Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Saturday, 9 May 2009

Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat

I don't really do God on this blog. My Christianity is quite personal, and I'd no more wish to share it than I would details of my bowel movements. Many of you are athiest or agnostic, and I'm perfectly happy to accept that. I don't really do monarchy, either; many of you are also republicans, and I wouldn't argue the principles. However, my personal comfort zone includes a Christian monarch on the throne of England, but I regard this as really a matter for private belief rather than public debate. I also like cats. And dogs.

However, I feel compelled to post in support of Cranmer's view on the decision of the Privy Council to modify the Trinity Cross honour because it offends Muslims and Hindus.

Take a look at the crown below. At its apex is a ball, representing the world. Above that is a cross. The motif is repeated in the Orb of State. The message is clear enough; Christ reigns above the temporal authority of the sovereign. The crown, and the cross, are ubiquitous in our society; on postboxes, in courts of law, on the helmet plates of police officers, on the rank insignia of officers of field rank or above, on regimental and naval crests, on our debased coinage. Our gallantry awards are crosses. The flag of England is Christ's cross. The symbolism is anchored deep in our national psyche, but hardly anyone notices it. And that's the way I'm happy for things to stay.

OK I'll shut up now.

Well, Mr Woolas?

I'd imagine Joanna Lumley will be giggling over her cornflakes this morning when she sees this in the Telegraph:
Phil Woolas, the Home Office Minister, claimed for items of women's clothing, tampons and nappies. The parliamentary rules only allow expenses which are "exclusively" for MPs' own use so it is not clear these items were justified.

Friday, 8 May 2009

Just 25 MPs out of 646

As a post-script to the post below, on the vote for the third reading of Maclean's contemptible little Bill, just 25 MPs out of 646 voted against the Bill. It is these 25 members that we should listen to now. Indeed, I suspect that if Norman Baker, Frank Field and John Redwood spent a morning together, they could come up with a workable Commons remuneration and expenses framework that would meet the nation's approval.

Let's state their names with pride:

Baker, Norman
Burt, Lorely
Clappison, Mr. James
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cousins, Jim
Farron, Tim
Field, rh Mr. Frank
Fisher, Mark
Galloway, Mr. George
Gerrard, Mr. Neil
Gidley, Sandra
Goldsworthy, Julia
Harris, Dr. Evan
Hoey, Kate
Hollobone, Mr. Philip
Howarth, David
Hughes, Simon
Kramer, Susan
Maples, Mr. John
Norris, Dan
Redwood, rh Mr. John
Shepherd, Mr. Richard
Soulsby, Sir Peter
Williams, Hywel
Winnick, Mr. David

Almost two years ago .... from Maclean to Catharsis

On 18th of May 2007, the Commons passed Maclean's private members Bill exempting them from having to disclose their expenses. It was subsequently revised in the Lords and lost its place. I reproduce below the post I made at the time, when I was incandescent with anger. Today that anger has been replaced by a grim satisfaction that the process of cleansing is underway. We must be resolute, and see the process through. They will wriggle. They will squirm. They will use every power and stratagem at their disposal, every favour they're owed in the media, every crooked stinking trick they can think of to get the public off their backs. But let us remain clear - the Commons must be cleansed. Those MPs who have done nothing wrong have nothing to fear.

Let's see this through.

19th May 2007
The filth at the heart of our democracy

Yesterday members of parliament confirmed why their self-given appellation of 'honourable' is a risible kick in the shin to anyone outside Parliament. Their reputation today has fallen lower than the foetid scum in the sewers beneath our feet. If I hear a single word out of a single one of these rank little turds today it will be a word too many.

They complain that the media fails to uphold respect for them, fails to uphold their dignity. Ah yes, like the dignity they displayed after awarding themselves another ten grand recently - when they stuffed their pockets and handbags with tens of thousands of pounds worth of free stamped envelopes in advance of restrictions limiting them to just six grand's worth a year. And then tried to block the facts of their gluttonous looting from the public.

That only 60% of the electorate turns out to vote for them they ascribe to 'apathy' or to problems with the voting system. Let me make it very clear for them; the reason sixteen million citizens don't vote is that they don't like you. They don't like your pompous posturing, your public virtue and private vice, your personal greed, your abuse of the position with which they have entrusted you, your smug piety, your casual mendacity or your elevation of Party and your avarice for office above the interests of your constituencies.

No amount of inane and destructive voting gimmicks will regain the democratic attachment of these lost sixteen millions; they will not be seduced by postal or internet voting, or polling booths in Tesco. They don't vote because they are angry, disenchanted and alienated by your contemptible behaviour.

Since 1979 we have seen millions of members of your parties walking away. Only 1.4% of the electorate are members of the three main parties today. Yet since 1979 you have dipped ever deeper in the public purse for your pay, pensions and allowances; you have distorted the democratic safeguard that was intended to recompense an ordinary man or woman for giving up their trade or profession whilst in Parliament to a system that strengthens incumbency.

My contempt for your utterly ignominious, loathsome, sordid and wretched passing of Maclean's bill is beyond words.

But soon, my most dishonourable friends, that Augean stable of yours will need cleaning.

Gordon's cleaner's contract explained

Contrary to speculation in the media, there is nothing sinister or untoward in the fact that the cleaner was paid for 3 hours a week for Andrew's flat but 7 hours a week for Gordon's. The differences are easily explained as follows;

Andrew's flat
  • Cleaning - 3 hours

Gordon's flat
  • Cleaning - 3 hours
  • Filling in and reporting Gordon's cleaning performance indicators, creating and reporting local performance indicators, attending meetings with external performance indicator auditors and benchmarking cleaning performance with the cleaners at Numbers 34 and 38 - 1 hour
  • Sustainable procurement of cleaning products in accordance with Sarah's Code of Practice for toilet and bathroom creams, liquids and polishes, silicone waxes and sprays for furniture, anionic surfectant products for colloidal grease removal and the programmed switching-on of electrical odourisation devices - 1 hour
  • Attending diversity and equalities training, COSHH training, safe use of dusters in confined environments etc - 1 hour
  • Attending focus groups of selected guests of Gordon and Sarah to ascertain their aspirations for the development of cleaning standards and services in the Brown flat - 1 hour
See. Nothing sinister there at all.

Troughing MPs go to ground

The news media seem to be having trouble finding MPs willing to be interviewed on the expenses scandal. I wonder why?

Did Anne Widdecombe claim for her cat food?

The Telegraph has secured a coup over its Fleet Street rivals with notice of its purchase of the unredacted list of MPs' expenses, and this redeems what has been an uninspiring performance by the paper over the past few months.

In a useful A-Z of what MPs have claimed, the paper reveals that 'One animal-loving female Conservative MP claimed 78p for two tins of Cesar Chicken and Turkey pet food and £3.69 for Iams Senior pet food'. Now I'm sure there are many cat-loving lady MPs in Cameron's party, but only one springs immediately to mind.

C'mon, Anne. Do tell.

Damian Green's DNA kept as he's likely to 'reoffend'

As Shami Chakrabati points out in this morning's Telegraph, Damian Green's DNA will be retained until 2014. This is because, according to minister Vernon Coaker speaking on 'Today' yesterday, Mr Green, having been arrested but not charged or convicted, is nonetheless likely to 'reoffend' within the next six years and it will be easier for the police to catch him.

Given that Mr Green may well be a member of a new government within the year, and that the probability of him receiving and publishing leaks from his own government is, er, remote, one wonders how his DNA profile on file would help the police in any future leak investigation anyway.

It's the reasoning of the madhouse.

Thursday, 7 May 2009

Whose policy is this?

They argue for a society where power is vested in people and always devolved to the level at which it is most effective. Three core principles animate the liberal republic:
  • People have the freedom to live in the manner of their choosing and the power to determine their own version of a good life.
  • Institutions exist to serve individuals, not the other way around.
  • Equality is measured not by what you have, but by what you can do.
Sounds like something of Hannan and Carswell's, doesn't it? Well, believe it or not, it could well be post-Brown Labour's. I'm trying to get sight of the new pamphlet launched today by Demos, but Ben Brogan has the full story in the Telegraph.

(H/T The Speccie)

Just a reminder, Gordon

Just a reminder, Gordon, that if you can't face another year of taunts in the House and the media, or ministerial resignations in July when expenses are uncovered, of further failures of your economic 'recovery', or members of your government being exposed weekly for sleaze and corruption, you've still got a couple of days to go to the Palace and ask for a dissolution in time for an election on 4th June.

Just saying.

Multiculturalism makes UK's Muslims unhappiest in Europe

I've said many times before that multiculturalism is nothing more than apartheid in a pretty frock. The victims of 'multicultural' apartheid will quite rightly feel more alien, more unhappy, and with a greater dissociation from society. Multiculturalism is wrong, cruel, destructive and dangerous, and should be eradicated from British society as if it were smallpox. I've said all this before.

However, Gallup have just carried out a poll that confirms all of the above for Muslims in the UK.
If you have time, please listen here to Mark Easton's report for 'Today' this morning. The brief discussion afterwards by two Muslim experts doesn't add anything of particular value. When will we realise that 'separate development' is as illiberal and wrong-headed a policy now in the UK as it ever was in South Africa?

Woman's foot run over by bus - Murdoch fights for revenue

The Guardian this morning carries a piece predicting the end of the 'free' internet as Murdoch flags up his intention to start charging for online content, including the Times and Sunday Times.

Certainly, this is a model that is proving successful for both the FT and the WSJ, now owned by Murdoch. The FT currently has around 110,000 digital subscribers paying about £150 a year each, and has defied the dire state of the rest of the dead tree press by raising the cover price of the print edition from £1 to £1.80, producing a 16% increase in circulation revenue.

Murdoch has increased the cover price of the WSJ from $1.50 to $2.00, and now charges $181 a year for both online and print versions, and this is producing results.

However, both the FT and WSJ are not volume competitors; the Times and ST are. I'm extremely doubtful that charging for online content will result in a revenue increase. So long as the BBC and some other broadsheet titles remain free online they will substitute for Murdoch's titles. And for those such as me whose first online task of the day is to whizz through all the online editions, well, I'll look further afield.

I'm aware I've been neglecting that excellent organ, the East Anglian Daily Times. Today's edition carries the following story:
Woman's foot run over by bus

Last updated: 5/6/2009 4:30:00 PM

A WOMAN has been taken to hospital for an x-ray after her foot was run over by a bus.

The 38-year-old woman was injured outside Sexton's Manor Primary School in Greene Road, Bury St Edmunds, at about 2.50pm this afternoon.

She was taken by ambulance to West Suffolk Hospital for precautionary x-rays.
Which is about as interesting as anything in the Times this morning.

Medway's muddle

Medway councillors imagine that erecting the name of the local government district on the hills above Chatham will bring to mind the glamour of Hollywood. They had already tried the 'E' before perhaps realising this was free advertising for a certain milieu of Chatham entrepreneurs.

Most people I imagine will be reminded not of Hollywood but of a range of personal jewellery offered by Elizabeth Duke of the Argos chain.

A federal Britain and the end of the Labour Party

It is perhaps ironic that Labour's introduction of devolved assemblies in Scotland and Wales has decimated their support in both. Labour is at heart an ideological party, but the politics of devolution are the politics of people and place, not of ideology. And having had a taste of local self-determination, both the Scots and the Welsh want more - including control over taxation. As the pressures increase, Labour will become ever more irrelevant in both Cardiff and Edinburgh. It is the realisation of this effect that causes Labour to oppose Localism so fiercely - there's no room in a Localist nation for the Labour Party.

As much as I loathe and protest the idea of a federal Europe, I'm wholly in favour of a federal United Kingdom. Our national Parliament can then concentrate on national issues, including defence, foreign relations, and a framework of law and leave most else to the federal authorities. It is absurd that MPs in Westminster should waste our time debating the exact number of pieces of litter permissible on a suburban street in Sunderland or how long someone in Taunton should wait to have their ingrowing toenails cut.

Labour's devolution has let the genie out of the bottle and this June we will see how their vote holds up in Scotland and Wales for the European elections.

Government DNA plan insults the people of England

I can't describe the immediate anger I felt this morning on reading the details of the Government's barely-complying proposals to meet the ECHR's requirements to remove the data on innocent English and Welsh people from the DNA database. The people of Scotland, of course, are already protected by a much more reasonable policy on DNA retention.

The cretins at ACPO, the NPIA and the Home Office have learned nothing and know nothing about the importance of our fundamental freedoms - the presumption of innocence being amongst the foremost.

Parity with the practice in Scotland is the very minimum that the people of England should expect.

If you have any doubt that Labour ministers have lost all contact with the presumptions of the criminal justice system, please listen to the thuggish Vernon Coaker here on 'Today' being repeatedly unable to tell the difference between guilt and innocence, between arrest, charge and conviction. His ignorance is truly chilling.

Wednesday, 6 May 2009

Gordongrin - opera in three acts (apols to Kobbe's Guide)

The prelude is based on a single theme: an expressive one on the sanctity of Socialism. It opens with long drawn-out screams on violins and flutes, then violins alone and works up through a crescendo on nokias and printers before dying to ethereal harmonies.

ACT 1 - A plain near the River Forth. King Prescott (bass) has summoned the Blairites to join forces to defeat the threatened Compass invasion of Socialism. Gould (baritone) tells the King how the late leader placed his children Tessa (soprano) and Alan in his care. Alan has disappeared, and Gould accuses Tessa of murdering him in order to claim the title. Gould says he was so horrified by this that he rejected his right to support Tessa for the NEC and voted instead for Hazel (mezzo-soprano), daughter of the Prince of Darkness. He leads her forward, and she bows to the King.

So far the music has been harsh and vigourous, reflecting Gould's excitement, but with Hazel's appearance the music becomes soft, gentle and plaintive and not without hope.

As violins whisper the Socialism motif, Tessa, enraptured, tells of her dream of a knight in white, sent by the Guardian to defend her cause. After a triple summons by the Scottish Herald (baritone), a ministerial Jag is spied in the distance pulling a rocking horse. In the saddle sits a knight in silver armour. Tessa, not daring to trust her senses, gazes Gaurdianward, while Hazel and Gould look at eachother in amazement and alarm.

The Knight, Gordongrin (tenor) bids f***off to the Jag, grunts to the King and betrothes himself to Tessa, offering to punch anyone's lights out for her. But he warns her never to ask his true name or where he comes from. The Warning Motif is one of the significant themes of the opera. Tessa agrees.

Before the combat begins, the King intones the Internationale. Gould and Gordongrin then begin to fight. Gordongrin fells Gould but bids him rise and spares him on condition of a generous donation to party funds. The King leads Tessa to Gordongrin, whilst all praise him as her champion and bethrothed

...... continued page 76
(Labour Chief Whip Nick Brown eschewed the commons last night in favour of Lohengrin)

Sorry, Jacqui: I'll choose who to listen to

Until yesterday, I'd never heard of Michael Savage. But since Jacqui Smith saw fit to ban him from the UK, I thought I'd take the opportunity to make up my own mind.

Savage's take on his ban from the UK is available HERE.

Of course, I've probably just broken some draconian anti-terrorist law by posting this link. I'll listen for Smith's Stasi thugs at the door.

The 'housing demand' myth

In every call for an increase in social rented housing, the need is justified by quoting that some 4.5m people or 1.8 million households are now on waiting lists. Have you ever asked yourselves where these millions of people are living now? Are there great tented camps in Hyde Park? Are they sleeping in your High Street? Well, since the latest figures for 'rough sleepers' are astonishingly low, I guess almost all of these 4.5 million people are already living somewhere with a roof over their heads and a bed to sleep in.

If I were to offer X-Box 360s at a sixth of the retail price to whoever joined a waiting list, I've no doubt that the waiting list would reach into the millions within weeks. So why couldn't I then press the taxpayer for more money to buy more subsidised X-Boxes on the basis of the scale of demand? The answer from most sane people would be that the taxpayer shouldn't pay for something that the private sector is capable of providing, that State economic intervention was only justified in cases of market failure or in the provision of public goods such as roads. So why should housing be any different?

When the Parker-Morris standards for Council housing were introduced, the committee realised that they were specifying homes of superlative constructional quality. Being pragmatists, they realised that offering homes equal or better than private sector ones would create huge and unsatisfied demands, so they sought some way to make council houses just a bit less attractive than private homes. What they did was to reduce room sizes. If you've ever been inside a pre-1970s council house you'll know what I mean. Room dimensions were calculated to be just big enough for their purpose, with even the pram measurements of the day used to calculate hallway widths.

Now of course there's little difference between a Barrett starter home and a council house in terms of room size, and planning conditions for social housing often mean there's no constructional difference at all between HA flats and private flats in the same block. So hardly a surprise, is it, that 4.5m people want to move into a heavily subsidised new-built home with laminate flooring, galvanised balconette and halogen down-lighters straight out of the DFS catalogue.

No, before we invest further in social housing we should look at bedspaces in existing social housing. Buried in the census information this usefully reveals overcrowding at the SOA level - at the level of each 'clump' of about 1,500 subjects across the nation. It also reveals chronic under-occupancy on some council estates. Of course, many are now RTB but nevertheless I'll bet there is no overall shortage of social housing bedspaces in many LA areas.

The 'needs' based priorities are hugely discredited and every prospective tenant knows how to fiddle the criteria. Even 'Baroness' Uddin, a deeply corrupt Labour peer, knows how to fiddle herself an HA flat. There is no market failure in house construction. There are few reasons in the 21st century to continue to provide State subsidised social housing. The Hills Report reveals that each social housing tenant will enjoy a rent subsidy at the taxpayer's cost of £65,000 at NPV over an average tenancy, and the cost to the economy of subsidised rents is £6.6bn a year.

And more importantly, the value of 'our' social housing stock before the crash was some £400bn. Imagine if this was privatised, as Thatcher privatised British Gas, with preference given to small-scale and local investors, and in lots small enough to be 'owned' but large enough to be economically managed. With a phased shift to market rents and returns. George Osborne please take note. This is the one route you have to reverse Brown's scorched earth destruction of the national economy, and at the same time create massive positive externalities and social 'good'. Privatising the nation's social housing stock is an idea whose time has come.

Tuesday, 5 May 2009

Post Office is the Gurkhas all over again

The British public are not overly sophisticated in drawing policy comparisons. Thus they couldn't see why the government wouldn't let in a few tens of thousands of Gurkhas, whom they liked, when it had opened the door to a million alien spongers, whom they didn't.

And so they will ask why Brown can't lend a few billion to the Post Office, which they like, when he's ready to hand over several hundred billions to the banks, which they don't.

I reckon Brown's intransigence will lose him a another couple of percentage points in the next poll.

There's just no telling some people. Sigh.

It just gets worse for Brown

Aiming for a post bank holiday relaunch today with a visit to a Lewisham school, Her Majesty's Press were witness to a protester trying to block Gordon Brown's car and a large group of protesting parents outside the school, angry at the Labour council's education policy. The pics in tomorrow's papers should be good.

Meanwhile David Cameron urged the nation to vote on 4th June anyway they liked so long as it was a vote against Gordon Brown. "They cannot go on forever. Change in our country will come. And we can make that glorious day of change arrive all the sooner, if on June 4 you give this weak, useless and spineless government a message it won't forget". Thus rather neatly sidestepping what a vote for Cameron's MEPs on 4th June would actually be for.

And Brown's reputation as a petulant bully was confirmed when Blears contrived to look demure and frightened as she was escorted into today's cabinet meeting by fraudster James Purnell and contrite and bollocked as Andy Burnham held her hand on the way out. Coupled with leaked comments about Brown's 'hairdryer treatment' of Iain Dale's diminutive chipmunk, I score it Blears 2 Brown 0.

Is it any wonder they're voting BNP?

The latest useful political issues poll was the February ICM one published in the Guardian. Not surprisingly, the economy dominated as by far the most important issue of the day - several months of relentless news coverage have placed it at the front of the public's mind. However, looking at how the issues would have ranked excluding the economy is interesting, not least for the divergence between the overall ranking and the ranking by the DEs;

All respondents
Taxation and public services - 13%
Health service - 11%
Law and Order - 10%
Asylum and immigration - 9%
Education - 9%

DE respondents
Health service - 15%
Law and Order - 14%
Asylum and immigration - 12%
Education - 9%
Taxation and public services - 5%

So, with Labour seeing a significant proportion of their vote bleeding away to the BNP, you'd think they'd shift some policies to meet their concerns. The C2s and DEs are also the most disillusioned with the ability of existing parties to tackle some of these issues, with the highest disillusionment scores for Europe, asylum and immigration and terrorism;

Party with best policies on
Europe - None of them - C2 30% DE 23%
Asylum and Immigration - None of them - C2 32% DE 30%
Terrorism - None of them - C2 32% DE 30%

Now, when around a third of your traditional voters are telling you they don't trust your policies on key issues, again you'd think the response would be to shift some key policies, wouldn't you?

This thread on Labourhome discusses the key policies the comrades think Labour should adopt to secure a fourth term. Amongst the serious suggestions are, er, nationalising the railways, free dentistry for all, more equality (as in positive discrimination), more council houses, increased pensions, and income tax starting at the national minimum wage.

I don't know what they're smoking, but it's not Virginia tobacco.

Polly asks ....

Toynbee asks in her column this morning:
Is Labour looking for more humiliation? When even Hazel Blears turns sarcastic, does Gordon Brown want to stand up in the Commons and punch himself flat to the ground again?
Uhm, yes, I suspect that's exactly what the ignorant, third-rate, bone-headed, intellectually challenged, petulant, dysfunctional and unpopular blockhead will do.

Unravelling Thatcher

The stand-off in Erith and Thamesmead between the 279 constituency Labour Party members and the powerful grandees of the central party over their attempt to instruct the locals to accept the 22 year-old Honourable Georgina Gould (for such we must call her, as the daughter of a life peer) as their candidate for the next election is a distant ripple from the Thatcher era.

The year 1979 was indeed a watershed in British politics. Thatcher began a process of ruthless centralisation that lost the Conservative Party over a million members and robbed local government of everything they had fought for since the mid nineteenth century. The disempowering of local party associations and control by central office has made the parachuting-in of apparatchik blow-ins such as Ms Gould by both main parties the norm rather than the exception. Thatcher's centralism also provided the perfect platform for the growth of Labour's Leviathan State; had local government retained the powers it had before 1979, the effects of Brown's mismanagement of the public sector would now be much reduced.

Whether the good of her economic and labour reforms outweighs the bad of her central Statism remains to be seen; and don't forget that needs-based letting and the duty-to-house which has created ghettoes of squalor, crime, idleness, ignorance and illness in our large council estates was a Thatcher creation. Against all the advice and urging of Conservative councils at the time.

As Thatcherphile readers now retreat with a box of tissues in dismay to watch à la Richard Timney their endless replays of the 1979 election, unravelling the effects of Thatcher's and later Brown's neutering of local government is quietly being undertaken both inside and outside Parliament.

The Communities and Local Government select committee have since July last year been looking at the relationship between central and local government. Now at oral evidence stage, Hazel Blears' recent transcript proves the truth of previous expert evidence; that Brown's government is deeply committed to ruthless central control whilst mendaciously throwing meaningless sops to localists within their own party. As the LSE's Prof. George Jones said in diplomatic language to the committee:
It depends on what view you have of the proper role of central government and its relationship with local government. What has been happening for the last 30 or so years is that increasingly the central government has seen local authorities as their executive agents, no different from other parts of the central government departments. They are there to carry out the wishes of central government departments in particular services. They are very service oriented whereas local government must be valued as providing opportunities for local people to govern themselves, to shape the development of their own local communities and not just to be executive agents of central government. This is the choice that has to be made: do you want to go in the centralist direction or the localist direction? The government has been fudging, in its rhetoric, by speaking out for decentralisation to local government and to communities and people, but the reality, despite the reduction in certain targets and indicators, is that it is still dominated by the desire to control what local authorities are doing.
These arguments are no mere ideological nit-picking; the future of core services such as health and education are utterly dependent on the outcome of this debate. The excesses of Labour's Leviathan State have failed to secure meaningful service improvements and the whole country knows it. The State must be shrunk, and the nation realises this also. The failure of central Statism is manifest. Only a root and branch devolution of control to the lowest level at which services can be designed and managed has a hope of squaring this circle.

Monday, 4 May 2009

Harman joins Johnson as leadership contender

Given the aphorism that he or she who wields the knife never wears the crown, it's almost comical watching the two Labourites most ambitious for the leadership lying through their teeth in professing their undying loyalty to Brown in an effort to distance themselves from the assassins.

In contrast Blears, Clarke and the rest who have wielded their stilettos (if you believe the aphorism) are ruling themselves out as contenders.

If Brown goes after June, will he be the first Prime Minister to have taken and left office without ever having faced the electorate?

These days I look at the comments on Labourhome as a source of deep comfort and amusement. I can't remember when I've enjoyed myself more.

Sunday, 3 May 2009

Whilst politicians trough ....

Whilst politicians trough and the metropolitan political class continue a lunatic refusal to acknowledge there's any kind of problem with our broken democracy, voices from the coalface that politicians simply don't want to hear are pleading for an audience. If you have fifteen minutes, please watch both of these vids; ignore the grammar, the sentiment is as articulate as anything I've seen.

The Moston Martyr was a Labour voter who denies any sympathy for the BNP. Nevertheless, these vids have earned that party much support in Manchester. For what it's worth, I don't think he's being racist - I wouldn't link if I did - his words and language are the same as I hear from the inarticulate working class here in London, unused to those careful euphemisms we all employ.

For goodness sakes let's listen to these people before we go down a path as a nation that no responsible person wants.

Laming, like Rousseau, is a malignant canker

Rousseau's belief that children should be separated from their fathers and brought up by the State was the first thing that came to my mind when I read Lord Laming's belief that
.. the state should become a responsible and effective parent to more children
Rousseau it was who wanted to destroy all intermediate institutions between the individual and the Leviathan State so that
Each citizen would then be completely independent of his fellow men, and absolutely dependent upon the state . . . for it is only by the force of the state that the liberty of its members can be secured
The mere notion that the State can be a parent of any kind is anathema, still less that the State can be either responsible or effective. Many of the failings that have put so many children at risk in the first place are the failings of Statism and Welfarism; the encouragement of bastardy as government policy, the inner-city ghettoes where ignorance, disease, squalor, idleness and poverty thrive in a Welfarist glasshouse, and the destruction by a centralist State of horizontal ties and the primacy of intermediate institutions in our lives. It is Burke's little platoons that offer us the only long-term solution;
To be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections. It is the first link in the series by which we proceed toward a love to our country and to mankind. The interest of that portion of social arrangement is a trust in the hands of all those who compose it; and as none but bad men would justify it in abuse, none but traitors would barter it away for their own personal advantage
Without the little platoons, the English underclass will continue in a downward spiral of degradation, self-hurt and lives of brutal anomie. Laming and his kind are the enemy of those he professes to care for, and his relentless drive to Statist intervention wounds them as greviously as any knife or gun or beating.

This man represents all the evil of Labour's Leviathan State, clothed in shallow care and false concern. He is a malignant canker growing at the heart of our nation, and he must be cut out and removed if the patient is to recover.

Sunday Sleaze: Another Labour thief

Today's Labour thief is 'Baroness' Uddin. Living in London, she didn't think that the £86.50 a day allowance that London Lords get paid in lieu of a salary was quite enough, so she bought a flat in Maidstone, kept it empty and claimed it as her main residence in order to qualify for a higher rate allowance of £174 a day.

The Times reports that this weekend Uddin and her family have been desperately 'dressing' the empty flat to give it the appearance of having been lived in. Too late.

This is the Labour peer who has evinced a public concern over housing shortages for Bangladeshis in the UK, but such hypocrisy is just meat and drink to Labour's sleazebuckets like Uddin.

Labour have not just corrupted the Commons, but their ignorant fiddling has opened the Lords to a horde of Labour thieves and liars who disgrace the peerage of the United Kingdom. Enough is enough. We must clear this foul and corrupt spawn from our political system.