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.

Friday, 23 November 2012

If there's a housing shortage ....

If there's a housing shortage, why aren't people sleeping on the streets? Currently in the UK, everyone has a bed somewhere. Admittedly, many live in overcrowded homes whilst others rattle around in under-occupied houses. In some parts of the country whole streets and terraces of perfectly decent Victorian cottages stand empty, cottages that folk in Kentish Town or Muswell Hill would pay half a mill for. If they were in Kentish Town or Muswell Hill.

And that's the nub. The 20,000 west Africans who have arrived in my London borough over the past fifteen years don't want to live in Middlesbrough either. They'll take a decent new-build Housing Association flat, thank-you, on the corner where a local pub used to stand. Which has forced Darren and his girlfriend into a private buy-to-let that they can only afford to rent on Housing Benefit. He did train as a bus driver, but needed to work a regular 48 hour week to make £500 before tax. He'd rather leave that to the immigrants and over-50s.

And now the government has decided that if Darren and his girlfriend are going to do nothing all day except smoke spliffies and watch daytime TV they might as well do it in Margate rather than Brockley, at a considerable saving to the taxpayer. 

Polly, of course, makes the most tremendous whine that Darren's mum will no longer be able to pop around from the 3-bed Council flat she's had for three decades. That the moves will split up extended families, take people out of their own areas, break links and bonds of community and family. All true, sadly. But then Polly probably doesn't follow the stats published on Migration Watch; ONS figures that show that 20% of social housing in London is occupied by foreign nationals.

Of course, we could instead move all those foreign nationals to Margate, Bournemouth and Middlesbrough and free up 350,000 homes in London overnight for all the Darrens - but I have a feeling this isn't exactly what Polly's after.

Thursday, 22 November 2012

Oborne's EU over-egging

Peter Oborne's EU exit scare piece in this morning's Telegraph is a more intelligent and nuanced version of the clumsy cudgel that appeared at the weekend as an Observer editorial. However, Peter has over-egged this particular pudding;

It seems likely, for example, that European leaders would take a keen pleasure in punishing Britain by making it clear that an independent Scotland might be allowed to stay as part of the EU 
Not without, erm, 'punishing' Spain and France by allowing Catalun and Basque membership or Belgium by allowing an independent Flanders to join. What Peter means to say is 'It is extremely unlikely that an independent Scotland would be allowed immediate admission into the EU'. It's impossible for England, Wales and Northern Ireland to leave the EU and leave Scotland in; the whole UK must secede. And with Devo Max - the option the Scots are likely to favour (though not on the ballot paper) - they would remain inside the UK.

I am also pretty certain that British withdrawal from Europe would estrange us from the United States, which has been so keen on British membership that the CIA secretly funded the 1975 referendum campaign.
CIA funding to the European Movement between 1949 and 1953 is by now well documented, and although the CIA funded the Youth movement until 1959 by 1957 it had achieved its objective. By the early 1970s CIA funding had long dried up - unless Oborne has novel evidence to the contrary - to be replaced in the UK by covert funding by the FCO to the EM for a 'Yes' vote, in the same way the current government funds the fake charities. There's simply no indication that the UK as a member of a wide European trading block rather than as a member of a new Greater German Federation would cause any 'estrangement' from the US; in fact, the reverse is more probable. 

Forget what the polls say. If there was a referendum on British membership of the European Union tomorrow, the pro-Europeans would win handsomely. 
Well, probably not the case if the poll was actually tomorrow - but Peter means that both Euphile elements at the heart of the State and the whole weight of the EU's propaganda machine would be thrown in and funded by astronomical amounts of money to change people's minds - as happened in Ireland. What we should be campaigning for is a pre-referendum publicity cap - with the Commission and Council banned from contributing in any way, and the government banned by law from using our own money to fund the 'No' campaign. 

There could be a return to military dictatorship in certain European countries. Things are getting worse, not better. In these tragic and terrible circumstances, it is surely the job of any British prime minister to rise to the occasion with magnanimity and generosity
The sums at stake in the Commission budget negotiations are neither here nor there in the difference they will make to the political tensions in Greece or Spain; unemployment won't be reduced, the military won't stop their sabre rattling. The only measure that will lower the risk of military dictatorship is for these nations to be allowed to float their currencies - i.e. to leave the inner circle of the EU. If Britain leads the way in heading an 'outer circle' we will do far more good for these peoples than throwing away a few more millions into the Commissions pisspot. 

Apart from its manifold inaccuracies, emotional blackmailing, errors and omissions of fact and perverse logic, another good piece from Peter Oborne.

Wednesday, 21 November 2012

Sick morality feeds the sex gangs

The Pakistani men who disproportionally make up around a third of identified sex-gang members must hardly believe their luck. In many cases shackled by their village imams into marrying their first cousins, many seek some sexual outlet outside of their strict communities. We've provided them with a massive cohort of disfunctional teen girls with rock-bottom self-esteem, hopeless futures and a desire to use whatever chemicals they can get hold of to obliterate the grey reality of the present. Desperate for any attention or affection, dehumanised by time served in State Childrens Homes, these emotional cripples are easy meat for the sex-gang abusers.  

Britain, which has encouraged any arrangement other than the traditional family as the societal model, whose benefits system rewards those women who spit out fatherless kids like sows farrowing, also has a welfare system that rapidly whips those kids off into 'residential care' before their mums can have them pierced and tattooed as pre-school decorative objects. Unlike modern Chistianity, Islam regards non co-religionists as fair game to be cheated, abused and taken advantage of; small wonder that Pakistani men, who would have their nadgers smashed with bricks if they tried the same with one of their own, feel they have licence to commit the most foul and exploitative abuse against these socially disabled girls.

Despite making up 90% of the population only about a third of known sex-gang offenders are white. I suspect many more poor white trash males are solitary sex offenders, quietly abusing their stepkids, with no particular need to join sex-gangs to hunt in packs. The sex-gang is a feature of poor immigrant communities, mini-cab drivers, curry house cooks and squalid damp cockroach infested mattresses on the floors of rooms above the local halal kebab shop. 

But it's our sick and morally relativist society that feeds the monster.   

Monday, 19 November 2012

Does Hugh Robertson need deer testicles?

You won't know who Hugh Robertson is. None of the staff at the London Olympics did either, which prompted an indignant 'Don't you know who I am?' from Mr Robertson. They shuffled their feet a bit and shook their heads. It had to be explained that Mr Robertson was the Minister for Sports and Tourism; in fact they had to keep pictures of him pinned up to remind them. He's got the sort of immediately forgettable face that bank robbers would long to own. His own children have been known to miss him in a pub car park. When he sits in senior DCMS meetings the chairman always starts with 'Let's just go round the table and introduce ourselves ...'

Anyhow, here's a tip for Mr Robertson from his fellow Tourism Minister for the Spanish Balearics, Carlos Delgado; have yourself pictured with a fresh pair of deer's balls on your head. Then Tweet it. Snr Delgado's domestic profile has risen significantly since (although there's always the risk that he may now be greeted with an 'Oh sorry, I didn't recognise you without your testicles'). Go on, Mr Robertson, what have you got to lose?

Kelly peddles his corrupt fix

Tax funding for private political clubs returns to the agenda today as Christopher Kelly uses the Indie to push his corrupt fix that would throw money at the old dinosaur parties alone without any remit or permission from the taxpayer. 

In return for a donations cap for political parties, there would need to be a mechanism to allow them to increase funding by other means, argued Kelly's committee. So far so good.
  • He could have recommended tax-relief on party membership fees for all registered political parties.
  • He could have recommended a £1-for-£1 tax contribution for all registered parties on all small donations from individuals
  • He could have recommended each voter having the option of nominating a registered political party for a £3 a year tax donation, or not so doing, with no linkage between this any any election vote cast. 
All of the above would have preserved individual voter sanction over tax funding, allowing those utterly opposed to any tax funding to withhold it. All of the above would have encouraged increased local membership and engagement with parties. So what did Kelly choose?

He picked Hayden Phillips corrupt fix whereby each party with sitting MPs only would be given £3 a year for each vote cast at the previous general election. Never mind that voters voted for a local MP, not to give money to the parties. Never mind the millions of tactical votes cast for parties the electors would not otherwise give funding to. Never mind that five years is a long time in politics and popular support can rapidly vanish, as the LibDems have found. Never mind that registered parties with very large numbers of votes but no MPs would get nothing.  

Kelly's proposals would benefit only the Big Three incumbent parties; his proposals are so utterly flawed, so anti-democratic, so biased towards big-state centralism and the existing political class that they can only be described as corrupt. No fair and balanced committee chair would dream of advancing proposals so skewed, so distorted and which have the effect of excluding any change or challenge to the existing order. It is an establishment fix with one aim only - to preserve the political status quo in the face of voter revolt and disenchantment. As such we must spew it out as a foul draught, a filthy, toxic brew. 

NB Channel 4 Despatches 8.00pm tonight on sleaze and corruption in Parliament - 'Are they still at it' - worth setting the Betamax for.

Sunday, 18 November 2012

Panic amongst the Euphiles

The latest poll published today in the Observer showing growing support from all parts of the political spectrum for an exit from the EU has spread panic amongst the Euphiles. With UKIP polling consistently at about 10%, a popular vote share in an actual ballot of about 15% is not unexpected; as commentators have remarked, support for the EU is highest in the young and at its lowest in the old, but the old vote drags its way to the polling station whilst the young vote stays in bed. And of course the Euphiles in panic predictably roll out all the old myths and scare stories, as does the Observer's editorial today:-

Britain's mass car industry will head to low-cost countries that have remained in the EU
Not true. The UK is best known for premium and sports car marques such as Aston Martin, Bentley, Daimler, Jaguar, Lagonda, Land Rover, Lotus, McLaren, MG, Mini, Morgan and Rolls-Royce. These have all shown growth and demand in growing and emerging economies outside the EU; some 55% of UK vehicle production is sold outside of Europe, with only 20% - 30% going to other EU countries. The UK has competitive advantage in car production in several areas - high productivity, excellent sea transport links and of course our workforce speaks English, the commercial world's lingua franca.

Airbus production will migrate to Germany and France.
False. It is already being migrated to China. Of Airbus' global workforce of around 57,000 just 9,600 are employed in the UK. The consortium has already opened both an assembly plant for the A320 and a component manufacturing plant in China, which is set to gain from a gradual migration of jobs from the EU. the company has already shed 10,000 jobs in the EU since 2007 and more are set to follow.

It was partly because Germany now anticipates Britain leaving the EU that Berlin vetoed BAe's deal with the defence giant EADS. It did not want Europe's defence industry to be concentrated in a non-EU member.
Some truth here - but the advantages are mutual. "As of 2008 Britain has become the worlds leading developer of arms with British company BAE Systems. Defence group BAE Systems is the first company outside the U.S. to reach the top position,thanks to a deal with the Pentagon for mine-resistant vehicles to be used in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, a defence think tank, the former British Aerospace group's arms sales are ahead of American market leaders Lockheed Martin and Boeing." US arms sales make up about 60% of BAe's activity - and US markets would be at risk from 'leaky' and insecure European arms operations. 

The financial services industry will be regulated on terms set in Brussels and be powerless to resist
This is just sheer nonsense, worthy of a post of its own to rebut.

British farmers, who have prospered under the Common Agricultural Policy, will find they become dependent on whatever mean-spirited British system of farm support that replaces it. Farms will survive by industrial farming, devastating the beloved English countryside.
This from a paper that normally whines about CAP payments going disproportionately to the UK's richest landowners? 

Tax avoidance and evasion will reach crippling levels as our economy becomes increasingly wholly owned by foreign multinationals that make tax avoidance in Britain central to their business strategy.
What, companies such as Starbucks, Amazon and eBay that currently contribute such vast amounts of tax to the UK Treasury under the EU single market? 

Of course, our direct budget contribution saving of £20bn a year, £17bn reduction in food costs from scrapping the CAP, £3.3bn from reclaiming our fish stocks from the CFP and de-regulation savings of perhaps £15bn a year are nowhere mentioned by the Euphiles. Nor are England's vast shale-gas reserves in our 200 mile limit in the North Sea. Nor the tsunami of increased trade with the Anglophone Commonwealth, currently restricted from EU markets. But expect the Euphiles to fight like cornered rats - they're not going to give up all they gain at our expense easily.