tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31744902157618884352023-11-16T12:21:29.325+00:00Right FriendlyRight-leaning but non party based UK political commentary, links and satire.Right Friendlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15388810995585089245noreply@blogger.comBlogger271125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3174490215761888435.post-80255463864373765562011-03-25T17:51:00.000+00:002011-03-25T17:51:54.804+00:00On pauseI get so little reaction to what I write here that it really doesn't seem worth the bother, especially as I do put in reasonable amount of effort to check out sources and facts and to provide working links (something not even the long-established bloggers always get right!) so I have decided not to post on more than an occasional, exceptional basis.<br />
<br />
I'll see how that goes before deciding whether to continue.Right Friendlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15388810995585089245noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3174490215761888435.post-2702560161854749642011-03-21T19:02:00.035+00:002011-03-22T05:25:34.788+00:00Protests in BritainThe political Left in Britain love "causes" that they support (often invent themselves, in fact) and gain themselves some publicity for being the good guys and supporting "the ordinary people of Britain".<br />
<br />
The latest in a long line of these is the <a href="http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/"><span style="color: #e06666;">UK Uncut</span></a> outfit, whose clearly-stated goal is to occupy other people's property (just follow that link and check the left side) and harm them in other ways, targeting those businesses they claim (usually erroneously) are not paying huge amounts of tax due in this country.<br />
<br />
Frankly, they are criminals, trying to hide behind the tolerant nature of our laws toward non-violent protest.<br />
<br />
Of course, it's all really driven by the Communist puppetmasters who themselves stay conveniently hidden away so are never caught or identified; although the British Communist Party itself is usually to be found on marches and at rallies (I have photos showing this).<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6800363/debunking-uk-uncut.thtml"><span style="color: #e06666;">This piece</span></a> from a new (to me) name at <i>The Spectator</i>, successfully debunks UK Uncut, and is worth reading through in order to gain a clearer overall picture of what these outfits are really like. <br />
<br />
The "anti-cuts" march in London this coming weekend is a classic example of the artificiality of all this and Labour hypocrisy. Labour people are tweeting that they'll be there, spouting the Labour party line about cuts "too soon, too deep". Yet it is on the public record that Labour's Shadow Chancellor (this month's one) Ed Balls has claimed recently that he was fully supportive of the Darling deficit reduction plan which is almost identical to what the Coalition Government is implementing, both in terms of timing (identical) and amount (similar: £14 billion rather than the Coalition's £16 billion).<br />
<br />
Therefore their whole stance is a lie, and an obvious one. Of course, those who go on these events aren't usually all that bright, on the whole, as they are obviously being fooled whenever a stunt of this nature is being pulled. The majority of such events fall into that category, and anyone capable of thinking straight would realise that and keep away.<br />
<br />
Apart, that is, from those who are actually using it as an excuse to "get one over" on those they hate for whatever reason. Usually it is <i>un</i>reasoning hatred; but the Lefties are like that: full of hatred, spite and downright nastiness. They've always been the same, at least throughout my lifetime of around half a century.<br />
<br />
Thus it is safe to ignore whatever protests these bods dream up and attend; but it will be useful to have all of them identified so that all genuinely decent people can shun them in future, which is what they all deserve!Right Friendlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15388810995585089245noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3174490215761888435.post-60670745390485583682011-03-21T14:48:00.009+00:002011-03-22T05:00:28.485+00:00Cameron and LibyaHere's a good analysis, by the very sound Fraser Nelson <a href="http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6798698/camerons-achievement.thtml"><span style="color: #e06666;">in The Spectator</span></a>, of just what David Cameron has achieved with regard to the Libya situation.<br />
<br />
It also debunks the myth that France's president Sarkozy was the primary driver: he was using ( and manipulating) this for his own political ends. The second and third paragraphs in the linked article show this quite clearly.<br />
<br />
It has been a remarkably statesmanlike job that Cameron has done, impressive for one so new to actual government. He still has his critics (some of them in the comments to that article) and the media management of this government could certainly do with some improvements, but overall this is the kind of Prime Minister who engenders confidence, not only that of the country's own people but in the international scenario as well.<br />
<br />
He is almost infinitely better than Gordon Brown, for a start!Right Friendlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15388810995585089245noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3174490215761888435.post-47782942384628009482011-03-18T11:22:00.001+00:002011-03-18T11:54:29.866+00:00Libya No-Fly Zone approved by UNThat's the overnight news; and although some sources are trying to suggest it was the French who secured this (they did play an important part) or that US president Obama was behind it (he seems to have done nothing but dither) it was <a href="http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6792908/camerons-persistent-leadership-on-libya-was-key-to-tonights-resolution.thtml"><span style="color: #e06666;">the persistent leadership</span></a> of our own David Cameron, along with Foreign Secretary William Hague, that made this UN Resolution 1973 happen at all. cameron first raised the prospect of a No-Fly Zone (NFZ) in the House of Commons over two weeks ago, on 28 February.<br />
<br />
The Prime Minister was making an <a href="http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=PressS&id=568620282"><span style="color: cyan;">emergency statement to the House of Commons</span></a> as I started to write this, and <a href="http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2011/03/david-cameron-tells-the-commons-that-uk-forces-are-being-deployed-to-enforce-the-un-resolution-in-li.html"><span style="color: cyan;">Jonathon Isaby has now posted a summary</span></a> of that.<br />
<br />
Now, there are arguments for why the NFZ is a good thing, and other arguments why it is bad. It is unlikely to resolve the issues afflicting Libya (there are plenty of other potentially brutal dictators waiting to take over from Gaddaffi), but the simple humanitarian needs of a civilian population under threat to their lives from their own government is compelling for many.<br />
<br />
At least having a UN resolution behind this preventative action is hugely different from the all-out attack on Iraq some eight years ago, and the waiting for that resolution this time was the right approach, even though further lives have been lost as a result of the delay. We couldn't have managed it alone anyway.<br />
<br />
That additional loss of life, though, was because of others' dilly-dallying, not our own leadership here in Britain. Cameron and Hague had exactly the right approach and come out of this better than any other country's leadership anywhere in the world, bar none.<br />
<br />
The same cannot be said of the Labour opposition, though, as <a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/GuidoFawkes/status/48661638202662912"><span style="color: #e06666;">Guido notes in a tweet</span></a>, and provides <a href="http://order-order.com/2011/03/18/war/"><span style="color: #e06666;">some detail here</span></a>.<br />
<br />
P.S: by a curious twist of fate, this resolution has come into being just in time for Comic Relief's Red Nose Day this year!Right Friendlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15388810995585089245noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3174490215761888435.post-39617894391806156362011-03-15T20:51:00.014+00:002011-03-16T13:56:53.612+00:00Hello, Chuck!I have recently started watching a TV series called <i>Stargate: SG-1</i>, and was today surprised to encounter a character called Chaka the Unas:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkertouHTUD-YD9pAwlx25n6OhyphenhyphenkfYdo2kH5MVP4MrWrZ7GWwK46UBALH8qAhtVK4xIpq8T5L8ivAwZd176Ou34uXmqWXB22fvptk-VIVsy9Bi99EHjHSbckHpYcW_14wE7GmlnT2hVJE/s1600/Chaka+the+Unas.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkertouHTUD-YD9pAwlx25n6OhyphenhyphenkfYdo2kH5MVP4MrWrZ7GWwK46UBALH8qAhtVK4xIpq8T5L8ivAwZd176Ou34uXmqWXB22fvptk-VIVsy9Bi99EHjHSbckHpYcW_14wE7GmlnT2hVJE/s1600/Chaka+the+Unas.jpg" /></a></div><br />
That name is so similar to nearby (to me) MP Chuku Umunna<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmP4AD92z3mKZPA8B6vLBlYge-buNOuR9EwhjSlv4c3QUaVq80Vb6ZtQ_pIVvxoz5JipBELHQOFmd1VDyQIf7SLtw2XmSGa268n17r3gDylL78-xCxKYZmch35u8L_qDZTkoj_uj6j_o0/s1600/chuka+umunna.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmP4AD92z3mKZPA8B6vLBlYge-buNOuR9EwhjSlv4c3QUaVq80Vb6ZtQ_pIVvxoz5JipBELHQOFmd1VDyQIf7SLtw2XmSGa268n17r3gDylL78-xCxKYZmch35u8L_qDZTkoj_uj6j_o0/s320/chuka+umunna.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><br />
that I thought I'd study the characters of both. My conclusion after doing so is that, although Chaka is less appealing visually, his standards of honour and trustworthiness seem to be much the higher!Right Friendlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15388810995585089245noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3174490215761888435.post-44487614202008311202011-03-09T20:03:00.001+00:002011-03-10T13:22:03.497+00:00Tweet of the day - 9 March 2011<a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/GuidoFawkes/status/45572479661522944"><span style="color: #e06666;">From Guido</span></a>, after today's Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs):<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>Labour line on Dave [Cameron] has fully swung from "posh smoothie hiding dangerous radical right-wing neo-Thatcherite plan" to "he's incompetent".</i></blockquote><br />
Ed Miliband's "he's incompetent" line was very obviously pre-scripted and frankly didn't work: it was mis-timed and the context wasn't suited for such an attack. Cameron had been <i>very</i> competent at dealing with everything that Red Ed had thrown at him, and the general view of the commentariat seems to have been that, despite a less than top performance today, Cameron had completely flattened Ed-M.<br />
<br />
He even turned around a suggestion of 'knifing' his Foreign Secretary: Cameron responded that the only who had done that was Miliband (against his brother David, who had been Foreign Sec' in the Brown government).Right Friendlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15388810995585089245noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3174490215761888435.post-60785634676904026002011-03-07T21:26:00.006+00:002011-03-08T10:30:12.072+00:00Tweet of the day - 7 March 2011<a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/iaindale/statuses/44831458812104704"><span style="color: #e06666;">From Iain Dale</span></a>, on the revelation that the MPs' expenses watchdog <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Parliamentary_Standards_Authority"><span style="color: #e06666;">IPSA</span></a> (set up under the last Labour government) spent a small fortune from public funds on its office furnishings:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>"IPSA spent £4,300 on each of their employees' desk space. Biteback spent less than £500. There's a lesson there."</i></blockquote>Right Friendlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15388810995585089245noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3174490215761888435.post-90043618078771733502011-03-05T13:37:00.000+00:002011-03-05T15:40:32.495+00:00Tweet of the day - 5 March 2011<a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/GregHands/status/43992162941153280"><span style="color: #e06666;">From Greg Hands</span></a>, Conservative MP for Chelsea & Fulham:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>"In 5 years of Conservative Council control, the number of neighbourhood watches in H[ammersmith] and F[ulham] is up from 6 to more than 150."</i></blockquote>Right Friendlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15388810995585089245noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3174490215761888435.post-59889645996635481192011-03-04T16:08:00.002+00:002011-03-04T18:10:21.451+00:00Seat equalisationThe two-year <a href="http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/14744/"><span style="color: #e06666;">exercise to redraw Britain's parliamentary constituencies</span></a> to reduce their number by fifty and to equalise their electorate sizes begins today.<br />
<br />
A good sign (though not worded that way in the media) is that it really does promise to reduce if not eliminate the considerable pro-Labour bias under the present boundaries. That has always been unfair to voters throughout the nation, and frankly disgusting - there was never any genuine excuse for it and it should have been tackled a long time ago.<br />
<br />
Now of course there will be a Labour outcry, supported by their pals in the various media. Typical Socialism of course: everything is "unfair" unless it is tilted heavily in their own favour. This work, though, will be to the advantage of the voting public rather than any political party. The playing field will end up more or less level, and no-one <i>honest</i> is going to bleat about that!<br />
<br />
<b>Update:</b> <i>Conservative Home</i> has <a href="http://conservativehome.blogs.com/goldlist/2011/03/boundary-commission-confirms-that-seat-reductions-will-be-greater-in-labour-dominated-regions.html"><span style="color: #e06666;">written in similar terms to the above</span></a>, with a regional breakdown of the number of seats to be removed.Right Friendlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15388810995585089245noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3174490215761888435.post-5877103789333420592011-03-03T09:40:00.000+00:002011-03-03T09:40:02.829+00:00Tweet of the day - 3 March 2011<a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/afneil/status/43236366502461440"><span style="color: #e06666;">From the BBC's Andrew Neil</span></a>, possibly the lone voice of sanity in an otherwise Lefty-corrupted organisation:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>"UK tax code now longest in the world. More than doubled under Gordon Brown not just in size -- from 4,998 to 11,520 pages -- but complexity"</i></blockquote>Right Friendlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15388810995585089245noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3174490215761888435.post-91660499305686789072011-03-02T18:02:00.001+00:002011-03-02T18:03:25.403+00:00Yes2AV campaign misusing email addressesNot exactly surprising to discover that the pro-AV voting method campaign have, despite warnings in recent times, continued to <a href="http://www.no2av.org/03/yes-to-av-campaign-plays-dirty/"><span style="color: #e06666;">misappropriate people's email addresses</span></a> in furtherance of their goal.<br />
<br />
It is a valuable clue to the base nature of that campaign, and reminds us that there are some out there who stand to benefit personally &/or ideologically from such a change in our country's parliamentary voting system. The innately corrupt always put their own interests above the law when they think they can get away with it long enough to tip things their way - it's hardly a new story in that broader context.<br />
<br />
Whether that automatically means one shouldn't vote "yes" in the referendum because the change is supported by a warped and untrustworthy campaign is debatable; but it is certainly a reason to be cautious regarding (in particular) the pro-AV campaign, as has been their well-hidden (but recently exposed) sponsorship by at least one outfit that stands to gain considerable benefit from a "yes" result.Right Friendlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15388810995585089245noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3174490215761888435.post-59045547088750986312011-02-27T14:14:00.000+00:002011-02-27T14:14:26.554+00:00Cameron Q&A on Al-JazeeraAn interesting 25-minute interview with pre-recorded questions from the public, on Al-Jazeera. I'd quibble about the "climate change" issue, but otherwise I am reasonably happy with this from our Prime Minister:<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="337" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/o9kz_bKYslg" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></div>Right Friendlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15388810995585089245noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3174490215761888435.post-65736120509080843042011-02-27T09:34:00.000+00:002011-02-27T09:34:38.915+00:00What is Red saying?Raedwald has been struggling to understand <a href="http://raedwald.blogspot.com/2011/02/what-hell-is-he-saying.html"><span style="color: #e06666;">what Ed Miliband has been saying</span></a> recently; and I have to admit I tend to agree with the conclusion that what Red really wants is democracy elsewhere, but his own dictatorship here in Britain.<br />
<br />
It's not a surprise, but it is a useful reminder that Ed-M isn't going to support democratic improvements in his own country as it would take an unfair unadvantage away from Labour, among other things the skewed constituency boundaries and the suspected millions of fraudulent votes that appear for (mainly) Labour at general elections. It's not just in Tower Hamlets that the latter are believed to occur!<br />
<br />
Raedwald also covers Red Ed's hypocrisy regarding ethics and principles. As it happens, Peter Mandelson on Andrew Marr's show this morning has said he is fully supportive of Ed Miliband in <i>whichever direction he goes</i>. Now, isn't that interesting to note as well?Right Friendlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15388810995585089245noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3174490215761888435.post-73665999259966765352011-02-26T00:14:00.000+00:002011-02-26T00:14:56.753+00:00As daffy as GaddafiThe really ghastly ultra-loud Lefty <a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/ns_mehdihasan/statuses/41268749218754560"><span style="color: #e06666;">Mehdi Hasan has tonight tweeted this</span></a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>"Disappointed to see Hugo Chavez, a man I've often defended from lazy right-wing smears, coming out and defending Gaddafi. Pretty poor."</i></blockquote><br />
Well, who have thought that he'd have been a defender of Chavez. Perhaps he should team up with Ken Livingstone who also has an apparent fondness for the Venezuelan ruler.<br />
<br />
The above confession certainly reminds us that the left are very much in favour of dictators (and are often seen in their company), since they aspire to become the same themselves. Indeed, they were near-enough all Gaddafi fans until a couple of days ago.Right Friendlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15388810995585089245noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3174490215761888435.post-9715419374399212442011-02-25T16:20:00.008+00:002011-02-25T17:53:25.807+00:00Tweet of the day - 25 Feb 2011<a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/VeryBritishDude/status/41159974797180929"><span style="color: #e06666;">From Jackart (Very British Dude)</span></a>, about the <i>real</i> world:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i><b>Politics102:</b> Righty. "This is how the world works". Lefty "No it isn't. I want it to work this way". World works just as righty says.</i></blockquote>Right Friendlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15388810995585089245noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3174490215761888435.post-73060336793609100872011-02-24T17:07:00.000+00:002011-02-24T17:07:29.516+00:00Yes2AV funding<a href="http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6727833/exclusive-what-the-yes-to-av-campaign-dont-want-you-to-know.thtml"><span style="color: #e06666;">This was real news to me</span></a>, though in retrospect not all that great a surprise. I've seen enough going on in this business in my time, after all.<br />
<br />
The Electoral Reform Society has pumped over a million pounds in cash, and a dozen staff and other "in kind" aid, to the Yes2AV campaign that is trying to persuade voters to go for the (ghastly) Alternative Vote electoral system.<br />
<br />
That Society, though, has a very significant <i>commercial</i> interest in the outome of that referendum, as the largest provider by far of electoral materials. They'd do very well out of a change to a far more complex system and would make a lot of extra dosh out of AV than they do under the current system.<br />
<br />
Unlike the "No" campaign, which has published its funding details openly throughout, the "Yes" outfit has been very secretive. Now we know why! <br />
<br />
Now, one might perhaps try to find an extenuating circumstance or other get-out for both the Society and the Yes2AV campaign itself; but the latter has just <a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/MrHarryCole/status/40814946430353408"><span style="color: #e06666;">pulled out of a debate</span></a> due to be held in Leeds this evening, just after these revelations broke earlier today. They <i>know</i> they'd have been questioned about this and they <i>know</i> they have no satisfactory answer. It is the only possible conclusion one can draw.<br />
<br />
With the "Yes" campaign seemingly farctionally ahead of the "Noes" in some recent polls (not all, admittedly) they must have thought they were well on the way to victory. This business must have a certain degree of impact on that now, though it is a side issue. It's that element of apparent impropriety that, at least in this country, can turn a result away from where it had appeared to be heading.<br />
<br />
Let's hope it does; because the AV system is complicated, expensive, and allows fringe voters to have a more valuable ballot than a mainstream party supporter's ballot, as only the former will (after their first preference votes <i>have already</i> been taking into account) have the other preferences <i>also</i> counted in most seats.<br />
<br />
It isn't a fair system, it isn't transparent, and it certainly isn't anywhere near "proportional". We don't need it here! Indeed, of the few countries that operate such a system, I understand that two of them are currently under significant internal pressure to abandon AV. It's dying out elsewhere, so why do we want such a ropey system here? I'm voting <b>NO!</b>Right Friendlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15388810995585089245noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3174490215761888435.post-44679795036089708472011-02-22T13:18:00.000+00:002011-02-22T13:18:30.760+00:00Cameron in KuwaitJames Forsyth at <i>The Spectator</i> has <a href="http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6721573/camerons-fine-liberal-speech.thtml"><span style="color: #e06666;">picked up really well</span></a> on David Cameron's speech in Kuwait today. It's a compact piece, but tells a strong story.<br />
<br />
Forsyth is generally very good at this sort of thing, understanding not merely the words or the basic principles and intentions behind them, but the <i>significance</i> as well.<br />
<br />
He has done so again today, in sussing out the truly liberal (in the literal sense) nature of Cameron's speech, and in particular in the PM's "hit[ting] all the right notes". His suggestions in his final paragraph are provocative but serious and important. Our leaders should at least be looking at them, and indeed they probably are.Right Friendlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15388810995585089245noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3174490215761888435.post-17633705757046910022011-02-21T15:39:00.000+00:002011-02-21T15:39:44.662+00:00Tweet of the day - 21 Feb 2011From <a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/VeryBritishDude/status/39708537777172480"><span style="color: #e06666;">Jackart (Very British Dude)</span></a> on the weary topic of the political left:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>Left "hates" tories like a child "hates" authority. Tories look benignly upon lefties as childish idiots after whom we sometimes clean up.</i></blockquote>Right Friendlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15388810995585089245noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3174490215761888435.post-39532923922578749172011-02-21T11:37:00.001+00:002011-02-21T15:36:46.175+00:00Oh, Mister Porter!Our old friend <a href="http://rightfriendly.blogspot.com/search?q=porter"><span style="color: #e06666;">Aaron Porter</span></a> has decided he <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12524067"><span style="color: #e06666;">will not stand for re-election</span></a> as the National Union of Students' (NUS) president this April.<br />
<br />
<i>Oh, how sad!</i><br />
<br />
Mind you, I suspect this is in reality a preliminary move toward becoming a Labour party candidate in some approaching election, either council or (more likely) parliamentary. Therefore don't be surprised if he is parachuted in to a safe Labour seat, perhaps even at the next by-election triggered by yet another expenses scandal-related resignation of a sitting Labour MP.Right Friendlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15388810995585089245noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3174490215761888435.post-41223997003643515132011-02-19T11:38:00.011+00:002011-02-21T11:41:19.097+00:00Common Cameron<a href="http://davidcameronpretendingtobecommon.tumblr.com/"><span style="color: #e06666;">Here's a funny website</span></a>, trying to take the mickey out of David Cameron but in reality looking rather silly. Talk about desperation! As for playing the <i>man</i> rather than playing the <i>ball</i>...<br />
<br />
Still, the images are quite enjoyable, for all that!Right Friendlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15388810995585089245noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3174490215761888435.post-72092822568920865982011-02-18T22:40:00.000+00:002011-02-18T22:40:02.548+00:00Trivia of the day - 18 Feb 2011From <a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/paulwaugh/status/38709455034134529"><span style="color: #e06666;">this Tweet by Paul Waugh</span></a>, we can learn several things:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>"Top trivia re new No.10 man Paul Kirby: was among 31K Liverpool council staff sent redundo notices via taxi by DHatton in 80s"</i></blockquote><br />
<ol><li>Paul Kirby has been around a while</li>
<li>Liverpool Council employed more than 31,000 people, at public expense, in the '80s</li>
<li>Those redundancy notices were ferried by (expensive) taxis rather than by either ordinary post or the internal mail at the council offices</li>
<li>Those mass redundancies were an earlier example of political manipulation of a situation by the Lefties of the time, just as Lewisham Council is doing now (see my preceding post).</li>
</ol><br />
This is useful for us now, as it shows the validity of what I wrote earlier today, and I and others have been saying for a long time. Some of us were around when these earlier anti-Conservative government actions were taken, as a way to create resentment against the Thatcher government of the time by making people suffer (by losing their jobs) largely unnecessarily, and by spending money that <i>could</i> have kept some jobs going on taxi fares instead.<br />
<br />
Derek Hatton was as Red as they come, though, and cared nothing for the workforce, only for his own political agenda for which those workers were merely pawns in the game. <br />
<br />
As so often happens, a little history serves as a good reminder of what has happened before, that we are seeing again now.Right Friendlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15388810995585089245noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3174490215761888435.post-66889523096672536222011-02-18T12:58:00.000+00:002011-02-18T12:58:43.807+00:00The unkindest cutsThese are the (as expected) deliberately politically-motivated cuts to front-line services by local Labour councils here in south London. Two stories in the South London Press today caught my attention, as they concern the two councils upon whose adjoining boundary my home almost sits.<br />
<br />
First, let's look across the road (or so) from me, at Lewisham. Here, the Labour-run Borough Council has just <a href="http://www.southlondonpress.co.uk/news.cfm?id=6383&headline=Lewisham%20approves%20%C2%A333million%20cuts%20programme"><span style="color: #e06666;">approved cuts of some £33 million</span></a>, which have been deliberately targeted at (as the headline says) libraries, nurseries, elderly care and a youth club. Why? When other councils faced with similar public spending reductions can achieve results that do not impact the front line, why is Lewisham apparently unable to do the same?<br />
<br />
Of course, the clue is in the word <i>Labour</i>. Everything for them is party politically motivated and has nothing to do with serving the public interest. Labour never do, though they sometimes make it <i>look</i> as if they are, at least to the less perceptive.<br />
<br />
As a counterpoint to this story, let's move back across the boundary into Lambeth, where I live. Here we find a scandal that <a href="http://www.southlondonpress.co.uk/news.cfm?id=5711&headline=Empty%20properties%20run%20up%20%C2%A335m%20bill"><span style="color: #e06666;">Lambeth Borough Council has run up a £35 million bill</span></a> through leaving council housing empty while thousands of people remained on its housing waiting list. Note that this single-issue amount is <i>greater than</i> the savings the (at least as wasteful, inefficient and incompetent) Lewisham authority has agreed to make. Again, it's a Labour-run council, and does not serve the public interest as its real priority.<br />
<br />
While it is possible that there are one or two decent Labour-run councils in our country, I for one wouldn't put any money on that turning out to be the case. As far as I can determine, they are <b>all</b> rotten to the core; and these two reports show only a part of the story in just two such councils at this one moment in time. The totality is no doubt hundreds if not thousands of times worse overall!<br />
<br />
Remember this: <i><b>Labour is garbage</b></i>, always has been and always will be. With that in mind, one cannot go far wrong!Right Friendlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15388810995585089245noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3174490215761888435.post-13646770281757512582011-02-18T10:44:00.000+00:002011-02-18T10:44:03.415+00:00Tweet of the day - 18 Feb 2011<a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/GuidoFawkes/status/38529869105217536"><span style="color: #e06666;">From Guido</span></a>, on the ever-deceptive Ed Balls:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>"I see @<a class=" twitter-atreply" data-screen-name="EdBallsMP" href="http://twitter.com/EdBallsMP" rel="nofollow">EdBallsMP</a> is now telling the governor of the Bank of England he is wrong too. So that's the IMF, OECD and BoE wrong, Balls right."</i></blockquote><br />
No surprise or change there. Remember that Balls was always part of Gordon Brown's nasty gang of inner-circle bruisers/liars/smearers that included Damian McBride.Right Friendlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15388810995585089245noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3174490215761888435.post-67010268384807285692011-02-18T00:26:00.012+00:002011-02-18T02:36:26.079+00:00Alternative VoteThe Alternative Vote (AV) system is going to be offered in a referendum, possibly on the same day in early May that various elections are being held, now that the Bill has passed from the House of Lords back to the Commons for the last time.<br />
<br />
It's a really odd voting (and vote-counting) method, involving multiple "preferences" rather than a single vote for each seat being contested. Some electors will have their "second choices" also counted in the process, while others will have theirs ignored. Third choices and beyond could also come into play, until a point is reached where the added together figures give the impression that one candidate (per seat) has received more than half the votes.<br />
<br />
Of course, it's all an illusion, but it looks as though the voter is "more in control" by having more than a single choice.<br />
<br />
There's a <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704657704576150202800382120.html"><span style="color: #e06666;">very good piece on the subject</span></a> in the Wall Street Journal (Europe) by that publication's 'editorial page editor' (whatever that means) Brian M Carney, and I think is one of the best ways to get under the skin of the matter and gain a better grasp of why it is being pushed by some, but has little genuine benefit (in fact, probably the direct opposite) to the electorate. It is no surprise that hardly anywhere on Earth is this system operated!Right Friendlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15388810995585089245noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3174490215761888435.post-24601161812479119922011-02-16T15:51:00.000+00:002011-02-16T15:51:52.895+00:00Tweet of the day - 16 Feb 2011<a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/VeryBritishDude/status/37849417885163520"><span style="color: #e06666;">From JackArt</span></a> (A Very British Dude), observing the benches of MPs at today's Prime Minister's Questions session:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>"Chicks on Tory benches are MUCH better looking than the horrid swamp pigs opposite them..."</i></blockquote><br />
This is something that has been noted over a number of years. The "Blair Babes" phenomenon never really lived up to the hype, and Labour female MPs tend, on the whole, to be ghastly in looks, posture, manner and verbally too.Right Friendlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15388810995585089245noreply@blogger.com0