Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Cameron's Crisis
In truth it is Britain which is in crisis. We are about to be broken up totally against our will into a group of powerless regions or newly created statelets, where democratic input is minimal. This is still and has always a stealth programme, now in the hands of the stealth Prime Minister.
The Constitution is merely how they hope to lock the gate and throw away the key, so the chewing up of the meal can really begin.
We are governed 80% from Brussels already even before we are broken up. Parliament is a sham providing no proper scrutiny, but theatre where great Europeans can parade their egos in adoration by the media.
Our elections are becoming substantially rigged with postal vote fraud and ballot box tampering.
If we sit back for a few seconds and take it all on board, we are actually lost right now, and it will take a very determined programme from somewhere to put things back where they should be.
The law cannot defend private citizens from violent crime. Educational standards are plummeting. There is no respect for or fear of authority anywhere. The only question is who has the strength or determination to stop this process rotting us away.
David Cameron certainly has the right instincts and many polices to put Britain's broken society back together, but how will he ever achieve anything if he cannot first put power and democratic accountability back where it belongs in Parliament and away for Brussels and its latest gauleiter Gordon Brown.
He is completely compromised by the europhile rump in the Conservative Party like Ken Clarke, John Bercow and as was a few Quentin Davies' and to a lesser extent William Hague, who doesn't seem to get the urgency of the crisis..
Cameron is 100% dependent on the media to present him to the voters, which is why so much effort has gone into pretending to be Blair-like and so on. He has succeeded in making the media like him, which is a valuable achievement but it has been at the expense of the belief of the majority of his own supporters. This ‘positioning’ process of media engagement has to ease up now or it will bring about the end of his term as leader from within the party. There is no choice. The media cannot be the total priority any longer.
So where to next?
The answer is that he must open up non-media channels – increase internet use - and communicate to voters directly as small parties do. First Cameron will have to consolidate the core range of policies which excite his own supporters and which excite other potential electors. Then a programme of regular door to door leafleting, postering must be embarked upon nationally. Conservative supporters must engage in a weight loss programme by forming an army to bypass the main media to ensure the message gets delivered, wearing out shoe leather.
The in-house rump of Europhiles must be shuffled off. It is really the job of their Constituents to push out the likes of Ken Clarke. Rushcliffe have tried deselection against him before, but he dodged it. It won’t keep him out of the media but it will mean that Cameron doesn’t have to bother as much about his effects.
Cameron must then promote those within the Party who are serious about the issues, and not the best media image creators as advocated constantly by Iain Dale and the like. The Tim Montgomerie seriousness should be allowed to predominate, the Cornerstone, John Hayes, John Redwood and IDS.
How long has Cameron got?
Brown will go to the country next May at the earliest. He seems to be more concerned with other political threats right now as much as the Conservatives and Lib Dems, swinging away from permissiveness and towards pseudo-authoritarianism and (false) nationalism. He is seeing canvas returns showing support for the BNP is at levels which must be concerning him, judging by his language. Unless the Conservatives move into the slot and provide a much more hardline version of Conservatism – not as rhetoric or tone – but as policies – we will be outflanked on the right by Brown as he tries to see off the threat to his vote by the BNP.
Brown’s talking of ‘British jobs for British people’ and ‘repatriating 4000 illegal immigrants’. He’s cancelled the casinos, is raising the stakes on cannabis and wanting to tackle antisocial behaviour.
Apart from the casino policy which is effective, the others are going to be all talk unless there is major alteration to the criminal justice system sufficient to bring fear and respect back into our society. That won’t be possible inside the EU. Britain has reached a crisis point. For the first time the EU drift is coming up against strong fast-growing resistance. The Party that delivers the end of the EU and repairs Britain will be the one to hold power. There is no reason why that should not be the Conservatives. It certainly won’t be Labour or the Lib Dems. If we fail, there is little doubt that the resistance will move across and grow faster in previously minor parties.
I think we have 6 months to reset the trend. I have no doubt that Cameron has the seriousness of purpose. But will he be able to be more than a one trick pony? He knows the media game. Can he impose authority? There are the people inside the Party who could help him, but will he turn to the right ones?
The Constitution is merely how they hope to lock the gate and throw away the key, so the chewing up of the meal can really begin.
We are governed 80% from Brussels already even before we are broken up. Parliament is a sham providing no proper scrutiny, but theatre where great Europeans can parade their egos in adoration by the media.
Our elections are becoming substantially rigged with postal vote fraud and ballot box tampering.
If we sit back for a few seconds and take it all on board, we are actually lost right now, and it will take a very determined programme from somewhere to put things back where they should be.
The law cannot defend private citizens from violent crime. Educational standards are plummeting. There is no respect for or fear of authority anywhere. The only question is who has the strength or determination to stop this process rotting us away.
David Cameron certainly has the right instincts and many polices to put Britain's broken society back together, but how will he ever achieve anything if he cannot first put power and democratic accountability back where it belongs in Parliament and away for Brussels and its latest gauleiter Gordon Brown.
He is completely compromised by the europhile rump in the Conservative Party like Ken Clarke, John Bercow and as was a few Quentin Davies' and to a lesser extent William Hague, who doesn't seem to get the urgency of the crisis..
Cameron is 100% dependent on the media to present him to the voters, which is why so much effort has gone into pretending to be Blair-like and so on. He has succeeded in making the media like him, which is a valuable achievement but it has been at the expense of the belief of the majority of his own supporters. This ‘positioning’ process of media engagement has to ease up now or it will bring about the end of his term as leader from within the party. There is no choice. The media cannot be the total priority any longer.
So where to next?
The answer is that he must open up non-media channels – increase internet use - and communicate to voters directly as small parties do. First Cameron will have to consolidate the core range of policies which excite his own supporters and which excite other potential electors. Then a programme of regular door to door leafleting, postering must be embarked upon nationally. Conservative supporters must engage in a weight loss programme by forming an army to bypass the main media to ensure the message gets delivered, wearing out shoe leather.
The in-house rump of Europhiles must be shuffled off. It is really the job of their Constituents to push out the likes of Ken Clarke. Rushcliffe have tried deselection against him before, but he dodged it. It won’t keep him out of the media but it will mean that Cameron doesn’t have to bother as much about his effects.
Cameron must then promote those within the Party who are serious about the issues, and not the best media image creators as advocated constantly by Iain Dale and the like. The Tim Montgomerie seriousness should be allowed to predominate, the Cornerstone, John Hayes, John Redwood and IDS.
How long has Cameron got?
Brown will go to the country next May at the earliest. He seems to be more concerned with other political threats right now as much as the Conservatives and Lib Dems, swinging away from permissiveness and towards pseudo-authoritarianism and (false) nationalism. He is seeing canvas returns showing support for the BNP is at levels which must be concerning him, judging by his language. Unless the Conservatives move into the slot and provide a much more hardline version of Conservatism – not as rhetoric or tone – but as policies – we will be outflanked on the right by Brown as he tries to see off the threat to his vote by the BNP.
Brown’s talking of ‘British jobs for British people’ and ‘repatriating 4000 illegal immigrants’. He’s cancelled the casinos, is raising the stakes on cannabis and wanting to tackle antisocial behaviour.
Apart from the casino policy which is effective, the others are going to be all talk unless there is major alteration to the criminal justice system sufficient to bring fear and respect back into our society. That won’t be possible inside the EU. Britain has reached a crisis point. For the first time the EU drift is coming up against strong fast-growing resistance. The Party that delivers the end of the EU and repairs Britain will be the one to hold power. There is no reason why that should not be the Conservatives. It certainly won’t be Labour or the Lib Dems. If we fail, there is little doubt that the resistance will move across and grow faster in previously minor parties.
I think we have 6 months to reset the trend. I have no doubt that Cameron has the seriousness of purpose. But will he be able to be more than a one trick pony? He knows the media game. Can he impose authority? There are the people inside the Party who could help him, but will he turn to the right ones?
Thursday, July 26, 2007
No I'm Not A Girl
I found folk on PB (politicalbetting.com) discussing my sex today. Yes I am male. My blogname tapestry is female sounding, I admit.
I used to blog on ft.com in the 1990's. A bloke called Stephen Saines who lived in Canada awarded the regular contributors to the 'euro' threads names, based on the pieces on a monopoly board. As I was the eurosceptic pro-UK pound contributor, he called me 'top hat'. Up til then I'd used my real name 'henry'.
I found that often my posts would not get through. When I changed my name they suddenly would get through again so I started inventing names that would be recognised by my fellow correspondents ( I don't think we called ourselves bloggers in those days).
'Top Hat' became 'topper' then'tapper' then 'tapestry' then 'teapastry' then 'tapestory' and so on. So when I started blogging in 2006 due to illhealth and having to stop work, I went back and used one of my old ID's.
Some people say that you should blog in your own name. One reason I don't do that, is that when I go on search engines to track things I've written on non-political topics in publications, there can be too many 'whacks' of my name from political blogs, mking search awfully hard work. I keep my real name for my business and other non-political writing.
To complete the story, others often replied to me as 'tap' rather than tapestry. When I started my blog on google, I could use the-tap.blogspot and it sounded OK. I had a lot of strange events on my google blog after writiing against well-known and well-resourced individuals and started a second blog here using Tapestrytalks inspired by Dizzythinks. By copying around a few, it is harder for any blockers or hackers to make trouble.
I used to blog on ft.com in the 1990's. A bloke called Stephen Saines who lived in Canada awarded the regular contributors to the 'euro' threads names, based on the pieces on a monopoly board. As I was the eurosceptic pro-UK pound contributor, he called me 'top hat'. Up til then I'd used my real name 'henry'.
I found that often my posts would not get through. When I changed my name they suddenly would get through again so I started inventing names that would be recognised by my fellow correspondents ( I don't think we called ourselves bloggers in those days).
'Top Hat' became 'topper' then'tapper' then 'tapestry' then 'teapastry' then 'tapestory' and so on. So when I started blogging in 2006 due to illhealth and having to stop work, I went back and used one of my old ID's.
Some people say that you should blog in your own name. One reason I don't do that, is that when I go on search engines to track things I've written on non-political topics in publications, there can be too many 'whacks' of my name from political blogs, mking search awfully hard work. I keep my real name for my business and other non-political writing.
To complete the story, others often replied to me as 'tap' rather than tapestry. When I started my blog on google, I could use the-tap.blogspot and it sounded OK. I had a lot of strange events on my google blog after writiing against well-known and well-resourced individuals and started a second blog here using Tapestrytalks inspired by Dizzythinks. By copying around a few, it is harder for any blockers or hackers to make trouble.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Britain's Fifth Column Falsify Information To Attack Cameron
The attacks on Cameron were initiated by Rupert Murdoch according to Stephan Sheakespeare who was told three weeks or so ago by a Murdoch editor that Murdoch had decided to be rid of Cameron and replace him with Hague. This coincided with the Brown takeover and with Cameron strongly resisting the EU Constitution.
The only polling organisation to provide hopeful polls to Brown after the by-elections was ICM Guardian. The first poll was a survey which did not ask about voting intention. The questions were 1. which party did you vote for at the election and 2. which party do you feel warmest to now? From these answers, voting intention was deduced.
The results look odd as 'others' has been awarded 9%. Most other polls find others on around 15%. At Sedgefiled, others were on 20%. At Southall where the voting mix is not as typical, others were on 10%.
Judging by the obvious bias in the most recent poll focused entirely on Cameron, not even asking anyone if they liked Cameron and the Conservative Party, it would not be unreasonable to deduce that ICM Guardian's recent polling has become blinded by the need to ramp up the pressure on Cameron.
The BBC has clearly been running the narrative about Cameron's trip to Rwanda being a wrong move. His time spent in his Constituency beforehand visiting flood-affected people - two days - was not even reported. The media bias in this country and the blatant attempt to unseat yet another Conservative leader by providing effective lies to suit, is downright pathetic.
If there 2 letters written to the 1922, one would be Bercow who is usually to the fore in these media coordinated games. The other could be Ken Clarke, or another Europhile. If the pro-European conspiracy cannot unseat Cameron this time, they will probably try again in a few months time. If I was a Conservative eurosceptic doubting Cameron's strength of will to fight on my behalf, I would be feeling most encouraged by Cameron. Not from what he's telling me himself so much, but from what the stealth enemies of Britain and our democracy are trying to do to Cameron.
The only polling organisation to provide hopeful polls to Brown after the by-elections was ICM Guardian. The first poll was a survey which did not ask about voting intention. The questions were 1. which party did you vote for at the election and 2. which party do you feel warmest to now? From these answers, voting intention was deduced.
The results look odd as 'others' has been awarded 9%. Most other polls find others on around 15%. At Sedgefiled, others were on 20%. At Southall where the voting mix is not as typical, others were on 10%.
Judging by the obvious bias in the most recent poll focused entirely on Cameron, not even asking anyone if they liked Cameron and the Conservative Party, it would not be unreasonable to deduce that ICM Guardian's recent polling has become blinded by the need to ramp up the pressure on Cameron.
The BBC has clearly been running the narrative about Cameron's trip to Rwanda being a wrong move. His time spent in his Constituency beforehand visiting flood-affected people - two days - was not even reported. The media bias in this country and the blatant attempt to unseat yet another Conservative leader by providing effective lies to suit, is downright pathetic.
If there 2 letters written to the 1922, one would be Bercow who is usually to the fore in these media coordinated games. The other could be Ken Clarke, or another Europhile. If the pro-European conspiracy cannot unseat Cameron this time, they will probably try again in a few months time. If I was a Conservative eurosceptic doubting Cameron's strength of will to fight on my behalf, I would be feeling most encouraged by Cameron. Not from what he's telling me himself so much, but from what the stealth enemies of Britain and our democracy are trying to do to Cameron.
Gordon Brown's Dull As Ditch Water
Many Cameron critics on Conservative Home want Conservatives out there attacking Gordon Brown every day. Huntsman wants a full scale assault.
In the same way that it helps Cameron when people attack him, it gives Brown oxygen, energy, something to fight against. The one thing you need if you want to look like the man of the moment is someone to attack you. It makes you look powerful and significant to be attacked.
Brown loves a fight. It gives him a focus. Without a fight, he's rudderless. His 'moral compass' starts spinning all over the place.
If you allow him a clean slate, to show what he truly is, it is actually quite shocking. He is objectively even duller to listen to than anyone believed. Huntsman would help Brown by giving him a verbal war. Don't oblige him. He'll prove his overwhelming dullness much better all by himself. All the time he was Chancellor, he was energised by his hatred of Blair. Now he has no one to hate. His cabinet meetings demonstrate the 100% sycophancy of his team, and their knowledge that it doesn't pay to displease the Gord. He rules supreme. He has everything he ever wanted, and God it's dull.
His programmes too are starting to match his personal dullness. No stylish gambling surrounded by high class hookers. It's cloth cap down the bookies and the national lottery only. Drinking to be curtailed. Parking to be made a nightmare. His one claim to the voters' confidence is that he will be competent. But we already know he's a one trick pony. Money. Billions of it. From the taxpayer, which all gets wasted before it can do anything. In ten years he doubled the size of the state, and halved the amount people get from it.
We don't need to provide him with cover by attacking too hard. Let Gordon Brown have the airwaves all to himself. The public will soon be so bored they'll be crying out for someone with some life in them. Even Ming Campbell has started to look interesting. That's the measure of Brown's dullness. The phrase 'dull as ditch water' sums him up. Dullness is his primary defensive tactic. This week, for example, if he can only make floods seem boring, then people will think about something else, and not the fact that it was him personally, Gordon Brown that cut the spending on flood defences despite all the warnings, and no one else.
Don't forget the quote - my enemy is my helper. It was never truer than for Gordon Brown. He cannot generate energy without an enemy to provide it. Deny him, Huntsman. Don't feed. He'll drown is his own dullness much quicker if he we go quiet. Cameron's playing him just right.
In the same way that it helps Cameron when people attack him, it gives Brown oxygen, energy, something to fight against. The one thing you need if you want to look like the man of the moment is someone to attack you. It makes you look powerful and significant to be attacked.
Brown loves a fight. It gives him a focus. Without a fight, he's rudderless. His 'moral compass' starts spinning all over the place.
If you allow him a clean slate, to show what he truly is, it is actually quite shocking. He is objectively even duller to listen to than anyone believed. Huntsman would help Brown by giving him a verbal war. Don't oblige him. He'll prove his overwhelming dullness much better all by himself. All the time he was Chancellor, he was energised by his hatred of Blair. Now he has no one to hate. His cabinet meetings demonstrate the 100% sycophancy of his team, and their knowledge that it doesn't pay to displease the Gord. He rules supreme. He has everything he ever wanted, and God it's dull.
His programmes too are starting to match his personal dullness. No stylish gambling surrounded by high class hookers. It's cloth cap down the bookies and the national lottery only. Drinking to be curtailed. Parking to be made a nightmare. His one claim to the voters' confidence is that he will be competent. But we already know he's a one trick pony. Money. Billions of it. From the taxpayer, which all gets wasted before it can do anything. In ten years he doubled the size of the state, and halved the amount people get from it.
We don't need to provide him with cover by attacking too hard. Let Gordon Brown have the airwaves all to himself. The public will soon be so bored they'll be crying out for someone with some life in them. Even Ming Campbell has started to look interesting. That's the measure of Brown's dullness. The phrase 'dull as ditch water' sums him up. Dullness is his primary defensive tactic. This week, for example, if he can only make floods seem boring, then people will think about something else, and not the fact that it was him personally, Gordon Brown that cut the spending on flood defences despite all the warnings, and no one else.
Don't forget the quote - my enemy is my helper. It was never truer than for Gordon Brown. He cannot generate energy without an enemy to provide it. Deny him, Huntsman. Don't feed. He'll drown is his own dullness much quicker if he we go quiet. Cameron's playing him just right.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Cameron Loves His Bashers
The day they stop bashing Cameron on CH is the day he's over.
In right wing politics, bashing is the equivalent of imitation - the sincerest form of flattery. It betrays interest to bash. If there is no interest, silence is the response.
Bash away. The more noise the better. Democracy works because debate improves.
That's why Nulab are such a disaster. They sit there in worshipful silence, and turn into scalded cats if anyone dares to even question the pronouncements of their Gord.
The other wonderful thing about Cam-bashing on Con Home is that it sure as hell confuses the left wingers at the BBC, and the Grauniad. How can this ill-disciplined rabble ever expect to make any progress, they muse.
They keep repeating in their narrative what a disaster the grammar school debate was. That's because they haven't had even one debate in Nulab for fifteen years. In fact the grammar school debate was a refreshing outbreak of democratic process and it resulted in a sound policy compromise.
If we go quiet and become like them, we'll fail this country like them. Bash away. Cameron loves it. He's a localist, and localism needs bashers.
Which tune shall we dedicate to Cameron and the spirit of open debate tonight, Cam-bashers?
Cry Me A River? or why not Whitney – I’ll Always Love You?
In right wing politics, bashing is the equivalent of imitation - the sincerest form of flattery. It betrays interest to bash. If there is no interest, silence is the response.
Bash away. The more noise the better. Democracy works because debate improves.
That's why Nulab are such a disaster. They sit there in worshipful silence, and turn into scalded cats if anyone dares to even question the pronouncements of their Gord.
The other wonderful thing about Cam-bashing on Con Home is that it sure as hell confuses the left wingers at the BBC, and the Grauniad. How can this ill-disciplined rabble ever expect to make any progress, they muse.
They keep repeating in their narrative what a disaster the grammar school debate was. That's because they haven't had even one debate in Nulab for fifteen years. In fact the grammar school debate was a refreshing outbreak of democratic process and it resulted in a sound policy compromise.
If we go quiet and become like them, we'll fail this country like them. Bash away. Cameron loves it. He's a localist, and localism needs bashers.
Which tune shall we dedicate to Cameron and the spirit of open debate tonight, Cam-bashers?
Cry Me A River? or why not Whitney – I’ll Always Love You?
Gordon's Barking
Cameron should have known that there were going to be floods. They happen like clockwork every sixty years. 1947 was the last time. Surely he realised these ones would be coming in 2007. What a useless leader of the Conservative Party. If I was an MP, I'd immediately write to the 1922 committee, and demand a leader who at least knows the long range weather forecast - especially when the meteorological office doesn't. I mean. What are politicians for?
BBC Website Headline - Tories to fight for referendum on EU Constitution. So why do they interview Nigel Farage? Is he a Tory? Cameron should call the BBC immediately, and explain that UKIP are a Brussels embezzling, drinking and whoring operation.
UKIP only just beat the Monster Raving Luny Party at Southall. Why doesn't the BBC call the MRLP for a comment on the EU Constitution to provide balance?
Or if they really want to hear something absolutely barking, they should call Gordon Brown.
BBC Website Headline - Tories to fight for referendum on EU Constitution. So why do they interview Nigel Farage? Is he a Tory? Cameron should call the BBC immediately, and explain that UKIP are a Brussels embezzling, drinking and whoring operation.
UKIP only just beat the Monster Raving Luny Party at Southall. Why doesn't the BBC call the MRLP for a comment on the EU Constitution to provide balance?
Or if they really want to hear something absolutely barking, they should call Gordon Brown.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Cameron's Post Southall Strategy
Murdoch is said to be plotting to replace David Cameron with William Hague. (See below - Stepahan Shakesprare. Conservative Home)
http://www.typepad.com/t/app/weblog/post?__mode=edit_entry&id=36512630&blog_id=555190
Imagine what that does to David Cameron knowing that there is a plot to have him replaced involving his key right hand man. No wonder he went half crazy spending all his time in Ealing Southall doing his level best to drive up his credibility within the Party.
Murdoch's displeasure with David Cameron goes back to Cameron's unwillingness to pussyfoot with EU leaders, or attend News International social functions, and rub shoulders with the corrupt. Now that Cameron is making a determined fight to block the EU Constitution without the promised referendum being held first, Murdoch's displeasure and his requirements to please the EU, are moving him strongly against Cameron.
But it is Conservative MPs who decide who leads them, not the EU or Rupert Murdoch. There are not enough europhiles to raise the 15% of signatures at the 1922 committee, and the eurosceptics will be unlikely to pull the rug on David Cameron while he is committed to fighting the EU Constitution.
There is another factor. Cameron's electoral strategy is becoming unworkable.
The spread of a BNP vote around Britain is changing the electoral arithmetic sufficiently that the Conservatives no longer need 40% to win an election. If the BNP are to land between 5-10% in all constituencies, and pull their votes predominantly from Labour, or parties other than Conservatives as they did at Sedgefield, the Conservatives could win an election with the 37% they were already achieving until recently.
With 'other' parties growing their support all the time, it is becoming nigh impossible for any party to get up to 40+% anyway. 'others' already have 16% in polls. By 2009 this could well be 20%. In the 1990's, when Conservative votes were 40+%, 'others' were more like 7%.
Cameron is going nuts trying to broaden the appeal of the party to Lib Dems and other sectors desperately hoping to find a way up to the 40+% level. Maybe he should rethink now, and forget this strategy. If he can consolidate the party at the 37% he is achieving, and he settles everyone down, allowing policies to be Conservative type policies, the work of the BNP especially in decimating labour's vote will bring the target within range. All he has to do now is consolidate.
Maybe while he's in Rwanda, he'll think of this and come back a different man.
http://www.typepad.com/t/app/weblog/post?__mode=edit_entry&id=36512630&blog_id=555190
Imagine what that does to David Cameron knowing that there is a plot to have him replaced involving his key right hand man. No wonder he went half crazy spending all his time in Ealing Southall doing his level best to drive up his credibility within the Party.
Murdoch's displeasure with David Cameron goes back to Cameron's unwillingness to pussyfoot with EU leaders, or attend News International social functions, and rub shoulders with the corrupt. Now that Cameron is making a determined fight to block the EU Constitution without the promised referendum being held first, Murdoch's displeasure and his requirements to please the EU, are moving him strongly against Cameron.
But it is Conservative MPs who decide who leads them, not the EU or Rupert Murdoch. There are not enough europhiles to raise the 15% of signatures at the 1922 committee, and the eurosceptics will be unlikely to pull the rug on David Cameron while he is committed to fighting the EU Constitution.
There is another factor. Cameron's electoral strategy is becoming unworkable.
The spread of a BNP vote around Britain is changing the electoral arithmetic sufficiently that the Conservatives no longer need 40% to win an election. If the BNP are to land between 5-10% in all constituencies, and pull their votes predominantly from Labour, or parties other than Conservatives as they did at Sedgefield, the Conservatives could win an election with the 37% they were already achieving until recently.
With 'other' parties growing their support all the time, it is becoming nigh impossible for any party to get up to 40+% anyway. 'others' already have 16% in polls. By 2009 this could well be 20%. In the 1990's, when Conservative votes were 40+%, 'others' were more like 7%.
Cameron is going nuts trying to broaden the appeal of the party to Lib Dems and other sectors desperately hoping to find a way up to the 40+% level. Maybe he should rethink now, and forget this strategy. If he can consolidate the party at the 37% he is achieving, and he settles everyone down, allowing policies to be Conservative type policies, the work of the BNP especially in decimating labour's vote will bring the target within range. All he has to do now is consolidate.
Maybe while he's in Rwanda, he'll think of this and come back a different man.
BNP Puts Brakes On Brown, Helps Cameron
At Sedgefield the BNP's candidate Andrew Spence, of fuel protest fame, and previously of UKIP, won 9% of the vote. 9% is not enough to win a seat. Nor was it not enough to change the result by pulling votes from other parties.
But if the same 9% vote was cast for the BNP in a marginal seat, and the 9% had been pulled from one party more than another, such a vote could change the result very easily. UKIP, for example pulled 2% in the last general election, and thereby prevented around 30 seats from falling to the Conservatives, adding 25 seats to Labour, securing their majority, and presenting 5 seats to the Lib Dems. Without UKIP's paltry 2% vote, Labour's 60 seat majority might have been eliminated. (Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph)
The BNP have so far stood only in their hotspots such as in Yorkshire and East London. They have occasionally seemed close to winning a Westminster seat in Barking. They have not so far strayed out from their 'racial fault line' heartlands. So is the thought about whether they might be influential on the result of the next general election, only of academic interest?
They have also elected a few councillors here and there winning up to 30% in council elections, but surely they don't have the resources to spread out any further, and go national.
BNP's STRATEGY
If reports coming from within the Party are correct, the BNP could have an effect on the next general election of the kind I am describing, as they are setting up branches in 500 Constituencies. That would mean they will be standing in many marginals. If they start to poll 9% across these seats, the effect of the BNP standing, could be dramatic.
They have no media support, no radio, no TV but they have foot soldiers. BNP members are highly motivated and deliver literature to peoples' homes by wearing out shoe leather. The story put out by the main media is that they are racist beasts who must be stopped. This may be true, but it allows the BNP to surprise people by the common sense sounding literature they write. Some of the facts contained in their writing might need to challenged, but as the party are blanked by the media, they can write their own narratives unopposed. They are able to present themselves as victims of unfair media coverage.
SEDGEFIELD
The Sedgefield by-election showed the Conservatives' vote staying level, Lib Dem rising a little and only labour's vote falling. It seems from Sedgefield as if the advance of the BNP is going to hurt Labour the most. This is bound to start featuring in electoral calculations, and could be the key factor that stops Gordon Brown going to the polls in a hurry. Cameron might start to feel grateful for having the pressure taken off him (for now) by the BNP.
But if the same 9% vote was cast for the BNP in a marginal seat, and the 9% had been pulled from one party more than another, such a vote could change the result very easily. UKIP, for example pulled 2% in the last general election, and thereby prevented around 30 seats from falling to the Conservatives, adding 25 seats to Labour, securing their majority, and presenting 5 seats to the Lib Dems. Without UKIP's paltry 2% vote, Labour's 60 seat majority might have been eliminated. (Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph)
The BNP have so far stood only in their hotspots such as in Yorkshire and East London. They have occasionally seemed close to winning a Westminster seat in Barking. They have not so far strayed out from their 'racial fault line' heartlands. So is the thought about whether they might be influential on the result of the next general election, only of academic interest?
They have also elected a few councillors here and there winning up to 30% in council elections, but surely they don't have the resources to spread out any further, and go national.
BNP's STRATEGY
If reports coming from within the Party are correct, the BNP could have an effect on the next general election of the kind I am describing, as they are setting up branches in 500 Constituencies. That would mean they will be standing in many marginals. If they start to poll 9% across these seats, the effect of the BNP standing, could be dramatic.
They have no media support, no radio, no TV but they have foot soldiers. BNP members are highly motivated and deliver literature to peoples' homes by wearing out shoe leather. The story put out by the main media is that they are racist beasts who must be stopped. This may be true, but it allows the BNP to surprise people by the common sense sounding literature they write. Some of the facts contained in their writing might need to challenged, but as the party are blanked by the media, they can write their own narratives unopposed. They are able to present themselves as victims of unfair media coverage.
SEDGEFIELD
The Sedgefield by-election showed the Conservatives' vote staying level, Lib Dem rising a little and only labour's vote falling. It seems from Sedgefield as if the advance of the BNP is going to hurt Labour the most. This is bound to start featuring in electoral calculations, and could be the key factor that stops Gordon Brown going to the polls in a hurry. Cameron might start to feel grateful for having the pressure taken off him (for now) by the BNP.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Sedgefield Has Changed The Electoral Arithmetic
Cameron has done well in that many feared that BNP penetration outside the cities might be partly at the expense of Conservative support. It seems not.
From the BNP website referring to its 9% of the vote as 'victory' -
'This is a huge leap forward in an area where we have only recently set up local units; the mix of farming and former mining areas of Co. Durham cannot be considered our traditional kind of support base but proves convincingly that the BNP has an appeal beyond those parts of Britain suffering on the fault lines of multiculturalism.'
All Conservatives have to do is to avoid erosion by 'others', and Labour's vote will be the one to be eroded.
UKIP changed the results of maybe 30 seats in 2005 with 2% of the vote taken mostly from Conservative. If BNP start stripping away Labour support at three times that rate, it could lose Labour 100 or more seats, and let the Conservatives in.
If Cameron stands firm on national issues such as the USER referendum, on the West Lothian issue, and so on, he could see Gordon Brown's vote decimated while he hangs on to his. (Union of Subservient European Regions)
Sedgfield is the moment politics in Britain changed. Tony has given Gordon his parting gift. Brown will not be seeking an election anytime soon.
Not one commentator noticed.
From the BNP website referring to its 9% of the vote as 'victory' -
'This is a huge leap forward in an area where we have only recently set up local units; the mix of farming and former mining areas of Co. Durham cannot be considered our traditional kind of support base but proves convincingly that the BNP has an appeal beyond those parts of Britain suffering on the fault lines of multiculturalism.'
All Conservatives have to do is to avoid erosion by 'others', and Labour's vote will be the one to be eroded.
UKIP changed the results of maybe 30 seats in 2005 with 2% of the vote taken mostly from Conservative. If BNP start stripping away Labour support at three times that rate, it could lose Labour 100 or more seats, and let the Conservatives in.
If Cameron stands firm on national issues such as the USER referendum, on the West Lothian issue, and so on, he could see Gordon Brown's vote decimated while he hangs on to his. (Union of Subservient European Regions)
Sedgfield is the moment politics in Britain changed. Tony has given Gordon his parting gift. Brown will not be seeking an election anytime soon.
Not one commentator noticed.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Cameron takes On the Union of Subservient European Regions
Why is Clarke speaking out pro-U.S.E.R on the BBC?
Because he's got the backing of Murdoch and the BBC. As Stephan Shakespeare suggests in his column, Murdoch is seeking Cameron's replacement with Bildeberger Hague who would be USER-compliant. (Union of Subservient European Regions).
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/columnists/2007/07/stephan-shakesp.html
The reason the media catapulted Cameron ahead of Liam Fox to win the Party leadership was not because he would put up such a contest against the USER Constitution. They thought he would be the next Blair - tradeable to sell Britain down the river.
The only people who can get rid of Ken Clarke are his Constituents in Rushcliffe. Cameron doesn't have Hague's support to ditch Clarke. If he tried, the media would move to assassinate him as they did IDS and Thatcher before him.
Cameron's demise is already being demanded by the USER. Murdoch is hoping to deliver it in favour of William Hague.
Cameron must stand firm, and somehow Conservative Constituents must wake up and kick out the USERphiles. Cameron's not being a traitor has shocked Murdoch and the USER. they thought he would roll over and agree to anything in return for good media, like Blair.
Because he's got the backing of Murdoch and the BBC. As Stephan Shakespeare suggests in his column, Murdoch is seeking Cameron's replacement with Bildeberger Hague who would be USER-compliant. (Union of Subservient European Regions).
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/columnists/2007/07/stephan-shakesp.html
The reason the media catapulted Cameron ahead of Liam Fox to win the Party leadership was not because he would put up such a contest against the USER Constitution. They thought he would be the next Blair - tradeable to sell Britain down the river.
The only people who can get rid of Ken Clarke are his Constituents in Rushcliffe. Cameron doesn't have Hague's support to ditch Clarke. If he tried, the media would move to assassinate him as they did IDS and Thatcher before him.
Cameron's demise is already being demanded by the USER. Murdoch is hoping to deliver it in favour of William Hague.
Cameron must stand firm, and somehow Conservative Constituents must wake up and kick out the USERphiles. Cameron's not being a traitor has shocked Murdoch and the USER. they thought he would roll over and agree to anything in return for good media, like Blair.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Bees Dying Off Threatens Human Food Supply
My cousins who live in New Zealand called in today at my UK farm to see my old Dad who's not too good. They are producers of manduka honey over there and they sell it mostly in japan. I asked them what they thought was killing the bees in the USA and in the UK. Their reply was shocking.
British scientists developed a Brassica (cabbage) modified with the Bt gene, known to kill caterpillars and moths.
The scientists were quoted - 'In research done so far, we have found that if you feed the Bt brassicas to diamond-back moth and cabbage white caterpillars they all die within 48 hours, leaving the plant virtually undamaged. If the caterpillars are killed before they reach maturity and breed, then resistance does not develop.'
Unfortunately the dumbos didn't imagine the obvious. If it kills moths and caterpillars, maybe it will kill other insects. It appears now that it is killing off the whole population of bees in the USA, which could lead on to mass starvation, if the process is not reversed. The plant Bt Brassica is being widely gorwn and bees are dying across the world in their billions.
Bees are essential to the production of one third of human food directly through their role in fertilising crops. They are also essential to the feed production of animals that make up another one third of our diet. This most vital process to human survival is threatened by the careless modification of foods carried out by scientists thinking in only one box at a time.
This is exactly what was forecast to happen by many people. You cannot trust governments and scientists to work responsibly. The fiasco is being kept out of all media cross the west as the threat is so severe to the survival of the human race that no one dares to report it. The News Channels are being asked to report the story of the collpase of the bee population, but to blame it on other causes, none of which are capable of explaining the sudden extermination that is happening.
I heard a radio programme on this in the UK recently. There was no mention of any possible connection Genetically Modified crops. Have the scientists done us in good and proper this time?
My cousins' view from the bee-keeping world was that honey produced from bt Brassica plants was not touched by other bees, once the bt brassica affected bees had died. This is most unusual as bees normally pile into a deserted hive for the free pickings. The genetically modified plants clearly are highly toxic to bees as well as caterpillars, and other bees can tell the honey produced is toxic. Something needs to be done urgently, if bees are to survive this toxic intervention in nature.
British scientists developed a Brassica (cabbage) modified with the Bt gene, known to kill caterpillars and moths.
The scientists were quoted - 'In research done so far, we have found that if you feed the Bt brassicas to diamond-back moth and cabbage white caterpillars they all die within 48 hours, leaving the plant virtually undamaged. If the caterpillars are killed before they reach maturity and breed, then resistance does not develop.'
Unfortunately the dumbos didn't imagine the obvious. If it kills moths and caterpillars, maybe it will kill other insects. It appears now that it is killing off the whole population of bees in the USA, which could lead on to mass starvation, if the process is not reversed. The plant Bt Brassica is being widely gorwn and bees are dying across the world in their billions.
Bees are essential to the production of one third of human food directly through their role in fertilising crops. They are also essential to the feed production of animals that make up another one third of our diet. This most vital process to human survival is threatened by the careless modification of foods carried out by scientists thinking in only one box at a time.
This is exactly what was forecast to happen by many people. You cannot trust governments and scientists to work responsibly. The fiasco is being kept out of all media cross the west as the threat is so severe to the survival of the human race that no one dares to report it. The News Channels are being asked to report the story of the collpase of the bee population, but to blame it on other causes, none of which are capable of explaining the sudden extermination that is happening.
I heard a radio programme on this in the UK recently. There was no mention of any possible connection Genetically Modified crops. Have the scientists done us in good and proper this time?
My cousins' view from the bee-keeping world was that honey produced from bt Brassica plants was not touched by other bees, once the bt brassica affected bees had died. This is most unusual as bees normally pile into a deserted hive for the free pickings. The genetically modified plants clearly are highly toxic to bees as well as caterpillars, and other bees can tell the honey produced is toxic. Something needs to be done urgently, if bees are to survive this toxic intervention in nature.
Murdoch Goes For Cameron's Jugular
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/columnists/2007/07/stephan-shakesp.html
Murdoch's Press is now out to finish off David Cameron's leadership of the Conservatives. Cameron's standing up to the EU Constitution, which was not in the script when he won total media backing to get the Party leadership. He was meant to be the 'next Blair' who would trade all for personal ambition.
But Cameron's turning out to be far more subtle than Murdoch realised. Murdoch's the EU's main agent in Britain - ensuring all political leaders that win power are committed to the cause of 'ever closer union'. Murdoch assassinated IDS. His next victim he believes will be Cameron. Read Stephan Shakespeare. Hague the Bildeberger is the planned replacement. The power of the media in the UK is our biggest problem.
Murdoch must be broken up if Britain is to survive. The EU are furious with Cameron for standing up against them. How Dare He? Murdoch's getting ready to spill blood again on the EU's behalf.
Murdoch's Press is now out to finish off David Cameron's leadership of the Conservatives. Cameron's standing up to the EU Constitution, which was not in the script when he won total media backing to get the Party leadership. He was meant to be the 'next Blair' who would trade all for personal ambition.
But Cameron's turning out to be far more subtle than Murdoch realised. Murdoch's the EU's main agent in Britain - ensuring all political leaders that win power are committed to the cause of 'ever closer union'. Murdoch assassinated IDS. His next victim he believes will be Cameron. Read Stephan Shakespeare. Hague the Bildeberger is the planned replacement. The power of the media in the UK is our biggest problem.
Murdoch must be broken up if Britain is to survive. The EU are furious with Cameron for standing up against them. How Dare He? Murdoch's getting ready to spill blood again on the EU's behalf.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
GORDON BROWN'S BURNING UP
GORDON BROWN'S BURNING UP
Brown’s media persona bears little resemblance to the real Gordon. You see the real Brown in the House. No confidence, no idea how to handle a brief or construct an argument. He just piles on detail upon detail hoping to bury questioners, and then switches into cliche mode for his finale (’British people’, ‘consensus’, ‘magnificent’ etc etc). It’s as if he wants to make a Budget Speech every time he takes to his feet.
If the idea is to persuade, it doesn’t. And it looks hard work.
It’s like the British Tax Code, now the most complicated and longest in the world. Brown likes to tire out opposition, bury it in quantity rather than allow it to focus on any one detail. As Chancellor, this defensive strategy, aided by Blair’s support absorbing most of the blowback, worked.
Being Chancellor is only about the monetary aspects. Imagine how hard it will be to play the ‘bury you in detail’ tactic as Prime Minister, when he will need to remember masses of detail across all aspects of government. And his cliches will be heard day in, day out, not just occasionally when he was forced out of his bunker.
Take that, and then remember that Gordon’s persona is already under stress, as it’s basically a dishonest one. He is not confident. He is being easily punctured by exposure to Parliamentary questions and debates. Some fag end. Gordon Brown’s stress level will be burning him out.
Brown’s media persona bears little resemblance to the real Gordon. You see the real Brown in the House. No confidence, no idea how to handle a brief or construct an argument. He just piles on detail upon detail hoping to bury questioners, and then switches into cliche mode for his finale (’British people’, ‘consensus’, ‘magnificent’ etc etc). It’s as if he wants to make a Budget Speech every time he takes to his feet.
If the idea is to persuade, it doesn’t. And it looks hard work.
It’s like the British Tax Code, now the most complicated and longest in the world. Brown likes to tire out opposition, bury it in quantity rather than allow it to focus on any one detail. As Chancellor, this defensive strategy, aided by Blair’s support absorbing most of the blowback, worked.
Being Chancellor is only about the monetary aspects. Imagine how hard it will be to play the ‘bury you in detail’ tactic as Prime Minister, when he will need to remember masses of detail across all aspects of government. And his cliches will be heard day in, day out, not just occasionally when he was forced out of his bunker.
Take that, and then remember that Gordon’s persona is already under stress, as it’s basically a dishonest one. He is not confident. He is being easily punctured by exposure to Parliamentary questions and debates. Some fag end. Gordon Brown’s stress level will be burning him out.
FLOODS EXPOSE LABOUR'S DESTRUCTION OF DEMOCRACY
FLOODS EXPOSE LABOUR's DESTRUCTION OF DEMOCRACY
Trying to get archbishops to make flooding into a banner for socialism is pathetic. Floods hit young, old, rich, poor alike - and insurance and debt affect everyone. The poor presumably rent and can get out more easily. If they own a house, are they poor?
This is typical media news management trying to get a narrative about the floods which suits Gordon Brown. He sees the politics of floods before he sees the human problem. That's why it's taken him so long to engage with the situation.
It's taken these thickos a week to work out how to tackle this in the media, and train Gordon what his lines should be.
The real issue isn't socialism. It's that Labour haven't done anything about planning for flood defences even though floods have been predicted for years. Labour are building in flood plains across the country as we know. The warnings are broadcast frequently.
That's the real question.
How come nothing's been done?
Is the answer the corruption that pervades government now, with local democracy neutralised by Prescott? Who is there to battle powerful interest groups that make billions by building on flood plains? Prescott? Don't make me laugh. What does he care about? Money - we are told.
Labour want you to think about the socialism of floods. Well think about Labour's own role for once - not their poxy narrative. They've been in power since 1997. The old stuff about 'it's the Tories yer know' don't wash any more. Labour have destroyed local democracy by neutralising councils so they can promote their regionalisation programme. That's the story that must not come out. So they go for good old socialism, and get a bishop to start the narrative for them.
Trying to get archbishops to make flooding into a banner for socialism is pathetic. Floods hit young, old, rich, poor alike - and insurance and debt affect everyone. The poor presumably rent and can get out more easily. If they own a house, are they poor?
This is typical media news management trying to get a narrative about the floods which suits Gordon Brown. He sees the politics of floods before he sees the human problem. That's why it's taken him so long to engage with the situation.
It's taken these thickos a week to work out how to tackle this in the media, and train Gordon what his lines should be.
The real issue isn't socialism. It's that Labour haven't done anything about planning for flood defences even though floods have been predicted for years. Labour are building in flood plains across the country as we know. The warnings are broadcast frequently.
That's the real question.
How come nothing's been done?
Is the answer the corruption that pervades government now, with local democracy neutralised by Prescott? Who is there to battle powerful interest groups that make billions by building on flood plains? Prescott? Don't make me laugh. What does he care about? Money - we are told.
Labour want you to think about the socialism of floods. Well think about Labour's own role for once - not their poxy narrative. They've been in power since 1997. The old stuff about 'it's the Tories yer know' don't wash any more. Labour have destroyed local democracy by neutralising councils so they can promote their regionalisation programme. That's the story that must not come out. So they go for good old socialism, and get a bishop to start the narrative for them.
GORDON _ WHERE'S ALL THE MONEY?
GORDON - WHERE'S ALL THE MONEY GONE?
Gordon Brown always used to make great play with his 'contingency fund' in the 1990's, in his 'prudence' time. No one even hears any of these words any longer, since Brown lost control of public spending after 2001.
Why did he never say - this is 'profligacy' time, when the word 'prudence' slipped from his vocabulary -so that people knew the government wouldn't have any money if an emergency occurred?
The money has all gone, that's for sure. And the gold and the oil. Where's the 'contingency fund' now, Gordon when we need it?
Labour have become disconnected from reality. We have a genuine natural disaster in what is now Brown's 'presidential' time. It doesn't fit the narrative, so it doesn't get media focus. Sorry, Hull, but you picked the wrong moment to become a disaster area.
I understand the stress and pain of floods, as we had them in Shrewsbury where I was living. Everything stops. It's like a war. People are in despair and misery as their houses, shops, pubs, schools are all taken out in one hit. John Prescott came round doing the 'we'll help you' bit. Walls were built and temporary defences can now be rushed out when the river rises. In those days Gordon hadn't given all our money away buying election victories, and funding the EU.
My advice is to call Prince Charles and ask him to come there and refuse to move until Gordon Brown puts in a personal appearance. The Queen will mention the situation at her weekly meeting with Gordon, and maybe the media will switch focus away from Al Quaeda. Start your campaign now.
Gordon Brown always used to make great play with his 'contingency fund' in the 1990's, in his 'prudence' time. No one even hears any of these words any longer, since Brown lost control of public spending after 2001.
Why did he never say - this is 'profligacy' time, when the word 'prudence' slipped from his vocabulary -so that people knew the government wouldn't have any money if an emergency occurred?
The money has all gone, that's for sure. And the gold and the oil. Where's the 'contingency fund' now, Gordon when we need it?
Labour have become disconnected from reality. We have a genuine natural disaster in what is now Brown's 'presidential' time. It doesn't fit the narrative, so it doesn't get media focus. Sorry, Hull, but you picked the wrong moment to become a disaster area.
I understand the stress and pain of floods, as we had them in Shrewsbury where I was living. Everything stops. It's like a war. People are in despair and misery as their houses, shops, pubs, schools are all taken out in one hit. John Prescott came round doing the 'we'll help you' bit. Walls were built and temporary defences can now be rushed out when the river rises. In those days Gordon hadn't given all our money away buying election victories, and funding the EU.
My advice is to call Prince Charles and ask him to come there and refuse to move until Gordon Brown puts in a personal appearance. The Queen will mention the situation at her weekly meeting with Gordon, and maybe the media will switch focus away from Al Quaeda. Start your campaign now.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Roger Scruton Credits The Culture Of Jealousy
New Culture Forum - How did we end up in a position where being conservative is seen as the enemy of creativity?
Roger Scruton: Largely through ignorance. Conservatives believe that it is easier to destroy than to create; leftists try to persuade us that destruction (which they are good at) is really a kind of creation, since creation lies outside their power. This is something that George Orwell perceived clearly, even though (for reasons known only to himself) he always called himself a man of the left.
Tapestry (my comment): Propaganda is the cause, and only propaganda. Leftists need to pin all kinds of negative labels on conservatives. They cannot find much, because conservative policies work. So they look around for something else to beat conservatives with. So 'uncultured' comes into play.
Artists are usually dependent on state handouts or support in one form or another, so it is easy enough to create a world view for them which portrays those fools who pay all the bills as some kind of inferior beings, who don't understand or appreciate the intricacies of the superior intellects of artistic talents.
The notions of leftism are emotionally appealing to all who are dependent on others. The providers of society don't understand why those they support, are so resentful against them, but it is merely human nature - to resent those who provide you with what you need, if you cannot repay in equal coin or measure of some kind, or at least have no intention of doing even if you could.
The leftist cultural snobbery is just hysterical. Most successful artists are conservatives. Most businessmen have cultural lives - and businesses cannot compete unless they have vibrant cultures with cooperative and highly creative elements. In fact in my life I have found far more meaningful culture in the workplace than I have in the theatre.
I love the theatre, art, opera, music of all kinds, writing - both watching and performing myself. It's time that the left wing intellectuals packed up their misplaced snobbery. Really it's laughable. Scruton is talking highly-paid nonsense. The Left speaks the the culture of organised jealousy. There's no point in engaging with it. Just move on.
Roger Scruton: Largely through ignorance. Conservatives believe that it is easier to destroy than to create; leftists try to persuade us that destruction (which they are good at) is really a kind of creation, since creation lies outside their power. This is something that George Orwell perceived clearly, even though (for reasons known only to himself) he always called himself a man of the left.
Tapestry (my comment): Propaganda is the cause, and only propaganda. Leftists need to pin all kinds of negative labels on conservatives. They cannot find much, because conservative policies work. So they look around for something else to beat conservatives with. So 'uncultured' comes into play.
Artists are usually dependent on state handouts or support in one form or another, so it is easy enough to create a world view for them which portrays those fools who pay all the bills as some kind of inferior beings, who don't understand or appreciate the intricacies of the superior intellects of artistic talents.
The notions of leftism are emotionally appealing to all who are dependent on others. The providers of society don't understand why those they support, are so resentful against them, but it is merely human nature - to resent those who provide you with what you need, if you cannot repay in equal coin or measure of some kind, or at least have no intention of doing even if you could.
The leftist cultural snobbery is just hysterical. Most successful artists are conservatives. Most businessmen have cultural lives - and businesses cannot compete unless they have vibrant cultures with cooperative and highly creative elements. In fact in my life I have found far more meaningful culture in the workplace than I have in the theatre.
I love the theatre, art, opera, music of all kinds, writing - both watching and performing myself. It's time that the left wing intellectuals packed up their misplaced snobbery. Really it's laughable. Scruton is talking highly-paid nonsense. The Left speaks the the culture of organised jealousy. There's no point in engaging with it. Just move on.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Labour's Frightened Little Mouse
Brown is Prime Minister for a week, and it's immediately obvious he has no leadership qualities. Labour have backed a lemon - out of cowardice. Blair told them to take a risk and push forward some candidates, but Jack Straw decided it wasn't worth it having Brown's knife in his back for five years or more. The truth is Blair should have sacked Brown a long while ago. It is Blair's cowardice that has put Labour in this mess.
Maybe Blair secretly will be delighted for everyone to see now what a hopeless frightened little man Gordon Brown really is. He's had Gordon's knife in his back for 14 years - and he's used this narrative as a news blanket all through his Premiership to cover up all his failures. It's fooled everyone from Rupert Murdoch who's been praising Gordon Brown's intellect for year after year despite the lack of any evidence, to most political commentators who imagined a strongman - a Stalin - not a frightyened little mouse.
The truth is Brown is nothing without Blair. Blair tried to tell them, but they weren't listening. There must be some pleasure for Blair now in seeing Brown hang himself in the Commons. We thought Ming was a lemon. Even Ming looks good now!!!
Maybe Blair secretly will be delighted for everyone to see now what a hopeless frightened little man Gordon Brown really is. He's had Gordon's knife in his back for 14 years - and he's used this narrative as a news blanket all through his Premiership to cover up all his failures. It's fooled everyone from Rupert Murdoch who's been praising Gordon Brown's intellect for year after year despite the lack of any evidence, to most political commentators who imagined a strongman - a Stalin - not a frightyened little mouse.
The truth is Brown is nothing without Blair. Blair tried to tell them, but they weren't listening. There must be some pleasure for Blair now in seeing Brown hang himself in the Commons. We thought Ming was a lemon. Even Ming looks good now!!!
Golf Course Ghost Makes Us Twitch
A friend of mine who teaches at Shrewsbury School recently joined Church Stretton Golf Club positioned on the edge of the South Shropshire hills. We had played there occasionally on and off for about five years. It is one of the most beautiful golf courses in the world and costs about £10 a round, which by British standards is very reasonable. When I'm over in Asia in the winter months, and I think of home I always imagine the Chruch Stretton golf course. Up on the top exposed to all weathers, often strong winds and driving rain, it feels like you have entered another world.
Talk in the Club House confirms that it is not only the extraordinary views that are special. You stand over the Shropshire plain looking out along at a row of hills, starting with Caer Caradoc - the fort of Charactacus, the chieftan who fought the invading Romans before they completed their conquest, and ending with the Wrekin - named after Uricon, the garrison City of 60,000 inhabitants which the Romans built nearby, today with only a few ruins visible, mostly under the turf.
The golf club is around a century old, and even though I've played on many beautiful golf courses in Thailand, the Philippinesand the Seychelles on Praslin Island, Church Stretton is in many ways the best. Golf played over hills is always more exciting than on the flat, but usually hillside courses have too many short holes, and don't stretch you. I can tell you now though, Church Stretton is anything but dull.
There are other things that are different about Church Stretton golf club. You will hear as you rest up in the Club House the story of the ghost. The locals say that they don't ever see him or her, but as they drive the hole at the very top of the round, the 13th,they see their ball land on the fairway 250 yards or so away (it is a downhill start to the hole). But as they get a bit closer and look around, they can't find their ball. It is gone. They say there is a ghost who takes away the balls - and that it only ever happens on the 13th.
It seems quite a spooky tale, and to be honest we thought it was a bit of a joke, another Loch Ness monster yarn to boost the takings. That was until yesterday, the 4th July 2007 . Three of us, the usual team set off at around 3.30, taking a risk on the weather, as there was a fair bit of rain around. The flag on the 1st was beating in the gale. We thought we would try the first 3 holes and if it was too terrible, we would stop there.
But as we went up higher up, we found ourselves in the lea of the hill. The wind dropped a bit, and we were only hit by the occasional shower. Umbrellas are useless in these conditions. In a strong wind they become like a sail and pull or push you where you didn't want to go. There was no one else foolish enough to go out, and in this very fresh air, battered and occasionally soaked, we kept going. The wind blew strongly between storms so even though we were getting soaked in the squalls, the wind dried off our clothes.
The golf scores on windy days can get quite ragged, and if you par a hole you feel pretty good. When the wind is behind you, your normal drive of say 200 yards can suddenly become 250 yards, or more if it's downhill. That's the easy bit. To pitch a ball onto the green in a strong wind needs careful allowance to be made for the effect of the wind. A shot which would be pin high and in line can land twenty or more yards away from the target. Even with the wind behind, a par is a good hole in such conditions.
These thoughts were in our minds, and the subject of our happy chatter as we all three drove the 13th. I saw Dick's ball land right in the middle of the fairway a few yards from mine, about 250 yards away, driven across the wind. Tim went the long way round the dog leg, and landed on good ground too. That's where the fun started. We looked everywhere but Dick's ball was nowhere to be seen.
It was a real puzzle. After many years of playing golf in many different parts of the world, in all weathers, I had seen most things - an occasional hole in one, flooky shots, good and bad and funny, but not once had any of us seen a ball just disappear. We looked and looked but it really was nowhere to be seen. There were a few holes nosed out by nesting rabbits, but not properly started. I checked those even though I had seen the ball land past them. There had to be some rational explanation. But Dick was sure. This was the ghost of the 13th hole.
He took another ball from his bag, and decided to accept that his ball was lost, but refused to add the penalty points to his score. He struck the next ball and it landed beyond the green to the right, lifted up by a gust and deposited up the bank. And then we saw it. The ghost which had been talked about by the locals, which had haunted this golf course for the hundred years since it was constructed appeared right before our very eyes.
You would think that an apparition would strike fear into our hearts and we would run, turn grey overnight and vow never to go up Church Stretton again for the rest of our days. But it wasn't like that. I'd heard tales of Roman soldiers appearing in cellars in York marching in line. We'd had pictures flying around my parents' house when we were children. Most people imagine they've seen a ghost, but only a few have really seen one.
This ghost was clothed all in black, walked in a strutting relaxed manner and his head was continually bobbing up and down to look at the ground. He reached down and picked up Dick's second ball as we watched........ then curled up to the rocks carrying it in his brown-red beak. Realising this was more a case for Bill Oddie to investigate, I felt pleased that there really were no restless souls lost between worlds unhappily haunting the most beautiful golf course in the world.
http://www.churchstrettongolfclub.co.uk/history
Talk in the Club House confirms that it is not only the extraordinary views that are special. You stand over the Shropshire plain looking out along at a row of hills, starting with Caer Caradoc - the fort of Charactacus, the chieftan who fought the invading Romans before they completed their conquest, and ending with the Wrekin - named after Uricon, the garrison City of 60,000 inhabitants which the Romans built nearby, today with only a few ruins visible, mostly under the turf.
The golf club is around a century old, and even though I've played on many beautiful golf courses in Thailand, the Philippinesand the Seychelles on Praslin Island, Church Stretton is in many ways the best. Golf played over hills is always more exciting than on the flat, but usually hillside courses have too many short holes, and don't stretch you. I can tell you now though, Church Stretton is anything but dull.
There are other things that are different about Church Stretton golf club. You will hear as you rest up in the Club House the story of the ghost. The locals say that they don't ever see him or her, but as they drive the hole at the very top of the round, the 13th,they see their ball land on the fairway 250 yards or so away (it is a downhill start to the hole). But as they get a bit closer and look around, they can't find their ball. It is gone. They say there is a ghost who takes away the balls - and that it only ever happens on the 13th.
It seems quite a spooky tale, and to be honest we thought it was a bit of a joke, another Loch Ness monster yarn to boost the takings. That was until yesterday, the 4th July 2007 . Three of us, the usual team set off at around 3.30, taking a risk on the weather, as there was a fair bit of rain around. The flag on the 1st was beating in the gale. We thought we would try the first 3 holes and if it was too terrible, we would stop there.
But as we went up higher up, we found ourselves in the lea of the hill. The wind dropped a bit, and we were only hit by the occasional shower. Umbrellas are useless in these conditions. In a strong wind they become like a sail and pull or push you where you didn't want to go. There was no one else foolish enough to go out, and in this very fresh air, battered and occasionally soaked, we kept going. The wind blew strongly between storms so even though we were getting soaked in the squalls, the wind dried off our clothes.
The golf scores on windy days can get quite ragged, and if you par a hole you feel pretty good. When the wind is behind you, your normal drive of say 200 yards can suddenly become 250 yards, or more if it's downhill. That's the easy bit. To pitch a ball onto the green in a strong wind needs careful allowance to be made for the effect of the wind. A shot which would be pin high and in line can land twenty or more yards away from the target. Even with the wind behind, a par is a good hole in such conditions.
These thoughts were in our minds, and the subject of our happy chatter as we all three drove the 13th. I saw Dick's ball land right in the middle of the fairway a few yards from mine, about 250 yards away, driven across the wind. Tim went the long way round the dog leg, and landed on good ground too. That's where the fun started. We looked everywhere but Dick's ball was nowhere to be seen.
It was a real puzzle. After many years of playing golf in many different parts of the world, in all weathers, I had seen most things - an occasional hole in one, flooky shots, good and bad and funny, but not once had any of us seen a ball just disappear. We looked and looked but it really was nowhere to be seen. There were a few holes nosed out by nesting rabbits, but not properly started. I checked those even though I had seen the ball land past them. There had to be some rational explanation. But Dick was sure. This was the ghost of the 13th hole.
He took another ball from his bag, and decided to accept that his ball was lost, but refused to add the penalty points to his score. He struck the next ball and it landed beyond the green to the right, lifted up by a gust and deposited up the bank. And then we saw it. The ghost which had been talked about by the locals, which had haunted this golf course for the hundred years since it was constructed appeared right before our very eyes.
You would think that an apparition would strike fear into our hearts and we would run, turn grey overnight and vow never to go up Church Stretton again for the rest of our days. But it wasn't like that. I'd heard tales of Roman soldiers appearing in cellars in York marching in line. We'd had pictures flying around my parents' house when we were children. Most people imagine they've seen a ghost, but only a few have really seen one.
This ghost was clothed all in black, walked in a strutting relaxed manner and his head was continually bobbing up and down to look at the ground. He reached down and picked up Dick's second ball as we watched........ then curled up to the rocks carrying it in his brown-red beak. Realising this was more a case for Bill Oddie to investigate, I felt pleased that there really were no restless souls lost between worlds unhappily haunting the most beautiful golf course in the world.
http://www.churchstrettongolfclub.co.uk/history
Monday, July 02, 2007
Islam Must Modify To Succeed
The Christian religion took nearly 1800 years from its beginnings to reach the Enlightenment, when it was reinterpreted to a human-centred concept, where happiness, contentment and fulfilment were seen as the focus of life, and individual life and opinion were respected. Prior to that people were executed by religious courts for blasphemy.
The Islamist extremists need to reinterpret their religion in a similar way. One way they can be persuaded to do that, is for them to see that when the Koran instructed them to kill non-believers and conquer their lands, the world was not multicultural and mixed together. Lands were either 100% Moslem or 100%% non-Moslem. the only way to spread the religion was by conquest, it seemed.
Today Moslems are allowed to come to Britain and the West and preach their religion, and mix together with non-Moslems. They do not need to kill non-believers to gain access. In fact doing so will damage their religion as the West is forced to take measures to defend itlelf by invading the Moslem lands where the aggression is controlled from. Their actions could be causing a loss of power to Moslem countries and damaging their religion, which is not what the Prophet intended.
Their aggression could eventually cause the Prophet to be rejected from western lands if they persist with killing non-believers. Why not focus on converting the west by peaceful means as the opportunity is there without the need to kill people? The situation was not forseeable so long ago, and the texts need to be reinterpreted for the modern world, if the religion is to thrive.
The Islamist extremists need to reinterpret their religion in a similar way. One way they can be persuaded to do that, is for them to see that when the Koran instructed them to kill non-believers and conquer their lands, the world was not multicultural and mixed together. Lands were either 100% Moslem or 100%% non-Moslem. the only way to spread the religion was by conquest, it seemed.
Today Moslems are allowed to come to Britain and the West and preach their religion, and mix together with non-Moslems. They do not need to kill non-believers to gain access. In fact doing so will damage their religion as the West is forced to take measures to defend itlelf by invading the Moslem lands where the aggression is controlled from. Their actions could be causing a loss of power to Moslem countries and damaging their religion, which is not what the Prophet intended.
Their aggression could eventually cause the Prophet to be rejected from western lands if they persist with killing non-believers. Why not focus on converting the west by peaceful means as the opportunity is there without the need to kill people? The situation was not forseeable so long ago, and the texts need to be reinterpreted for the modern world, if the religion is to thrive.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Gordon Brown Sucks
Politicians will need to learn a little modesty. They are capable of starting wars as we know. But they are not capable of fighting them. Winning wars depends on another body of people completely - intelligence officers, electronic eavesdroppers, technicians of all sorts and specialities, soldiers, airmen and naval personnel.
All governments can do is ensure that these people are properly funded, and motivated, and honoured for their dedication.
As regards honour, Gordon Brown is so keen to claim all the credit for protecting the public that he is unlikely to have any of it spare for the people doing the actual intelligence work and fighting the actual wars. In fact in his way of thinking, they are servants in his power and control.
As regards money and equipping, I think we all know how pathetic Brown has been in funding the services that are fighting this war for him.
As for motivating people, Gordon Brown is boring and not inspiring. He will always use a hundred words where ten would do. It is his lack of self belief which is the problem. He didn't even have the courage to face an internal election within his own Party, let alone an external one.
All governments can do is ensure that these people are properly funded, and motivated, and honoured for their dedication.
As regards honour, Gordon Brown is so keen to claim all the credit for protecting the public that he is unlikely to have any of it spare for the people doing the actual intelligence work and fighting the actual wars. In fact in his way of thinking, they are servants in his power and control.
As regards money and equipping, I think we all know how pathetic Brown has been in funding the services that are fighting this war for him.
As for motivating people, Gordon Brown is boring and not inspiring. He will always use a hundred words where ten would do. It is his lack of self belief which is the problem. He didn't even have the courage to face an internal election within his own Party, let alone an external one.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Blair and Brown - Two Flawed Characters
The two characters who have dominated British politics for over a decade were for a long time hard to fathom. But after the last year in particular, as the media have been unable to hide away their plots and coup attempts against each other any longer, the picture of what they are really like as people has become easier to read.
Gordon Brown has little or no self belief. See his original signature before he was coached. There was a ludicrously large G followed by almost an equally vast B, but 'rown' fell away into miniature insignificance.
Then think of his speech in Downing Street. Ludicrous repetition of the word 'Change' and a confidence that the programme he fronts up is for the good, but as soon as it was Gordon's moment to speak about himself, he fell away into a miniature frightened Gordon who could only promise to 'do his best', stumbling on his words like a small boy addressing his Headmaster after a severe telling off. It was instructive that he needed to rest his confidence on his old school motto. Deep down under his bluff middle aged exterior,Gordon has no more belief in himself now than he did then. He's still fighting that child-like battle for self-belief. He cannot win it - heaven only knows what traumas he must have suffered as a child - but the only way he can satisfy his craving is to get others to buckle to his superiority, and allow him to be in control so that he, not they, is giving out the pain.
Accordingly Brown surounds himself with servile ceatures who dare not speak until spoken to, who know that their position depends at all times on flattery, and deference to Gordon. Even dear old defecting Quentin Davies, who regularly slated Gordon Brown in an unusually personal way, seemed to know that his own need for recognition, now depended on handing Brown ludicrously over-generous praise for his past achievements. You are safe either if you believe Gordon Brown is a genius, or if you are good at pretending that you do. Celebrity in others is not to be acknowledged any more. There is now only one real celebrity. All others are poor imitations of the real thing.
The Queen he will bestow full respect to though, as she and he stand at the top of the hill. But EU meetings, other international organisations, heads of state, newspaper tycoons must all pay homage to the greatness of Gordon or feel the chill.
Blair was the exact opposite. He liked to rub along with Pop stars, Presidents, Popes, Comedians - in fact anyone other than the only celebrity who still stood one rank above him and Cherie, who his wife could not stand! The Queen steadfastly refused to call him Tony. It was 'Prime MInister' and 'Mrs Blair' to the end. Only she was able to stand clear of the sofaisation of all Blair's relationships.
He was so cocky that he felt he could walk round any opponent whenever he chose. He couldn't be arsed with delving into too much detail - just enough to be able to fend off questions, and no more. The hard longterm thinking had to be done by someone else. He liked informal environments where he could use his self confidence to see off any jibes and make others appear to be overly strident, serious or extreme. Even parliamentary Questions suited his style. As there is no time to go into detail, he could always paint a instant picture, which left the real story untold or sounding unlikely. The longtem didn't matter. Only the instant, the moment. If Blair could look good now, he could always look good and keep in control. He only dallied with today's situation and its perceptions. He knew that tomorrow everything would be different, and he could strike a different pose. He avoided anything too longterm most of the time. Obviously Iraq became a situation beyond his control, and somehow even though it was mostly a situation of his creation, he still managed to create distance between himself and the unfolding catastrophy.
His favourite ploy was positioning himself in the middle where he could play everyone else off - Mandelson against Brown, Campbell against Brown, Cherie against Brown. It worked for many years but Brown would never let go, and he wore down all these opponents that stood in his way. Finally Blair stood alone and Brown arranged the Watson coup attempt which manoevred Blair towards the exit. The Cash for Peerages investigation merely ensured Blair stuck to the terms of the deal this time.
Blair surrounded hmself with strong personalities, and let them run things around him - starting with Cherie, then Mandelson, Campbell, Brown and Prescott. For Blair everything ran around his image, which he loves more than life itself. Any tarnishing of it or criticism is so painful to him that he doesn't even see that he might have failed. His narcissistic tendencies endured to the end, when Parliament was suckered into performing the final act of the Blair soap opera, where he, for the very last time was the only focus - not his cause, but he himself. His image was all. He knew as he sat down that the game was finally up, and his choking voice showed that losing the golden position of power was breaking his heart.
The legacy of his years will be debated forever. But 'wasted opportunity' will be one phrase that will be heard over and over again. Blair liked to leave all the thinking to others - Iraq was decided by Bush. he went along with that. The EU programme was worked out by Brussels and Merkel. He went along with that. Even the Irish peace process which he is claiming as his legacy, was started by Major. Blair's only real legacy was Blair himself - the iconic image that he created and loved.
Brown wants to be different. He is different. But his flawed character, his desperate lack of self belief renders him a weak leader of others. In as much as Blair's narcisiicism neutralised him as a successful Prime Minister, Brown's character and his similar inability to look at events as they really are, will be equally poor in results. These two flawed characters found themselves at the centre, both equally incapable of achieving anything other than satisfying the needs of their defective personalities by clinging to power. We've suffered the first. Now we'll have to endure the second.
Gordon Brown has little or no self belief. See his original signature before he was coached. There was a ludicrously large G followed by almost an equally vast B, but 'rown' fell away into miniature insignificance.
Then think of his speech in Downing Street. Ludicrous repetition of the word 'Change' and a confidence that the programme he fronts up is for the good, but as soon as it was Gordon's moment to speak about himself, he fell away into a miniature frightened Gordon who could only promise to 'do his best', stumbling on his words like a small boy addressing his Headmaster after a severe telling off. It was instructive that he needed to rest his confidence on his old school motto. Deep down under his bluff middle aged exterior,Gordon has no more belief in himself now than he did then. He's still fighting that child-like battle for self-belief. He cannot win it - heaven only knows what traumas he must have suffered as a child - but the only way he can satisfy his craving is to get others to buckle to his superiority, and allow him to be in control so that he, not they, is giving out the pain.
Accordingly Brown surounds himself with servile ceatures who dare not speak until spoken to, who know that their position depends at all times on flattery, and deference to Gordon. Even dear old defecting Quentin Davies, who regularly slated Gordon Brown in an unusually personal way, seemed to know that his own need for recognition, now depended on handing Brown ludicrously over-generous praise for his past achievements. You are safe either if you believe Gordon Brown is a genius, or if you are good at pretending that you do. Celebrity in others is not to be acknowledged any more. There is now only one real celebrity. All others are poor imitations of the real thing.
The Queen he will bestow full respect to though, as she and he stand at the top of the hill. But EU meetings, other international organisations, heads of state, newspaper tycoons must all pay homage to the greatness of Gordon or feel the chill.
Blair was the exact opposite. He liked to rub along with Pop stars, Presidents, Popes, Comedians - in fact anyone other than the only celebrity who still stood one rank above him and Cherie, who his wife could not stand! The Queen steadfastly refused to call him Tony. It was 'Prime MInister' and 'Mrs Blair' to the end. Only she was able to stand clear of the sofaisation of all Blair's relationships.
He was so cocky that he felt he could walk round any opponent whenever he chose. He couldn't be arsed with delving into too much detail - just enough to be able to fend off questions, and no more. The hard longterm thinking had to be done by someone else. He liked informal environments where he could use his self confidence to see off any jibes and make others appear to be overly strident, serious or extreme. Even parliamentary Questions suited his style. As there is no time to go into detail, he could always paint a instant picture, which left the real story untold or sounding unlikely. The longtem didn't matter. Only the instant, the moment. If Blair could look good now, he could always look good and keep in control. He only dallied with today's situation and its perceptions. He knew that tomorrow everything would be different, and he could strike a different pose. He avoided anything too longterm most of the time. Obviously Iraq became a situation beyond his control, and somehow even though it was mostly a situation of his creation, he still managed to create distance between himself and the unfolding catastrophy.
His favourite ploy was positioning himself in the middle where he could play everyone else off - Mandelson against Brown, Campbell against Brown, Cherie against Brown. It worked for many years but Brown would never let go, and he wore down all these opponents that stood in his way. Finally Blair stood alone and Brown arranged the Watson coup attempt which manoevred Blair towards the exit. The Cash for Peerages investigation merely ensured Blair stuck to the terms of the deal this time.
Blair surrounded hmself with strong personalities, and let them run things around him - starting with Cherie, then Mandelson, Campbell, Brown and Prescott. For Blair everything ran around his image, which he loves more than life itself. Any tarnishing of it or criticism is so painful to him that he doesn't even see that he might have failed. His narcissistic tendencies endured to the end, when Parliament was suckered into performing the final act of the Blair soap opera, where he, for the very last time was the only focus - not his cause, but he himself. His image was all. He knew as he sat down that the game was finally up, and his choking voice showed that losing the golden position of power was breaking his heart.
The legacy of his years will be debated forever. But 'wasted opportunity' will be one phrase that will be heard over and over again. Blair liked to leave all the thinking to others - Iraq was decided by Bush. he went along with that. The EU programme was worked out by Brussels and Merkel. He went along with that. Even the Irish peace process which he is claiming as his legacy, was started by Major. Blair's only real legacy was Blair himself - the iconic image that he created and loved.
Brown wants to be different. He is different. But his flawed character, his desperate lack of self belief renders him a weak leader of others. In as much as Blair's narcisiicism neutralised him as a successful Prime Minister, Brown's character and his similar inability to look at events as they really are, will be equally poor in results. These two flawed characters found themselves at the centre, both equally incapable of achieving anything other than satisfying the needs of their defective personalities by clinging to power. We've suffered the first. Now we'll have to endure the second.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Why Do Conservatives Fear A Nick Clegg Coup?
As Gordon Brown recruits Lib Dem advisers into his team, many fear that he will split away the left wing of the Lib Dem party and the right will fall to a Nick Clegg coup. They would then compete directly for Conservative votes. Would that be such a bad thing?
If there were two Conservative Parties instead of two Labour Parties, we could be the ones to make electoral pacts and target Labour in combination, rather than facing a double enemy. Lib Dems have always obliged Labour in this way, especially noticeable in 2001 but also to some extent in 2005.
It need not be all doom and gloom. Cameron has prepared the ground by adopting many Lib Dem policies that fit with Conservative ideals. Courage, Mes Braves!!
If there were two Conservative Parties instead of two Labour Parties, we could be the ones to make electoral pacts and target Labour in combination, rather than facing a double enemy. Lib Dems have always obliged Labour in this way, especially noticeable in 2001 but also to some extent in 2005.
It need not be all doom and gloom. Cameron has prepared the ground by adopting many Lib Dem policies that fit with Conservative ideals. Courage, Mes Braves!!
Conservatives - The Far Too Nace Party
Cameron's light touch, intelligence and gentility are his strength but also his weakness. He need a foil - not as in Osborne and Hague, as they too are the same type.
Blair was airy and light touch but he was surrounded with strong henchmen - Mandelson, Brown, Cherie!, Campbell, Prescott.
You cannot have Camerons surrounded by more and more of the same type.
If Cameron is Blair, where are the Mandelsons, Campbells, Browns, Prescotts? The fighters and detail people.
There are people in Conservative ranks who can put beef in the Cameron sandwich. But they have been marginalised by the modernisation programme.
As this is a turning point, and Cameron sees the need for the 'and theory', he needs people who can deliver that strategy. That won't be done by the same nice friendly enthusiastic bunch. Cameron needs an eccentric or two alongside his own excellent professionalism...not more and more the same which smells of weakness, and can become a boring diet.
John Hayes is my recommendation for Party Chairman with these thoughts in mind. The quilt should be patchwork not monocultural. The problem was at one time being seen as the 'nasty' party . Now it's the far too nace party. It needs to be more real.
Blair was airy and light touch but he was surrounded with strong henchmen - Mandelson, Brown, Cherie!, Campbell, Prescott.
You cannot have Camerons surrounded by more and more of the same type.
If Cameron is Blair, where are the Mandelsons, Campbells, Browns, Prescotts? The fighters and detail people.
There are people in Conservative ranks who can put beef in the Cameron sandwich. But they have been marginalised by the modernisation programme.
As this is a turning point, and Cameron sees the need for the 'and theory', he needs people who can deliver that strategy. That won't be done by the same nice friendly enthusiastic bunch. Cameron needs an eccentric or two alongside his own excellent professionalism...not more and more the same which smells of weakness, and can become a boring diet.
John Hayes is my recommendation for Party Chairman with these thoughts in mind. The quilt should be patchwork not monocultural. The problem was at one time being seen as the 'nasty' party . Now it's the far too nace party. It needs to be more real.
Gentle Cameron Needs A Foil
People moan about lack of policy content. Cameron is ridiculed by Piers Morgan on Question Time for it last night. Time to put some meat into the Cameron sandwich - John Hayes would be suitable...and would reset the tone to a more serious level.
The froth and spin of the A List period was ideal to face Blair - but not to face Brown, and his continuing attempt to slide the Constitution through and break us up into regions without democratic reference.
We have our more serious members who have strategic ability at grass roots level which you need as we are moving towards an election footing. John Hayes would reset the tone, just as required. We don't just need an Iain Dale pleasing reshuffle. The game's moved on from the light touch of the Blair era, where spin outplayed content. Great clunking fists don't even notice intelligence and gentility. Hayes has those but also a tougher and determined side - equal to the measure of the Brown fist.
The light touch of Cameron needs a foil. Osborne is light touch. So is Hague. Hayes is a different flavour. He'd be the ideal next Chairman of the Conservative Party.
The froth and spin of the A List period was ideal to face Blair - but not to face Brown, and his continuing attempt to slide the Constitution through and break us up into regions without democratic reference.
We have our more serious members who have strategic ability at grass roots level which you need as we are moving towards an election footing. John Hayes would reset the tone, just as required. We don't just need an Iain Dale pleasing reshuffle. The game's moved on from the light touch of the Blair era, where spin outplayed content. Great clunking fists don't even notice intelligence and gentility. Hayes has those but also a tougher and determined side - equal to the measure of the Brown fist.
The light touch of Cameron needs a foil. Osborne is light touch. So is Hague. Hayes is a different flavour. He'd be the ideal next Chairman of the Conservative Party.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Inflation Is Gordon Brown's Achilles Heel
For a view that thinks US inflation is actually 10%, and not 2.5% which it is according to government statistsics -
see this webiste which publishes 'shadow' statistics.
http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs/data
The inflation in the euro area has been around 15% since launch with the euro's value more than halving. This has been reported as 2-3% inflation by the ECB. Asset price inflation is running away with itself across the eurozone, but Trichet is desperately trying to stop the currency rising. It is laughable that they still pretend they are in control.
In the UK also inflation has been much higher than claimed. They can lie about infaltion, but not about interest rates. Those are now heading North - which kind of proves that the CPI inflation rates are a fabrication created by Gordon Brown to hide the truth.
He instructed the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee to observe only the CPI (Consumer Price Index which excludes cost of housing and taxes), and ignore the more traditional RPI (Retail Price Index). Brown cannot pretend it's nothing to do with him...but of course he will.
Cameron should open up on Brown on this area. Brown is highly vulnerable. He's lost control of inflation, depsite avoiding the Euro and he should pay a political price for having done so.
see this webiste which publishes 'shadow' statistics.
http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs/data
The inflation in the euro area has been around 15% since launch with the euro's value more than halving. This has been reported as 2-3% inflation by the ECB. Asset price inflation is running away with itself across the eurozone, but Trichet is desperately trying to stop the currency rising. It is laughable that they still pretend they are in control.
In the UK also inflation has been much higher than claimed. They can lie about infaltion, but not about interest rates. Those are now heading North - which kind of proves that the CPI inflation rates are a fabrication created by Gordon Brown to hide the truth.
He instructed the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee to observe only the CPI (Consumer Price Index which excludes cost of housing and taxes), and ignore the more traditional RPI (Retail Price Index). Brown cannot pretend it's nothing to do with him...but of course he will.
Cameron should open up on Brown on this area. Brown is highly vulnerable. He's lost control of inflation, depsite avoiding the Euro and he should pay a political price for having done so.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Why Brown Is Turning Off Labour Voters?
On labour blogs they are spitting about the Ashdown thing, and the dumping of trades unions from policy input. Brown obviously thinks he will reaise funds elsewhere now. Many labour supporters are furious also about the Constitution stitch-up, especially as Brown’s intervention was to protect ‘free undistorted competition’.
You will be feeling shocked if you believed Gordon Brown was a ‘Labour’ leader, more to the left than Blair and more eurosceptic as he’s kind of pretended all these years. He’s turning into a stronger version of NuLab than Tony was.
It’s enough to make you stay at home
You will be feeling shocked if you believed Gordon Brown was a ‘Labour’ leader, more to the left than Blair and more eurosceptic as he’s kind of pretended all these years. He’s turning into a stronger version of NuLab than Tony was.
It’s enough to make you stay at home
Monday, June 25, 2007
America Needs To Play Catch-Up
Tapestry, I think you have been given incorrect information about the US. Fox News in the United States is a right of center news channel, and is generally hostile to Europe; dismantling Fox will be a victory for Brussels, not Euroskeptics (the American spelling of that word looks ugly, I'll admit).
Also, as far as Ireland is concerned, it's generally pro-EU policy and shameful diplomatic past doesn't provide much hope that it will be the savior you imagine. JF On Conservativehome
MY REPLY
JF, I'm aware of the Fox standpoint. Murdoch is a sly old fox himself. He can run separate strategies in different places in his organisation. In fact he has to do so to disguise his strategies.
He will allow his newspapers to run powerful anti-EU stories, but he will go out of his way to keep the people, who ensure the EU keeps coming, in power, as that is all that matters in the end of the day.
Because he writes anti-EU, people are confused into thinking he has an anti-EU strategy. There is plenty enough evidence that this is a cover-up, and he has made all his progress in monopolising sport TV and holding onto monopolistic media positions by ensuring the various treaties get signed, and their protagonists such as Brown survive in power.
In the US, he will be thought of as a eurosceptic too, but that is where you would be wrong again. For evidence on this read Lance Price - The Spin Doctor;s Diary, who worked for Blair in 10 Downing St. Blair had agreed not to alter his EU policy on any matter without clearing it first with Murdoch.
Leon Brittan, ex-EU Commissioner is quoted this weekend as saying that Blair took more trouble to negotiate so that Rupert Murdoch's privileges could survive, than he bothered to protect Britain's economy. And Leon's a europhile!
The Murdoch position is sufficient to deceive most people in washington, and most people in Britain. If the USA wants to stop the EU Constitution, they must exert leverage on Murdoch one way or another - although it might be a bit late. But that's who controls the allocation of psoition amond=gst British politicans. So far Parliament has always caved in to his pressure.
Maybe this time, MPs will stand and fight for their survival, but it will help a lot if Murdoch is neutralised. America's intervention will be essential to achieve this.
Posted by: tapestry | June 25, 2007 at 05:59 PM
Also, as far as Ireland is concerned, it's generally pro-EU policy and shameful diplomatic past doesn't provide much hope that it will be the savior you imagine. JF On Conservativehome
MY REPLY
JF, I'm aware of the Fox standpoint. Murdoch is a sly old fox himself. He can run separate strategies in different places in his organisation. In fact he has to do so to disguise his strategies.
He will allow his newspapers to run powerful anti-EU stories, but he will go out of his way to keep the people, who ensure the EU keeps coming, in power, as that is all that matters in the end of the day.
Because he writes anti-EU, people are confused into thinking he has an anti-EU strategy. There is plenty enough evidence that this is a cover-up, and he has made all his progress in monopolising sport TV and holding onto monopolistic media positions by ensuring the various treaties get signed, and their protagonists such as Brown survive in power.
In the US, he will be thought of as a eurosceptic too, but that is where you would be wrong again. For evidence on this read Lance Price - The Spin Doctor;s Diary, who worked for Blair in 10 Downing St. Blair had agreed not to alter his EU policy on any matter without clearing it first with Murdoch.
Leon Brittan, ex-EU Commissioner is quoted this weekend as saying that Blair took more trouble to negotiate so that Rupert Murdoch's privileges could survive, than he bothered to protect Britain's economy. And Leon's a europhile!
The Murdoch position is sufficient to deceive most people in washington, and most people in Britain. If the USA wants to stop the EU Constitution, they must exert leverage on Murdoch one way or another - although it might be a bit late. But that's who controls the allocation of psoition amond=gst British politicans. So far Parliament has always caved in to his pressure.
Maybe this time, MPs will stand and fight for their survival, but it will help a lot if Murdoch is neutralised. America's intervention will be essential to achieve this.
Posted by: tapestry | June 25, 2007 at 05:59 PM
Wakey Wakey America
America might be a little bit more alert about the Constitution Treaty than they were at the time of the Nice Treaty in 2001. Pre 9/11 America had no idea or interest outside its borders. Europe was only of mild interest as a holiday destination.
Now it is the greatest potential threat to the stability of America's world, not just because Europe harbours terrorists that desire America harm. The EU itself, en bloc would set itself in competition with the USA as its number 1 objective. Judging by US channel news reports, they are at last awake to the threat.
They could start work in Ireland and encourage the Irish to remember the ancient loyalties between Ireland and America, and persuade the Irish to reject the Treaty.
Failing that, they could strong arm Rupert Murdoch and threaten him with the loss of his precious FIX, sorry FOX TV. Murdoch is subject to EU competition laws and acts as the main manipulator of EU power in Britain to ensure they leave him alone to make billions from TV sport - never mind the headlines in The Sun.
Murdoch backed Blair all the way, and he's backing Brown now. The USA must surely realise that they need to twist Murdoch's arm up his back harder than the EU is doing if they want the Constitution buried.
Other than that, once the EU acquires the statehood it desires, the USA might as well accept that there is trouble ahead, and it will have to fall into line behind Brussels, and face humiliation.
I am sure America is not sleeping this time, and she will fight to stop Merkel and Sarkozy. It's not too late, just nearly too late.
Now it is the greatest potential threat to the stability of America's world, not just because Europe harbours terrorists that desire America harm. The EU itself, en bloc would set itself in competition with the USA as its number 1 objective. Judging by US channel news reports, they are at last awake to the threat.
They could start work in Ireland and encourage the Irish to remember the ancient loyalties between Ireland and America, and persuade the Irish to reject the Treaty.
Failing that, they could strong arm Rupert Murdoch and threaten him with the loss of his precious FIX, sorry FOX TV. Murdoch is subject to EU competition laws and acts as the main manipulator of EU power in Britain to ensure they leave him alone to make billions from TV sport - never mind the headlines in The Sun.
Murdoch backed Blair all the way, and he's backing Brown now. The USA must surely realise that they need to twist Murdoch's arm up his back harder than the EU is doing if they want the Constitution buried.
Other than that, once the EU acquires the statehood it desires, the USA might as well accept that there is trouble ahead, and it will have to fall into line behind Brussels, and face humiliation.
I am sure America is not sleeping this time, and she will fight to stop Merkel and Sarkozy. It's not too late, just nearly too late.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Ken Clarke Must Wait Outside Headmaster's Study
The media is in full cry trying to slide the EU Constitution past the noses of the people, and puff up Gordon Brown, the man selected to perform their final act of treachery. Which names would you expect to be at the forefront - Portillo? yes. Ken Clarke? yes.
The Portillo critique is pantomime, straight from Bruce Forsyth's The Generation Game. 'Modernise more, modernise more - not that much.' Portillo's starting to look and sound dated, which is quite comical for a professed moderniser. It would be nice to take him seriously, but who does?
Ken Clarke's brilliance is combined with his usual appalling inattention to detail. He needs a damned good thrashing. He'd look perfect in 1930's school cap, short trousers and a blazer wouldn't he, combined with cheeky grin. 'Just William' springs to mind.
If these two jokers are the worst the media can find to throw at us, then we can get straight back to the serious business. Hague's impressing me no end.
Cameron should let the media do their worst, not rush out and lower himself to responding to such nonsense. He will pick his moment, once all the Brown ballyhoo starts to tire. Knowing Gordon Brown, he won't have long to wait.
Posted by: Tapestry | June 24, 2007 at 11:35
The Portillo critique is pantomime, straight from Bruce Forsyth's The Generation Game. 'Modernise more, modernise more - not that much.' Portillo's starting to look and sound dated, which is quite comical for a professed moderniser. It would be nice to take him seriously, but who does?
Ken Clarke's brilliance is combined with his usual appalling inattention to detail. He needs a damned good thrashing. He'd look perfect in 1930's school cap, short trousers and a blazer wouldn't he, combined with cheeky grin. 'Just William' springs to mind.
If these two jokers are the worst the media can find to throw at us, then we can get straight back to the serious business. Hague's impressing me no end.
Cameron should let the media do their worst, not rush out and lower himself to responding to such nonsense. He will pick his moment, once all the Brown ballyhoo starts to tire. Knowing Gordon Brown, he won't have long to wait.
Posted by: Tapestry | June 24, 2007 at 11:35
I Predicted Harman When She Was 10/1
MY POST ON JUNE 15th On Politicalbetting.com - How secure is the postal voting system being used? If it’s anything like the general election system, there will be plenty of opportunity for someone to rig the process to bring the ‘required’ result.
What would Broon’s desired result be? Hilary Benn possibly. No possible threat to Broon as a future leader, and another one who’s keen to hand billions over to African dictators like Broon himself. Johnson’s not going to be Broon’s choice as he might become a threat and he’s known to be Blairite. The other possible winner in a rigged vote would be Harriet Harman. Broon would not feel threatened by her, and he’d look good having a woman alongside. Ignoring the genuine voting, and imagining that the whole thing’s going to rigged anyway, it looks like Harman.
by Tapestry June 15th, 2007 at 10:25 am on Politicalbetting
and now she's won the Labour party Deputy Leadership on a wafer thin victory. It’s a classic fiddled election result like France’s referendum on the Euro. How many elections across Eurpe now smell of fixing? Sarkozy? Merkel especially? apparently by one seat. Funny how the most pro-Euro ones win every time. Europe is a post-democracy, a pseudo-democracy - run and controlled through the media - a mediocracy.
What would Broon’s desired result be? Hilary Benn possibly. No possible threat to Broon as a future leader, and another one who’s keen to hand billions over to African dictators like Broon himself. Johnson’s not going to be Broon’s choice as he might become a threat and he’s known to be Blairite. The other possible winner in a rigged vote would be Harriet Harman. Broon would not feel threatened by her, and he’d look good having a woman alongside. Ignoring the genuine voting, and imagining that the whole thing’s going to rigged anyway, it looks like Harman.
by Tapestry June 15th, 2007 at 10:25 am on Politicalbetting
and now she's won the Labour party Deputy Leadership on a wafer thin victory. It’s a classic fiddled election result like France’s referendum on the Euro. How many elections across Eurpe now smell of fixing? Sarkozy? Merkel especially? apparently by one seat. Funny how the most pro-Euro ones win every time. Europe is a post-democracy, a pseudo-democracy - run and controlled through the media - a mediocracy.
Brown On The Politics Show
Brown on The Politics Show - earlier today
Q. Are you going to have a deputy prime minister?
A. That's up to me.
Q. The Deputy Leadership Contest looked like a leap to the left.
A. All must support the manifesto of our party...we must honour our manifesto.
No comeback from interviewer that a referendum was promised in the Labour Party manifesto.
Q. Europe?
A. I've read the detail from Brussels. All our 4 red lines have been achieved. In these areas we are properly protected as a country.
Q. will there be a referendum?
A. because we've achieved all 4 red lines, the public would not expect a referendum.
Q. Hague says you have no mandate to agree the Treaty.
A. He would say that wouldn't he. The effects people are claiming are not true.
Q. Qualified Majority Voting.
A. We've asked for QMV in certain areas. It's not a constitution. It's an amending treaty. Our negotiations have been successful.
We've met our red line negotiating objectives.
Q. will Blair become Bush's middle east envoy?
A. lots of words meaning YES.
Q. how will you personally change in the way you deal with your colleagues.
A. you have to bring people together. you have to reach out, build a shared sense of national purpose. education. science. innovation. build a national consensus.
GORDON, 85% of your people want a referendum on the Constitution. A majority of MPs want one. How will you achieve national consensus from the 15% who don't care about Europe?
Q. Are you going to have a deputy prime minister?
A. That's up to me.
Q. The Deputy Leadership Contest looked like a leap to the left.
A. All must support the manifesto of our party...we must honour our manifesto.
No comeback from interviewer that a referendum was promised in the Labour Party manifesto.
Q. Europe?
A. I've read the detail from Brussels. All our 4 red lines have been achieved. In these areas we are properly protected as a country.
Q. will there be a referendum?
A. because we've achieved all 4 red lines, the public would not expect a referendum.
Q. Hague says you have no mandate to agree the Treaty.
A. He would say that wouldn't he. The effects people are claiming are not true.
Q. Qualified Majority Voting.
A. We've asked for QMV in certain areas. It's not a constitution. It's an amending treaty. Our negotiations have been successful.
We've met our red line negotiating objectives.
Q. will Blair become Bush's middle east envoy?
A. lots of words meaning YES.
Q. how will you personally change in the way you deal with your colleagues.
A. you have to bring people together. you have to reach out, build a shared sense of national purpose. education. science. innovation. build a national consensus.
GORDON, 85% of your people want a referendum on the Constitution. A majority of MPs want one. How will you achieve national consensus from the 15% who don't care about Europe?
Doubts Grow About Constitution
The Observer celebrates shrilly the Treaty with its headline on page 35 - Europe Finally Unites After Agreeing To Treaty.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2109970,00.html
In the third column, the tone of celebration is moderated by 'fears that Sarkozy had suceeded in diluting the EU's historic commitment to an unfettered free market. Alarm bells rang..in the British delegation when it emerged that Merkelhad agreed to drop the EU's 50 year commitment to promoting 'undistorted competition'.
Lord Brittan said,'so much capital was devoted to supporting 'red lines' for the benefit of Rupert Murdoch that a substantial weakening of competition policy was slipped through that is damaging to Britain.'
This view from a previous EU Commissioner and Europhile is interesting. Lance Price wrote in his Spin Doctor's Diary that Rupert Murdoch effectively controlled Britain's relationship with the EU under Blair. This was not expanded on and seemed an almost incredible assertion. But here again in today's Observer we find the same implication - that Rupert Murdoch controls our negotiations with the EU.
Clearly Gordon Brown is going to allow Murdoch to dictate his European Policy. To achieve a democracy, Rupert Murdoch should be standing for election, not Gordon Brown. Britain is ruled secretly by a dictator who is protecting his media privileges - and the same privileges enable him to exert so much leverage over our political system that he can effectively control it. If you ever doubted this theory, we now have more evidence.
Cameron and Hague will be facing withering fire from Murdoch as they campaign for the referendum, and Brown will be praised to the rafters for pursuing his act of treachery to the politcal system that has promoted him to its pinnacle.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2109970,00.html
In the third column, the tone of celebration is moderated by 'fears that Sarkozy had suceeded in diluting the EU's historic commitment to an unfettered free market. Alarm bells rang..in the British delegation when it emerged that Merkelhad agreed to drop the EU's 50 year commitment to promoting 'undistorted competition'.
Lord Brittan said,'so much capital was devoted to supporting 'red lines' for the benefit of Rupert Murdoch that a substantial weakening of competition policy was slipped through that is damaging to Britain.'
This view from a previous EU Commissioner and Europhile is interesting. Lance Price wrote in his Spin Doctor's Diary that Rupert Murdoch effectively controlled Britain's relationship with the EU under Blair. This was not expanded on and seemed an almost incredible assertion. But here again in today's Observer we find the same implication - that Rupert Murdoch controls our negotiations with the EU.
Clearly Gordon Brown is going to allow Murdoch to dictate his European Policy. To achieve a democracy, Rupert Murdoch should be standing for election, not Gordon Brown. Britain is ruled secretly by a dictator who is protecting his media privileges - and the same privileges enable him to exert so much leverage over our political system that he can effectively control it. If you ever doubted this theory, we now have more evidence.
Cameron and Hague will be facing withering fire from Murdoch as they campaign for the referendum, and Brown will be praised to the rafters for pursuing his act of treachery to the politcal system that has promoted him to its pinnacle.
Friday, June 22, 2007
The Brown Terror Begins
The gremlins are out in force on the web today. Probably trying to stifle comment at this sensitive time.
Cameron might do better to hold his fire rather than reshuffling his team to match Brown's early moves. The Conservatives are all wound up getting ready to play Brown. But he'll be hiding in his bunker 9 days out of 10, waiting for Cameron to make a move, or events to force his hand, which he will then respond to.
His own side will be in total confusion as to what he's up to, as he only ever gives out the minimum.
Cameron should play the new game and not carry on as if Blair were still there hoovering up all the limelight. With Brown as PM, limelight wil be going cheap.
It will be like hunting a bear that lives in a cave, which only comes out once every two weeks to give an awful terrifying roar, and then disappears again while the rest of the world wonders what it all meant.
If Cameron can provide a feeling of calm and continuity, that will tend to make people feel they would prefer that living at the mercy of an ursine roar. Less action and initiative, more meaning and reassurance will be at a premium during the Brown Terror.
Cameron might do better to hold his fire rather than reshuffling his team to match Brown's early moves. The Conservatives are all wound up getting ready to play Brown. But he'll be hiding in his bunker 9 days out of 10, waiting for Cameron to make a move, or events to force his hand, which he will then respond to.
His own side will be in total confusion as to what he's up to, as he only ever gives out the minimum.
Cameron should play the new game and not carry on as if Blair were still there hoovering up all the limelight. With Brown as PM, limelight wil be going cheap.
It will be like hunting a bear that lives in a cave, which only comes out once every two weeks to give an awful terrifying roar, and then disappears again while the rest of the world wonders what it all meant.
If Cameron can provide a feeling of calm and continuity, that will tend to make people feel they would prefer that living at the mercy of an ursine roar. Less action and initiative, more meaning and reassurance will be at a premium during the Brown Terror.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
King Gordon The First
Those who run political parties are beginning to look for safety. Blair wants a shiny job in Brussels. Brown and Ming want to stop opposing each other.
They can all see that once the Constitreaty is signed, the game's over anyway so they might as well all hang up their weapons and get together for a nice easy run while Brussels takes over.
Do they need voters any more? Not really. They can orchestrate the outcomes they desire with the media alone.
Cameron's not playing to the corruption system. He doesn't quite fit in with the back-scratching ways. He won't attend EPP meetings. He missed Murdoch's annual bash. But he's no threat. With the LD's and Lab finally admitting publicly that they are in fact an anti-Tory alliance, the chances for Cameron are over.
Gordon could retire to Buckingham Palace. He might as well fire the Monarchy next.
They can all see that once the Constitreaty is signed, the game's over anyway so they might as well all hang up their weapons and get together for a nice easy run while Brussels takes over.
Do they need voters any more? Not really. They can orchestrate the outcomes they desire with the media alone.
Cameron's not playing to the corruption system. He doesn't quite fit in with the back-scratching ways. He won't attend EPP meetings. He missed Murdoch's annual bash. But he's no threat. With the LD's and Lab finally admitting publicly that they are in fact an anti-Tory alliance, the chances for Cameron are over.
Gordon could retire to Buckingham Palace. He might as well fire the Monarchy next.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
The man Who Wants Blair 2B EU President - Pissed!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uxb0JHqzlA
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2bc60e12-1b72-11dc-bc55-000b5df10621.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2bc60e12-1b72-11dc-bc55-000b5df10621.html
Friday, June 15, 2007
Gordon Brown's Baby Boom
The tax credit systems is deeply flawed as Frank Field explains, let alone the fact that it spews out incorrect £100's of millions which are not collectable back, and it is also subject to widespread fraud.
There are other effects.
Because Broon has volunteered government money (and I mean big money, not mere assistance but more like enough to live on) to pay for children (single parents working 16 hours a week get £487 after tax credits - an astonishing £30 an hour equivalent), there are far larger numbers of children being born.
The more children you have, the more money you get. The programme is ultimately self-defeating, as the pool of demand ('poverty') is growing rapidly.
My brother has six childtren. It was not worth both he and his wife working because of tax credits, so he's gone down to three days a week, and she's part time too. The country gets exactly what it pays for - more children and less work.
I'm single with no children myself. Because tax rates on taking money out from my company is now 63.8% (40% Income Tax plus 23.8% Nat Ins), I now live from rental income (taxed at 40%) and so I too am no longer working (pre-1997 you could take money from a company taxed at 40%).
Broon has pushed both my brother and myself out of work - me, by taxing so highly it's not worth it, and my brother because of supposedly 'eradicating child poverty'!
It's work that Brown's eradicating - not child poverty! All of this talk of hard working families is a joke. With Gordon paying for it all, they can put their feet up, and party.
There are other effects.
Because Broon has volunteered government money (and I mean big money, not mere assistance but more like enough to live on) to pay for children (single parents working 16 hours a week get £487 after tax credits - an astonishing £30 an hour equivalent), there are far larger numbers of children being born.
The more children you have, the more money you get. The programme is ultimately self-defeating, as the pool of demand ('poverty') is growing rapidly.
My brother has six childtren. It was not worth both he and his wife working because of tax credits, so he's gone down to three days a week, and she's part time too. The country gets exactly what it pays for - more children and less work.
I'm single with no children myself. Because tax rates on taking money out from my company is now 63.8% (40% Income Tax plus 23.8% Nat Ins), I now live from rental income (taxed at 40%) and so I too am no longer working (pre-1997 you could take money from a company taxed at 40%).
Broon has pushed both my brother and myself out of work - me, by taxing so highly it's not worth it, and my brother because of supposedly 'eradicating child poverty'!
It's work that Brown's eradicating - not child poverty! All of this talk of hard working families is a joke. With Gordon paying for it all, they can put their feet up, and party.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Bob Woolmer - Another Not-Assassinated Person
On the heels of Diana and David Kelly, another mysterious death will leave doubts lingering.
The BBC reports today,
'But deputy police commissioner Mark Shields told the BBC a later x-ray showed the bone was not broken. ' - why not the Police Commissioner himself? Doesn't he agree with the new version of what happened?
"I instructed my team... to go back and actually retrieve it from his body... We got it x-rayed and the fact is that the bone wasn't broken in the first place," he said. - what does the medical knowledge on this say? And are you sure it's the right bone?
Mr Woolmer's widow, Gill, welcomed the latest news, saying: "My sons and I are relieved to be officially informed that Bob died of natural causes and that no foul play is suspected in his death." Yes if you trust the new version. The first version seemed real enough. Do you think they didn't seek second opinions immediately before making such as erious announcement, threatening the whole wolrd cup?
But
Pakistan
's former captain Imran Khan said he was shocked there was no apology to the national side. all the political pressure could well have forced the Police to rethink their first and probably honest decision
He said
Pakistan
's cricket board should sue those responsible for the "humiliation that the
Pakistan
team went through".
"Bob Woolmer had diabetes, he had blood pressure, an enlarged heart, he had respiratory problems. On top of it, the depression of losing and then he drank a bottle of champagne. They should have first ruled out natural causes before this whole drama about the murder," Imran Khan said. so what actually killed him then Imran?
The BBC's Andy Gallacher in
Kingston
says this is an embarrassing U-turn for the Jamaican police.
He says the news conference was an attempt to shift the blame for the errors in the case onto the report of the original pathologist, Dr Ere Sheshiah. It's pretty certain that one person who won't be allowed to comment in public will be Dr Ere Sheshiah. The truth is no longer required, I doubt. The whole thing will be brushed under the carpet as quickly as they can
The BBC reports today,
'But deputy police commissioner Mark Shields told the BBC a later x-ray showed the bone was not broken. ' - why not the Police Commissioner himself? Doesn't he agree with the new version of what happened?
"I instructed my team... to go back and actually retrieve it from his body... We got it x-rayed and the fact is that the bone wasn't broken in the first place," he said. - what does the medical knowledge on this say? And are you sure it's the right bone?
Mr Woolmer's widow, Gill, welcomed the latest news, saying: "My sons and I are relieved to be officially informed that Bob died of natural causes and that no foul play is suspected in his death." Yes if you trust the new version. The first version seemed real enough. Do you think they didn't seek second opinions immediately before making such as erious announcement, threatening the whole wolrd cup?
But
Pakistan
's former captain Imran Khan said he was shocked there was no apology to the national side. all the political pressure could well have forced the Police to rethink their first and probably honest decision
He said
Pakistan
's cricket board should sue those responsible for the "humiliation that the
Pakistan
team went through".
"Bob Woolmer had diabetes, he had blood pressure, an enlarged heart, he had respiratory problems. On top of it, the depression of losing and then he drank a bottle of champagne. They should have first ruled out natural causes before this whole drama about the murder," Imran Khan said. so what actually killed him then Imran?
The BBC's Andy Gallacher in
Kingston
says this is an embarrassing U-turn for the Jamaican police.
He says the news conference was an attempt to shift the blame for the errors in the case onto the report of the original pathologist, Dr Ere Sheshiah. It's pretty certain that one person who won't be allowed to comment in public will be Dr Ere Sheshiah. The truth is no longer required, I doubt. The whole thing will be brushed under the carpet as quickly as they can
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Britain Bored To Death
Blair's signing the Constitution. Brown will ratify it through Parliament. Cameron won't say much. Goodbye Britain. It's over.
One of the freest and most creative cultures in the world is condemning itself to a grim and rather sad subjugation, a long slow and painful death. It's odd that a nation that used to fight wars to stay free, now throws it all away for no obvious reason, and certainly no positive reason. It's happening purely because the EU freezes our brains by creating a total lack of interest.
A whole country with a 1000 year history ceases to exist because of a lack of interest? The EU is so dull and lifeless that no one wants to know anything about it. If it sent tanks and aircraft and dropped bombs on us, people would react, but boring us to death is working far better. Brits cannot cope with boredom. We respond to humour, to music, to life, to argument, to sport, to animals, to film, theatre, books but not to bureaucracy. They couldn't outfight us, but it seems they can outbore us very easily indeed.
Our culture has one Achilles heel. We don't have any way to deal with really boring uninsiring unproductive slimy bastards who sit and say and do nothing. When the EU does produce any of its propaganda, it is so dull and uninspiring Brits yawn and look somewhere else.
Gordon Brown has seen how it works. He knows that all he has to do is to be as dull as it is possible to be, and he can do with Britain exactly as he likes. No one will trouble him.
People can focus on their obsessions - football, house prices, shopping, alcohol, drugs, sex and the rest but Gordon only has to be dull. The history of Britain ends this summer, along with its once vibrant political culture - the eptaph 'Bored To Death'.
One of the freest and most creative cultures in the world is condemning itself to a grim and rather sad subjugation, a long slow and painful death. It's odd that a nation that used to fight wars to stay free, now throws it all away for no obvious reason, and certainly no positive reason. It's happening purely because the EU freezes our brains by creating a total lack of interest.
A whole country with a 1000 year history ceases to exist because of a lack of interest? The EU is so dull and lifeless that no one wants to know anything about it. If it sent tanks and aircraft and dropped bombs on us, people would react, but boring us to death is working far better. Brits cannot cope with boredom. We respond to humour, to music, to life, to argument, to sport, to animals, to film, theatre, books but not to bureaucracy. They couldn't outfight us, but it seems they can outbore us very easily indeed.
Our culture has one Achilles heel. We don't have any way to deal with really boring uninsiring unproductive slimy bastards who sit and say and do nothing. When the EU does produce any of its propaganda, it is so dull and uninspiring Brits yawn and look somewhere else.
Gordon Brown has seen how it works. He knows that all he has to do is to be as dull as it is possible to be, and he can do with Britain exactly as he likes. No one will trouble him.
People can focus on their obsessions - football, house prices, shopping, alcohol, drugs, sex and the rest but Gordon only has to be dull. The history of Britain ends this summer, along with its once vibrant political culture - the eptaph 'Bored To Death'.
Monday, June 04, 2007
50% Income Tax. labour Are Effing Thick.
Pre-1997 I paid 40% tax on company bonuses. It was worth taking money out of my company, so I worked hard and expanded operations. It cost £100,000 to put £60,000 in my pocket.
Then came Gordon Brown, who added Nat Ins so tax is raised at around 63%. It has, since 1997 cost around £160,000 to put £60,000 in my pocket.
It is simply not worth putting money at risk when you keep 100% of your loss, and only have a beggar's portion if you win. Result - I stopped working and went overseas.
To buy UK assets, instead of earning money, I now borrow with no intention of paying back, except by reselling the asset. I have moved to living from rents and capital gains which are taxed variously, but with top rate at 40%, still acceptable.
It seems odd to me that the kind of investment that creates jobs, raises wealth levels, and makes the economy more productive is the most penalised by tax.
Britain has a problem. People must accept that those who raise the country's productivity and its wealth level have to be rewarded. Taking risks is not a job like a brain surgeon, or architect. You can stop doing it any time. I have, I regret to say. The reason is undoubtedly Gotdon Brown.
If they raise the rate to 50%, that will translate to 73% with nat Ins added on. So I would need to pay £220,000 to put £60,000 in my pocket. Do they think I'm mad?
I have paid far less tax since Gordon Brown starting raising taxes. In fact they keep sending investigators round to try to see where all their money has gine. They really don't have a clue. If the p[urpose of tax is to raise more money, they should cut the rate. BUt of course the purpose is not that at all. They want to flatten wealth levels.
They won't make me poorer. People like me just go - to where people want us, and allow us to be free. That's the main motivation in people running busionesses - to be free of all this crap, and people like Harriet Harman.
Then came Gordon Brown, who added Nat Ins so tax is raised at around 63%. It has, since 1997 cost around £160,000 to put £60,000 in my pocket.
It is simply not worth putting money at risk when you keep 100% of your loss, and only have a beggar's portion if you win. Result - I stopped working and went overseas.
To buy UK assets, instead of earning money, I now borrow with no intention of paying back, except by reselling the asset. I have moved to living from rents and capital gains which are taxed variously, but with top rate at 40%, still acceptable.
It seems odd to me that the kind of investment that creates jobs, raises wealth levels, and makes the economy more productive is the most penalised by tax.
Britain has a problem. People must accept that those who raise the country's productivity and its wealth level have to be rewarded. Taking risks is not a job like a brain surgeon, or architect. You can stop doing it any time. I have, I regret to say. The reason is undoubtedly Gotdon Brown.
If they raise the rate to 50%, that will translate to 73% with nat Ins added on. So I would need to pay £220,000 to put £60,000 in my pocket. Do they think I'm mad?
I have paid far less tax since Gordon Brown starting raising taxes. In fact they keep sending investigators round to try to see where all their money has gine. They really don't have a clue. If the p[urpose of tax is to raise more money, they should cut the rate. BUt of course the purpose is not that at all. They want to flatten wealth levels.
They won't make me poorer. People like me just go - to where people want us, and allow us to be free. That's the main motivation in people running busionesses - to be free of all this crap, and people like Harriet Harman.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Cameron Should Dump Hague
washing our dirty linnen in public is not totally a bad idea. people haven't seen an MP taking on a party leader and winning for decades. It's actually very interesting and refreshing.
Brady has seen what's obviously nonsense about the grammar school policy, and he has rightly made his stand on that.
But he hasn't seen how to place Cameron in a good position, or fend off potential enemies for him. It's good to give your opponent an escape route when you've beaten them - especially if that's your party leader. AFter all, who will be implementing any policy once it's all been thrashed out?
Cameron will have to accept that he's failed in his attempt at a 'Clause 4' with grammar game, and that education policy is becoming the business of the Parliamentary Party as a whole. In fact he's had a Clause 4 in reverse. He tried to ape the Blair system of controlling all policy from the top, with media support sewn up. People are sick of it. Cameron's experienced the opposite - the policy he was trying to ram through has unravelled before his eyes.
It's actually a credit to Cameron and the Conservatives that his MP's feel they can speak out without being dstroyed as they would be inside Labour. Brady need not accuse Cameron so much while making his point. Cameron's an intelligent and sensitive persona, and while he's surrounded himself with a few ne'er do wells like William Hague, he is still a good leader. Cameron will ultimately build a better team, but he needs to go through a bit of fire to see that Hague isn't much use when it comes down to it.
Brady should congratulate Cameron on promoting so many new policy ideas in his Policy Review departments, or something, and present the COnservatives as the Party willing to discuss things, and look for the best solutions as a Party, and not allow a control freak to dominate all discussions. In a way, he could lead the process of stopping the media/control freakery of the Blair years and be more gracious. That would establish him as a major figure. Maybe he'll change his tune a bit, but all credit to him for putting up such a good fight and winning.
Now he needs to realise he's won, and give Cameron a route to move forward.
Brady has seen what's obviously nonsense about the grammar school policy, and he has rightly made his stand on that.
But he hasn't seen how to place Cameron in a good position, or fend off potential enemies for him. It's good to give your opponent an escape route when you've beaten them - especially if that's your party leader. AFter all, who will be implementing any policy once it's all been thrashed out?
Cameron will have to accept that he's failed in his attempt at a 'Clause 4' with grammar game, and that education policy is becoming the business of the Parliamentary Party as a whole. In fact he's had a Clause 4 in reverse. He tried to ape the Blair system of controlling all policy from the top, with media support sewn up. People are sick of it. Cameron's experienced the opposite - the policy he was trying to ram through has unravelled before his eyes.
It's actually a credit to Cameron and the Conservatives that his MP's feel they can speak out without being dstroyed as they would be inside Labour. Brady need not accuse Cameron so much while making his point. Cameron's an intelligent and sensitive persona, and while he's surrounded himself with a few ne'er do wells like William Hague, he is still a good leader. Cameron will ultimately build a better team, but he needs to go through a bit of fire to see that Hague isn't much use when it comes down to it.
Brady should congratulate Cameron on promoting so many new policy ideas in his Policy Review departments, or something, and present the COnservatives as the Party willing to discuss things, and look for the best solutions as a Party, and not allow a control freak to dominate all discussions. In a way, he could lead the process of stopping the media/control freakery of the Blair years and be more gracious. That would establish him as a major figure. Maybe he'll change his tune a bit, but all credit to him for putting up such a good fight and winning.
Now he needs to realise he's won, and give Cameron a route to move forward.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Hilary Benn To Hold Gordon's hand
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=592172007 reports Hilary Benn claiming EU concerns over Gordon Brown not being supportive are wrong. Seems like Benn is acting as spokesman/apologist for Brown.
They'd make a good pair - the silent brooder, and the skilled communicator, both keen of raiding the pockets of the rich to donate to the world's poor. Tories, take cover as Benn shoots into the lead on betting for Deputy Leader.
They'd make a good pair - the silent brooder, and the skilled communicator, both keen of raiding the pockets of the rich to donate to the world's poor. Tories, take cover as Benn shoots into the lead on betting for Deputy Leader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
