened the gates to all these European 'justices' and their powers to decide Britain's laws.

The angry cries, even among my colleagues, that there has been 'remorseless undermining' of Britain's parliament and courts implies that the ECHR has been tunnelling away under the stone walls of Britain, rather in the manner of medieval seige warfare. It hasn't. The ECHR has done only and exactly what decades of euro-supine British politicians have allowed it to do. The drawbridge has been down all along, with 'We are all Europeans now' written on cloth-of-gold and slung from the battlements.

All parliament has to do if it really does want to stop the powers of this 'court' is just vote to pull out of the Council of Europe, ECHR and all. Then this absurdity of votes for prisoners, and every other ECHR so-called 'human rights' absurdity, goes away; or at least -- and this is what Cameron is hiding in this debate -- until Brussels reminds the United Kingdom that by signing up to Lisbon Treaty and the rest, powers across the Channel can go on imposing these 'human rights' on Britain whether the UK tries to derogate from the ECHR decisions or leaves the Council of Europe altogether.

Cameron, being so very busy having a public relations-designed 'physcal illness' over the issue, won't admit that the problem with exactly this kind of control by foreign powers over Britain's legislation will continue as long as Britain stays in the EU: even if Britain now refuses votes for prisoners -- and it won't; in the end, some man caught with 10,000 child porn images on his laptop will have the liberty to cancel out your vote -- ultimately the EU will have ways of getting the same decision reached in the European Court of Justice (the EU 'court,' this one in Luxembourg with the power to enforce EU law in member states). All that will be necessary is for some other ex-con lowlife to bring another case, this time in Luxembourg not Strasbourg.

The Lisbon Treaty, among many other poisonous things, gave the EU 'legal personality' for the first time. That means it can sign international agreements, not as an agent for a group of 27 sovereign states, but as a state in its own right. And as this new country called Europe, it is going to join the Council of Europe. It will be a member just as the United Kingdom is now.

What that means is that Britain, even if it pulls out of the Council of Europe, will still be bound to the damned thing as a part of the EU: remember, Lisbon made us all 'citizens of the EU' now. If you are a native of England, Scotland Wales or Ireland, your nationality is now 'European' whether you want it or not. The treaty says so, and the treaty, thanks to the refusal by Cameron and William Hague to fight it, is law.

Treaties and other international agreements now signed by the EU will be directly binding on the UK and have primacy over all UK laws and the British constitution. And, no, Britain does not have a veto over most of the things the EU might sign treaties on.

Slightly delicious note: I gather the EU's signing for the membership has been held up because the EU is demanding that decisions of the ECHR cannot over-rule the decisions of the ECJ. In other words, Brussels is demanding that its own court have supremacy over the ECHR, something Britain has surrendered for its own Supreme Court.

So there could be turf conflicts between the euro-courts. As Open Europe notes in its briefing this week on the votes for prisoners dispute, the EU has its own catalogue of justiciable rights -- '' 'the so-called Charter of Fundamental Rights, enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty. The Charter allows citizens to contest rights set down in EU law at the European Court of Justice, and, in future, possibly also the ECHR (when the EU accedes to it).'

This will make it 'increasingly difficult for the UK to negotiate a carve-out from European human rights legislation.'

As for the detail of this particular case of prisoners' votes, 'Withdrawal from the ECHR would allow the UK to ignore ECHR rulings on prisoners votes when it come to general elections. However, as voting rights in European Parliament and local elections are covered by EU law as well as national law, their application in the UK could in future be challenged at the ECHR or the ECJ.'

Oh, and as for the Cameron fudge about limiting the vote to prisoners serving four years or less, the ECHR has already struck down that notion in a similar case, Scoppola v Italy. It decided that the prisoner's rights were violated because Italian law barred him from voting on the basis of his sentence. So they will knock down Cameron's four years, too, and I'd suspect he knows it.

Which is why the noise in the Commons over this is just noise. Either parliament is sovereign or it's not, and until the MPs vote to take Britain out of the EU, it's not: the 'legal personality' called the 'European Union' is sovereign.

So the MPs might as well go home; or go around to the 'Scrubs for a bit of canvassing.

...And back to me. Peter Oborne has this funny statement on his blog

But it just isn’t going to happen. Even if he launched on this kamikaze mission, he wouldn’t complete it. Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, has already advised Downing Street that banning votes for prisoners is illegal. I guess he would resign, along with Ken Clarke. I am told that most of the supreme court judges would follow Clarke out of the door, launching Britain into a full-scale constitutional crisis. Not only that, Nick Clegg, who has been strangely silent on all this, would walk out of the Coalition.

Who cares if Dominic Grieve, Ken Clarke and the Supreme Court judges walk out? They are doing so on their principles not ours and they are supposed to represent us and our parliament. It is not a constitutional crisis when the people that walk out have no support form the electorate anyway. If they had the support of voters and truly trumpeted the vox populi, the story would be different. Hence I cannot see where this "constitutional crisis" would be coming from, simply because no one would care and a few would cheer.

Privatise universities, or they will do it themselves

This kind of bullshit social engineering is what will lead to widespread privatisation of Britain's top universities.

Thank god this is already in the pipeline for most of the ones still worthy of calling themselves universities.

Cambridge

LSE

Imperial College

To have the cheek to even mention the word "fair" and HE in the same sentence, from minsters who have almost exclusively only ever attended private schools and Oxbridge, is quite frankly beyond belief. What fucking hypocrisy.

Some free advice

Given that the probability that anyone with any form of influence will actually read this blog, is fairly slim. I am fairly comfortable posting my personal advice here for the benefit of politicians who think they know how the real world works.

What has been bothering me as of late is that the government is not able to put across what they really want to do. I do not really care much for their policies (the coalition's) since a) the Liberal Democrats had a hand in writing them, and I despise them as a political entity, b) the Conservative party does not seem to know what it is conserving anymore and might as well re-name itself to something more appropriate akin to the centre left/right policies it now subscribes to.

Me; I am very conservative and never went through the socialist stage which most youngsters seem destined to pass through, as a right of passage, before reaching maturity and embracing a pragmatic and grown-up outlook on the world (and realise that you cannot simply dish-out other people's hard earned money on your bullshit socialist utopia). As the old saying goes, a conservative is a liberal who just got mugged, and a liberal is a conservative who just got arrested. I have never been arrested nor mugged, when I have, I shall update you on my political credence.

But back to the main point behind this post. If you cannot communicate your vision then you will be defined by your enemies. It is a very simple concept. But it seems as if ministers are currently just trying to leave something, anything, just for the sake of changing society, but not saying why they want to change it. Why on earth sell off the forests for example? Who ever asked for that? It is not as if logging is big business in the UK (no it really is not so don't go posting some statistics saying that it is for then I will retort with a statistic from Sweden or Finland, which will dwarf any lumber figure put forth by any of my potential enemies).

It is fairly simple to get past this; formulate what the hell is wrong with the current system be it the armed forces or the NHS. And really hit home why it needs to change. Be a coward and ignore the EU at your own peril, there is still a lot of domestic policy (the EU is domestic policy now as well) which is still quite frankly shit. Noticed lately that no NHS doctors wear white coats? But in every other country in the world with an advanced medical service this is the case. Do some googling on that and you will see for what retard reason those were dropped and subsequently leading to various outbreaks of dangerous viruses. This is a minor issue though; there is a lot more which needs to be changed before the doctors get their coats back. Question is will ministers listen to the people or will they peddle on into oblivion and certain electoral defeat, lest they tell everyone what they are trying to achieve?

Melanchtron takes tone

So let’s see. The government grants a free vote on votes for prisoners (no choice, really). The measure goes down 500 votes against, 80 for. We then have five thousand prisoners complain that their human rights have been violated, and they sue for compensation. The courts rule in their favour at – what shall we say? - £10,000 each including costs? So that’s £50m.

The government then has to decide whether to pay. But in Parliament MPs are already putting down motions forbidding the government from paying any such compensation. The current motion may not get any air time, but someone will soon work out how to deliver such a motion properly, and it will surely pass with a huge majority, since, when families are struggling to pay increased taxes and with their benefits being cut, who is seriously going to vote in favour of paying out tens of millions in pounds to prisoners? So then the courts instruct the government to pay compensation, and Parliament forbids it.

A constitutional crisis, clearly.

Is there a way out? Well, the Council of Europe has already condemned the government for taking more than five years to comply with the 2005 judgement involving John Hirst, giving the government six months to comply. So we can’t just wait and hope it goes away. The British judges will be itching to rule against the government anyway. Surely the only ways forward are to comply or to change Britain’s relationship to the European Court of Human Rights and to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Suppose we could get that latter option past Nick Clegg. We’d then have to get it past the European Council. But complying with the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights is an obligation of the Lisbon Treaty for membership of the Council of Europe, and hence of the EU. I suppose we could just not comply and dare the Council of Europe to kick us out – but then how would we prevent the UK judges from ruling government officials guilty of malfeasance for failing to comply with obligations under a ratified Treaty? The only way to avoid that would appear to renegotiate the Treaty. But could we get that past Nick Clegg?

In the grand scheme of Democracy

Today was another day when I, in my own mind, did something to improve democracy in this country. In my own mind. Let me have that.

I believe in an idea. I believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with a country when it pays a foreign body to make its laws for it. When it has outsourced democracy; when it takes away the 'demos' in democracy and leaves only 'cratos' - power. I believe this is not only bad for the country, the nation, but potentially terminal. But that is just me. A nation cannot survive without its people, for then it is not a nation, it is a mere assembly, an assembly with no common interest or goal. Which seeks not to promote its values but merely lives for the sake of itself. Without dreams or aspirations, just the same old same old. I believe this is wrong.

Am I wrong? Well that is not for me to decide. For all I know outsourcing democracy might be an excellent idea, but that is not important. What is important is that it feels wrong. A small part of you dies every time you see that it has acquired yet more power. Like the Lernaen Hydra it just grows every time you try to cut it down. It prospers from disaster, it feeds on misery; misery for which it is largely to blame. We are becoming disenfranchised.

“Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” this is how we are told to live our lives with regard to it. We are not to bang on about it, not question it, not disagree with it - just accept it. If we question it we are seen as eccentrics, if we point out the obvious contradictions we are told 'but'. It rules by commandments like Moses, no justification but pointing to a higher source of absolution, as adequate explanation for its intrusions. But this is not the Bible. These are not stories written in metaphors and symbolism, this is happening now but we are refused our voice to question it, to rationalise it down to the fallacy it is. People are being denied their right to speak. History tells us that such a state of affairs has always ended in violence, as will this. Yet we are still called eccentrics.

I handed out another hundred leaflets today in my patch of London. It felt good. Although it wont make a shred of difference, I can at least point back to these days in the future when our children will ask 'why didn't you do anything?'. I can proudly look back and say 'we did, but no one else.' This is and never will be an exercise in satisfying one's ego, to excel to some spurious echelon of self-righteousness. It is not meant to invoke hatred of malice, it is meant to plant an idea. An idea we once had but have now lost. Beneath all this rhetoric there is an idea and ideas are bulletproof. I believe in this idea but my great task is to persuade other's to believe it as well. If I can convince just one person, just a single lonely soul, that my idea is better than what he previously believed then it will all be worth it.

This is not a religion, there are no grand books filled with moral codes of how and why one should live their lives. It is but an idea. It is a very simple idea. I have already stated the idea, you already know what it is; it is in between the lines of this post. It is in you right now or at least it should be. You should have reacted to what was said above in two words which are anathema to each other, outsourcing democracy. Now you know what the idea is that we have lost.

I have not even mentioned it by name, yet you all know what I am talking about. That is a testament to how little control we have over our own lives today. You might be able to change the small things in your life but, in the grand scheme of democracy you are nothing. Because you are nothing, we are nothing and that is how democracy died.