No wonder Congress is not rushing in with $700bn to bail out the markets.
Just found out that's $100bn more than they've already spent on the war in Iraq so far.
Surely the coffers must be drying up pretty soon. A big commitment like that could really cripple the country if it all goes wrong...how exciting!
Thursday, 25 September 2008
One's purse is empty - Our Scabby Queen
"ROOM TO LETHouse Share - rent negotiable
Furnished 1st flr dbl room to let in sought after area.
Secure entry.
Sharing with mature woman (landlady), one's family and 'some' dogs.
Large house, so we usually have a few parties and 'do's' throughout the year.
Non-smoker preferred.
No DSS."
.
.
Yes, apparently the Queen has secretly gone cap in hand to the Government saying that they need a bit more cash in order to meet the costs of official engagements and the upkeep of Royal Households.
.
"Without a state bail-out, the Queen will be unable to balance her books within the next three years"
.
Somehow I can't imagine Her Royal Highness really does do her own accounts, having watched a "tax doesn't have to be taxing" advert, giving it a shot herself, but it's quite an image.
.
So, what to do? The Government, in between owning Northern Rock and trying to desperately buy votes with CashBack Tax policies, is not in a position to just bail out the Queen. Northern Rock was in a Labour heartland, the Queen is not.
.
Well, to me, the most crucial factor in this predicament is...
"If the monarchy keeps spending at the current rate". Well, like all of us, will they not just have to cut back a bit? What with Harry and Wills bringing in a military wage each, could they not just live off that for a bit? If the country at large is feeling the pinch and we're being told, 'times are tough' and 'you're going to have to be more frugal', should that not apply to the big cheese of the people, she who sits at the top of the pile?
.
So, the Government should do what it can, but if it can't totally match the shortfall, there are only two options...
.
one, the Royal family cuts back a bit
.
two, convert the house into flats (you can keep the master suite/penthouse, yer Maj).
Wednesday, 24 September 2008
Katholicism Kelly (Krackpot)
Whoo-hoo! Whoop! and thank Christ for that. Jesus, I thought she'd never leave.
I've never liked Ruth Kelly. I'm glad she's leaving and glad she'll be gone from front line politics, for now.
God, I could prattle on about her voice, her religion, her wasted time at Transport, Health... but I won't, as that would be Almighty unfair, as I'm sure there's other out there Lording it over her with such attacks.
I will just say that she'll be back. She is shying away from being front-line Labour, just as it's building up to crunch time. Never been a fan of Brown so why be around to weigh down his sinking ship.
Spend time with your family? What a nice notion, but I don't believe you. You know that with Gordon at the helm, having bought himself a few more months with a mediocre, pandering, lefty and rather dull to non-Labourites speech, that things are only going to get worse, much worse. And you, to an extent understandably, don't want to be associated with it.
This is a woman who is not afraid to be associated with Opus Dei, a Catholic-version of a cult, making her, arguably, a 'religious extremist' you might say.
But doesn't want to be associated with Labour when their down. This tells me that, even to those on the inside, it's no longer worth having faith in the Labour Party. Even Labour's ministers know that the best thing Labour can do for the modern British family, is give up, go home and be with them.
I've never liked Ruth Kelly. I'm glad she's leaving and glad she'll be gone from front line politics, for now.
God, I could prattle on about her voice, her religion, her wasted time at Transport, Health... but I won't, as that would be Almighty unfair, as I'm sure there's other out there Lording it over her with such attacks.
I will just say that she'll be back. She is shying away from being front-line Labour, just as it's building up to crunch time. Never been a fan of Brown so why be around to weigh down his sinking ship.
Spend time with your family? What a nice notion, but I don't believe you. You know that with Gordon at the helm, having bought himself a few more months with a mediocre, pandering, lefty and rather dull to non-Labourites speech, that things are only going to get worse, much worse. And you, to an extent understandably, don't want to be associated with it.
This is a woman who is not afraid to be associated with Opus Dei, a Catholic-version of a cult, making her, arguably, a 'religious extremist' you might say.
But doesn't want to be associated with Labour when their down. This tells me that, even to those on the inside, it's no longer worth having faith in the Labour Party. Even Labour's ministers know that the best thing Labour can do for the modern British family, is give up, go home and be with them.
Monday, 22 September 2008
The scandal unfolds... media/government pt2
As I posted the other day, the media's coverage of the HBOS/Lloyds story is scandalous.
It was also widely commented on how
a) the BBC seemed to have their noses well in front of everyone else with the merger news, but also...
b) the coverage was so glowing, so perfect, so scripted for Gordon Brown to look good.
Well then. Seems like the Government and the BBC have been in cahoots for some time.
Richard Branson is claiming that key decisions on Northern Rock would not be taken by the Government without consulting BBC Business Editor, Robert Peston, with the leading quote being
John Kingman (Treasury, Civil Servant) - "the Government would have to take account of the view of Robert Peston".
Remember, this is the same man who was 'first to report' that Lloyds would be taking over HBOS. That, to this suspicious man, is more than coincidence, and more than having a good source.
Now, I've checked, and there don't appear to be any other Robert Pestons who would be relevant to this subject, so I'm crying FOUL, SCANDAL!
The Beeb are well and truly in Labour's pocket.
It was also widely commented on how
a) the BBC seemed to have their noses well in front of everyone else with the merger news, but also...
b) the coverage was so glowing, so perfect, so scripted for Gordon Brown to look good.
Well then. Seems like the Government and the BBC have been in cahoots for some time.
Richard Branson is claiming that key decisions on Northern Rock would not be taken by the Government without consulting BBC Business Editor, Robert Peston, with the leading quote being
John Kingman (Treasury, Civil Servant) - "the Government would have to take account of the view of Robert Peston".
Remember, this is the same man who was 'first to report' that Lloyds would be taking over HBOS. That, to this suspicious man, is more than coincidence, and more than having a good source.
Now, I've checked, and there don't appear to be any other Robert Pestons who would be relevant to this subject, so I'm crying FOUL, SCANDAL!
The Beeb are well and truly in Labour's pocket.
Friday, 19 September 2008
Gordon Brown, the Banks and the Media - the impotents of society
It was Mr Eugenides' post that got me thinking.
There is a scandal in the midst of all the banking mess.
Gordon Brown and Sir Victor Blank (Chairman of Lloyds) are good friends. Lloyds buy HBOS in a move that would usually fall foul the Competition Commission. Gordon Brown hurries through legislation to make this move permissable. Lloyds are generally thought to have done some good business in this deal. Gordon Brown says that he oversaw the deal.
Or, Sir Victor calls Gordon and says, "We want, and are in a position to buy, HBOS, which might take some of the sting out of the whole economic 'troubles' you're facing, Gordy. How about, if we buy it, we will safeguard Scottish jobs as a higher priority than English ones, and we can even say you had steady-hand over the whole deal, effectively saying you brokered it, then you legislate to get it past the Competition Commission. Deal?"
This is a scandal. There has been no mention, no suggestion of a conflict of interest, and as more and more details are revealed, it's just getting more and more a political deal, rather than financial one. Take the whole "the Prime Minister was involved in pushing through the deal" nonsense. That just sounds like a spun line that the media just took up, nodded their heads and ran with. Now the whole Scottish jobs being saved above English ones just smacks of pre-by-election scandal - just watch how often the HBOS story is mentioned in Glenrothes (because, in the last 6 months, it's his only 'achievement').
But does the media report anything of the like? No.
The media is practically dead in the UK, with investigative journalism restricted now to once a week/month programmes like Dispatches and Panorama.
Every day journalists just print what they get from a briefing room and a press release.
This was not a financial deal, this was not a sign that Gordon Brown can lead us through the 'tough times'. This is a man who is willing to pawn off dodgy deals solely to save his unsavable skin.
There is a scandal in the midst of all the banking mess.
Gordon Brown and Sir Victor Blank (Chairman of Lloyds) are good friends. Lloyds buy HBOS in a move that would usually fall foul the Competition Commission. Gordon Brown hurries through legislation to make this move permissable. Lloyds are generally thought to have done some good business in this deal. Gordon Brown says that he oversaw the deal.
Or, Sir Victor calls Gordon and says, "We want, and are in a position to buy, HBOS, which might take some of the sting out of the whole economic 'troubles' you're facing, Gordy. How about, if we buy it, we will safeguard Scottish jobs as a higher priority than English ones, and we can even say you had steady-hand over the whole deal, effectively saying you brokered it, then you legislate to get it past the Competition Commission. Deal?"
This is a scandal. There has been no mention, no suggestion of a conflict of interest, and as more and more details are revealed, it's just getting more and more a political deal, rather than financial one. Take the whole "the Prime Minister was involved in pushing through the deal" nonsense. That just sounds like a spun line that the media just took up, nodded their heads and ran with. Now the whole Scottish jobs being saved above English ones just smacks of pre-by-election scandal - just watch how often the HBOS story is mentioned in Glenrothes (because, in the last 6 months, it's his only 'achievement').
But does the media report anything of the like? No.
The media is practically dead in the UK, with investigative journalism restricted now to once a week/month programmes like Dispatches and Panorama.
Every day journalists just print what they get from a briefing room and a press release.
This was not a financial deal, this was not a sign that Gordon Brown can lead us through the 'tough times'. This is a man who is willing to pawn off dodgy deals solely to save his unsavable skin.
Tuesday, 16 September 2008
Carlsberg don't do Labour Shadow Cabinets, but if they did...
They'd probably be a whole lot better than Iain Gray's Shadow Cabinet.
I mean come off it. Same old faces, same old policies, same old ideas - so I say to the Scottish Labour Party, with their shiny new cabinet, to quote Kezia Dugdale, "you're boring me now".
Everyone knows Labour need a change.
Yes a change of leader. Check.
A change of faces among the Shadow Cabinet? Er, not quite.
If Kerr and Jamieson had any respect and ambition for the party, they would have said,
"Look, guys, you're going to offer me a position, mostly so we 'look united', but what this party needs is a fresh touch, a new direction and new blood breathing life into our campaigns, our policies and the party. It's time that we gave some of the younger ones, who aren't already tied into negative stories with the press and public and give the party a new beginning. We'll be as supportive as you want, but frontline stuff should be moved on to the next generation".
But instead, they're back in senior positions, which means the main meat of the party grows staler and staler under the same bad butchers' watch. These are obviously not the people to be at the front end of Labour policy. Margaret Curran? I won't do a paragraph on that, again, I'll just say 'What a ****ing st*pid decision by Gray appointing such a ****, ***********, ********* **tch ****** ** ** ******* ***** and a big fat loser'.
So Kezia, understandably is trying to big up this new team.
So far, all she can resort to is sexist and ageist comparisons between the SNP team and TeamNonsense over in the Labour camp.
But shocker of the day is card-carrying SNP Tactical Voting pretty much applauding Gray for not being petty.
Fine, he may not be petty but is anyone, except Kerr, Jamieson and Curran going to be impressed, even happy about this? He needs a slap, not a commendation for being a bit nice. Christ, it's almost Liberal Democrat territory how chummy he's being. No doubt he's just sure that his first f*ck up, and the unholy trinity will be banging on the leadership-election-drum, looking for their big shot, so this aoughta keep'em schtum for a month or two.
When he was elected, I was glad and thought that Scotland would now have a new, fresh and capable opposition, but nope, in the true cronyism spirit of Labour, those that have failed time and time again, get yet another chance, again. Fresh blood, real debate and a challenging opposition is what Scotland needs. What we get is nothing but the same old rump.
-------------
Also
You want to know why there are more Nat blogs than Labour? Cos it trickles down from the top, where the SNP, Tories, even the LibDems, have their houses in order, make changes where necessary and have a pool of talent they can and DO use. They feel confident in the party, especially the senior figures of the party.
Labour, keep the same senior numptys (from Andy Kerr all the way to GB himself), and look what happens, blog numbers decrease, membership sinks, polling data gets smaller and smaller and the party is set to lose control of it's second Parliament in succession because voters are abandoning them. It's not difficult to work out why all these things are turning sour. And it all stems from the top.
But Labour just don't get it.
I mean come off it. Same old faces, same old policies, same old ideas - so I say to the Scottish Labour Party, with their shiny new cabinet, to quote Kezia Dugdale, "you're boring me now".
Everyone knows Labour need a change.
Yes a change of leader. Check.
A change of faces among the Shadow Cabinet? Er, not quite.
If Kerr and Jamieson had any respect and ambition for the party, they would have said,
"Look, guys, you're going to offer me a position, mostly so we 'look united', but what this party needs is a fresh touch, a new direction and new blood breathing life into our campaigns, our policies and the party. It's time that we gave some of the younger ones, who aren't already tied into negative stories with the press and public and give the party a new beginning. We'll be as supportive as you want, but frontline stuff should be moved on to the next generation".
But instead, they're back in senior positions, which means the main meat of the party grows staler and staler under the same bad butchers' watch. These are obviously not the people to be at the front end of Labour policy. Margaret Curran? I won't do a paragraph on that, again, I'll just say 'What a ****ing st*pid decision by Gray appointing such a ****, ***********, ********* **tch ****** ** ** ******* ***** and a big fat loser'.
So Kezia, understandably is trying to big up this new team.
So far, all she can resort to is sexist and ageist comparisons between the SNP team and TeamNonsense over in the Labour camp.
But shocker of the day is card-carrying SNP Tactical Voting pretty much applauding Gray for not being petty.
Fine, he may not be petty but is anyone, except Kerr, Jamieson and Curran going to be impressed, even happy about this? He needs a slap, not a commendation for being a bit nice. Christ, it's almost Liberal Democrat territory how chummy he's being. No doubt he's just sure that his first f*ck up, and the unholy trinity will be banging on the leadership-election-drum, looking for their big shot, so this aoughta keep'em schtum for a month or two.
When he was elected, I was glad and thought that Scotland would now have a new, fresh and capable opposition, but nope, in the true cronyism spirit of Labour, those that have failed time and time again, get yet another chance, again. Fresh blood, real debate and a challenging opposition is what Scotland needs. What we get is nothing but the same old rump.
-------------
Also
You want to know why there are more Nat blogs than Labour? Cos it trickles down from the top, where the SNP, Tories, even the LibDems, have their houses in order, make changes where necessary and have a pool of talent they can and DO use. They feel confident in the party, especially the senior figures of the party.
Labour, keep the same senior numptys (from Andy Kerr all the way to GB himself), and look what happens, blog numbers decrease, membership sinks, polling data gets smaller and smaller and the party is set to lose control of it's second Parliament in succession because voters are abandoning them. It's not difficult to work out why all these things are turning sour. And it all stems from the top.
But Labour just don't get it.
Criminally Liberal
"Tough on crime - tough on the causes of crime."
One of the most successful soundbites of Labour's reign. Fair enough, Labour may not have been any good at 'getting tough', but the idea, the principle, the sense of what the British people wanted, was there to see.
Every now and again, a poll will come out listing what the people's main concerns in society are. If you take away the seasonal swingers such as immigration and environment, which disappeared from sight in these polls as quickly as they appeared, you are always left with the core three topics that are the mainstay of society that the public will always care about. If you abandon any of these, or take a very wrong approach on any, then as a political party, you are toast.
The three that you can't screw around with are Health, Education and Crime.
The Lib Dems do not get it when it comes to crime. Do we want a softly, softly approach to criminals? Nope.
The Lib Dems want minor offences punished with non-custodial sentences. That would be fine, but when the stats say that most minor crime is committed by repeat offenders - often on their fifth and sixth warning, or one case where the kid had over 20 ASBOs - the ones who DO make a difference to everyone's everyday life, then these criminals aren't learning.
ASBOs are not the solution to these offenders. Community service isn't the answer to these offenders. Fines are certainly not the answer, because when you tell a thief he's got to pay you money, chances are he's going to go out and steal, rob, burgle, mug to make up for the money he's just paid out in Liberal Justice.
Chris Huhne, laying out his proposals today, will also say we should not be building more prisons.
Prisons aren't full purely because of Government targets or beauracracy. They are full because people keep committing CRIME. And as these prisons are full, people who should be locked up are being set free.
But that's the Lib Dem dream, we can let them loose, they'll see the error of their ways. No, Chris, they are repeatedly bad people doing bad things and will continue to do bad things until the good guys have somewhere to put them...p r i s o n.
The Lib Dems are like the girl we all know who meets a guy who everyone knows is no good, she knows he's no good. He's got a track record of cheating, even did it to her best mate, doesn't treat any of his girlfriends well, probably known to have smacked a few of them about, but the girl still goes ahead with it, thinking "It'll be different with me, I can change him". "Well, toots, everyone warned you, so don't come greetin' to me when he's banging your wee sister!"
No, you cannot eradicate crime and criminals with the love of society. Some people just need locking up and if that involves more prisons, I'll happily pay more taxes to do it.
One of the most successful soundbites of Labour's reign. Fair enough, Labour may not have been any good at 'getting tough', but the idea, the principle, the sense of what the British people wanted, was there to see.
Every now and again, a poll will come out listing what the people's main concerns in society are. If you take away the seasonal swingers such as immigration and environment, which disappeared from sight in these polls as quickly as they appeared, you are always left with the core three topics that are the mainstay of society that the public will always care about. If you abandon any of these, or take a very wrong approach on any, then as a political party, you are toast.
The three that you can't screw around with are Health, Education and Crime.
The Lib Dems do not get it when it comes to crime. Do we want a softly, softly approach to criminals? Nope.
The Lib Dems want minor offences punished with non-custodial sentences. That would be fine, but when the stats say that most minor crime is committed by repeat offenders - often on their fifth and sixth warning, or one case where the kid had over 20 ASBOs - the ones who DO make a difference to everyone's everyday life, then these criminals aren't learning.
ASBOs are not the solution to these offenders. Community service isn't the answer to these offenders. Fines are certainly not the answer, because when you tell a thief he's got to pay you money, chances are he's going to go out and steal, rob, burgle, mug to make up for the money he's just paid out in Liberal Justice.
Chris Huhne, laying out his proposals today, will also say we should not be building more prisons.
Prisons aren't full purely because of Government targets or beauracracy. They are full because people keep committing CRIME. And as these prisons are full, people who should be locked up are being set free.
But that's the Lib Dem dream, we can let them loose, they'll see the error of their ways. No, Chris, they are repeatedly bad people doing bad things and will continue to do bad things until the good guys have somewhere to put them...p r i s o n.
The Lib Dems are like the girl we all know who meets a guy who everyone knows is no good, she knows he's no good. He's got a track record of cheating, even did it to her best mate, doesn't treat any of his girlfriends well, probably known to have smacked a few of them about, but the girl still goes ahead with it, thinking "It'll be different with me, I can change him". "Well, toots, everyone warned you, so don't come greetin' to me when he's banging your wee sister!"
No, you cannot eradicate crime and criminals with the love of society. Some people just need locking up and if that involves more prisons, I'll happily pay more taxes to do it.
Monday, 15 September 2008
That Gray area between truth and appearance of truth - where Labour lies
After reading Iain Gray's article in the Independent, I had to point out a few things about this ever-worsening-in-my-eyes leader.
I'm no SNP supporter, but still, a couple of questions for Iain
1) In the current climate, with the credit crunch and a potentially shrinking budget, is studying economics such a bad thing?
No.
2) "he moved to the Royal Bank of Scotland I moved to Mozambique"
RBS has more political, social, economic and cultural relevance to Scotland, the Scottish people and the Scottish Parliament than Mozambique. So his experience there will be more useful to 'we, the people' than your mission to Africa.
3) In 2001 Salmond abandoned the Scottish Parliament?
Whereas the Scottish PEOPLE abandoned you Iain in 2003, when they chose not to elect you.
You then
4) became an advisor to Alastair Darling at the Scottish Office, something you criticise Salmond for doing earlier in his career.
5) "We don't need a first minister whose pride is putting people down" - but Iain, all you've done in this article is (try to) put Salmond down, so I'm guessing you'll be ruling yourself out?
Some ridiculous bits in there, nothing on the future, nothing on policies or direction, just nothing.
I love to remind Labour at this time of their lovely slogan
"Forward, not back"
but yet again all we get from Labour is reminscence to the good old days and fear-flame-throwing to the Tories past. Just look at how often Salmond and the SNP are mentioned alongside Thatcher... unfortuantely, despite Labour picking the right candidate, it turns out he is the wrong politician.
I'm no SNP supporter, but still, a couple of questions for Iain
1) In the current climate, with the credit crunch and a potentially shrinking budget, is studying economics such a bad thing?
No.
2) "he moved to the Royal Bank of Scotland I moved to Mozambique"
RBS has more political, social, economic and cultural relevance to Scotland, the Scottish people and the Scottish Parliament than Mozambique. So his experience there will be more useful to 'we, the people' than your mission to Africa.
3) In 2001 Salmond abandoned the Scottish Parliament?
Whereas the Scottish PEOPLE abandoned you Iain in 2003, when they chose not to elect you.
You then
4) became an advisor to Alastair Darling at the Scottish Office, something you criticise Salmond for doing earlier in his career.
5) "We don't need a first minister whose pride is putting people down" - but Iain, all you've done in this article is (try to) put Salmond down, so I'm guessing you'll be ruling yourself out?
Some ridiculous bits in there, nothing on the future, nothing on policies or direction, just nothing.
I love to remind Labour at this time of their lovely slogan
"Forward, not back"
but yet again all we get from Labour is reminscence to the good old days and fear-flame-throwing to the Tories past. Just look at how often Salmond and the SNP are mentioned alongside Thatcher... unfortuantely, despite Labour picking the right candidate, it turns out he is the wrong politician.
The bitch is back
Oh Iain Gray. Oh me, oh my, the Labour Party.
Margaret Curran is to take a leading role in driving forward new policies for the Scottish Labour party.
Talk about one step forward, two steps back!
You need to rid the Labour frontbench of all those tired, unsuccessful, unwanted Labour politicians and bring in new blood.
Labour isn't working. So change it. If you are just a new front face on the same 'system', then that will not work with voters. I could go into this in detail, yet again, but you need a fresh new Labour Party in Scotland, not the same mediocre politicians, including one who just lost you 13,000 votes in your heartland.
I can't imagine many in the Labour Party are cock-a-hoop at the sight of Margaret Curran, face of Labour embarrassment, taking a leading role. She is a political turn-off, annoying, and over-exposed. People are sick of the sight (and sound) of her, people are sick at the sight of this Labour Party.
As the Asda reduced to clear section says... WHOOPS!
Saturday, 13 September 2008
Gray days - the right way forward
It will take a monumental shift, skill, understanding and political leadership to do the unthinkable at the next election, but by electing Iain Gray, Scottish Labour have, to an exorbetant extent, made the right choice, both for Scotland, but moreso for the party.
Well done Labour.
Well done Labour.
Labour Leadership announcement...
I'm no big fan of Labour. To be frank, the way things are right now, openly admitting you're a fan of the Labour Party is like openly saying Gary Glitter seems like an ok chap. Even if you believe it, you don't want to get looked at funny.
And so to today's announcement which will dictate the next episode of the Scottish Parliament.
Jack McConnell
Wendy Alexander
Andy Kerr
Malcolm Chisholm
Frank McAveety
Cathy Jamieson
Margaret Curran
These are the 'old guard' of Labour, that the public has seen, heard (too much of) and recognise as 'that's him/her fae the Labour Party'. The problem is, the Labour party is now a mess, it's a walking shell-suit, desperately in need of change.
If Kerr or Jamieson gets the nomination, then it's goodnight Labour, and we'll see you right after the election when your new leader's stood down after another trouncing on the ballot.
It's the basic communication concept of 'signs and signifiers';
You see a big red cross, you think of medical care.
You see a skull and crossbones on a bottle, you think of poison.
You see a big red bus, you think of London.
In this case, you see Kerr or Jamieson and you think of mediocrity.
These are the guys that represent the Scottish Labour Party that was deserted by swathes of the Scottish people. It's like Margaret Curran standing in the Glasgow East by-election.
What the Labour Party just doesn't seem to understand is that we the people know these politicians and have seen what they can do, have heard what they've promised and have decided that they just don't cut it.
The Tories made the same, simple mistake when they elected Howard as their leader in Westminster. In the end, eventually, they went for someone new, someone fresh, who the people didn't associate with their past mistakes and calamity, and chose David Cameron - and what a difference!
Scotland needs a strong opposition, but also one led by someone who isn't associated with their gory past and someone who isn't pining for 'the good old days'. In Iain Gray, they may not have the winning formula with which to 'take back the house', but they have a better chance of making ground, moving forward and providing Scotland and the Scottish Parliament what it will always need - strong, sensible opposition on whom the electorate can rely.
If they choose anyone but Gray, they are doomed to an extended spell on the subs bench of successful parliamentary politics.
And so to today's announcement which will dictate the next episode of the Scottish Parliament.
Jack McConnell
Wendy Alexander
Andy Kerr
Malcolm Chisholm
Frank McAveety
Cathy Jamieson
Margaret Curran
These are the 'old guard' of Labour, that the public has seen, heard (too much of) and recognise as 'that's him/her fae the Labour Party'. The problem is, the Labour party is now a mess, it's a walking shell-suit, desperately in need of change.
If Kerr or Jamieson gets the nomination, then it's goodnight Labour, and we'll see you right after the election when your new leader's stood down after another trouncing on the ballot.
It's the basic communication concept of 'signs and signifiers';
You see a big red cross, you think of medical care.
You see a skull and crossbones on a bottle, you think of poison.
You see a big red bus, you think of London.
In this case, you see Kerr or Jamieson and you think of mediocrity.
These are the guys that represent the Scottish Labour Party that was deserted by swathes of the Scottish people. It's like Margaret Curran standing in the Glasgow East by-election.
What the Labour Party just doesn't seem to understand is that we the people know these politicians and have seen what they can do, have heard what they've promised and have decided that they just don't cut it.
The Tories made the same, simple mistake when they elected Howard as their leader in Westminster. In the end, eventually, they went for someone new, someone fresh, who the people didn't associate with their past mistakes and calamity, and chose David Cameron - and what a difference!
Scotland needs a strong opposition, but also one led by someone who isn't associated with their gory past and someone who isn't pining for 'the good old days'. In Iain Gray, they may not have the winning formula with which to 'take back the house', but they have a better chance of making ground, moving forward and providing Scotland and the Scottish Parliament what it will always need - strong, sensible opposition on whom the electorate can rely.
If they choose anyone but Gray, they are doomed to an extended spell on the subs bench of successful parliamentary politics.
Friday, 12 September 2008
Labour - a nervous energy
We all knew that it was going to turn out this way.
Gordon Brown's measures to tackle high energy prices...cost the taxpayer.
The cry of "do something, do something" from the media and some of the public was dutifully answered by our panicked Prime Minister and will be duly hammered as another failed attempt at looking lke Labour is helping the people.
The Government, the PM, the Chancellor, the Labour Party, the Bank of England, Richard Branson, Vince Cable - there is nothing meaningful and effective anyone can do to prevent these higher prices. Inflation, energy prices, the cost of food...these are free-market problems and the free-market will either give us a thumbs up or thumbs down Caesar-style, as to how, or if, we get through this.
What Gordon Brown should be doing is telling the people, in no uncertain terms, that sometimes life is tough, and unfortunately for his Prime Ministerial chronology, but more so for the people of the 'here and now', we just have to tough it out. "We will do what we can, where we can, to help make life easier for those who are struggling but the bottom line is the Government nor the Parliament, can just dictate interest rates, enrgy prices or the price of goods".
Instead, what Gordon Brown is doing, is running around trying put out 100 isolated fires all at the same time, but doesn't realise that when Gordon Brown is the firefighter, it isn't water in his hose, it's just more fuel.
These fires are isolated and will, at some point that we cannot predict or control, put them selves out. We just have to leave them to burn, and as they are isoalted, there's no danger in this as they cannot catch on to anything else. They are their own, problematic entities.
But as GB runs from one political scorching to another, often stopping for just a second to say, very unconvincingly, "I have everything under control, nothing to see here", we stand there, knowing there's nothing he can do, almost feeling sorry for him.
Stamp duty freezes will not make the BIG DIFFERENCE that people want right now, and by saying "we have a plan", you build up expectations that everything will be sorted asap. But we know that's not how the free-market works. You cannot control foreign economies which have a massive impact on our own, so stop kidding yourself on.
Energy bills is another example.
Price of food is yet another.
Why do you think that no other party, not even leading independent businessmen, economists and industry professionals, have come up with a solution? Because there isn't a man-made way of fixing this. And all this running around, trying to look Prime Ministerial is like something from Faulty Towers where everyone but the character knows his panic is in vain.
And the worst part for Gordon Brown is that the Tories are doing nothing productive on the issue. They, day-in, day-out, ask what is the PM doing on this and that, and as a result GB jumps, saying "Look, I'm doing something". You've fallen into their very simple trap.
Any activity on your part cannot be successful to the extent that it will eradicate the problem, which in turn can be deemed a failure on your part.
And all the Tries need to do, day-in, day-out, is nothing except ask, "What is the Prime Minister doing on...", knowing that you will do it, and get your fingers burnt.
This is how the Tories will win the next election, by doing practically nothing.
Because they know, that nothing can, and nothing should, be done, by our PM.
Gordon Brown's measures to tackle high energy prices...cost the taxpayer.
The cry of "do something, do something" from the media and some of the public was dutifully answered by our panicked Prime Minister and will be duly hammered as another failed attempt at looking lke Labour is helping the people.
The Government, the PM, the Chancellor, the Labour Party, the Bank of England, Richard Branson, Vince Cable - there is nothing meaningful and effective anyone can do to prevent these higher prices. Inflation, energy prices, the cost of food...these are free-market problems and the free-market will either give us a thumbs up or thumbs down Caesar-style, as to how, or if, we get through this.
What Gordon Brown should be doing is telling the people, in no uncertain terms, that sometimes life is tough, and unfortunately for his Prime Ministerial chronology, but more so for the people of the 'here and now', we just have to tough it out. "We will do what we can, where we can, to help make life easier for those who are struggling but the bottom line is the Government nor the Parliament, can just dictate interest rates, enrgy prices or the price of goods".
Instead, what Gordon Brown is doing, is running around trying put out 100 isolated fires all at the same time, but doesn't realise that when Gordon Brown is the firefighter, it isn't water in his hose, it's just more fuel.
These fires are isolated and will, at some point that we cannot predict or control, put them selves out. We just have to leave them to burn, and as they are isoalted, there's no danger in this as they cannot catch on to anything else. They are their own, problematic entities.
But as GB runs from one political scorching to another, often stopping for just a second to say, very unconvincingly, "I have everything under control, nothing to see here", we stand there, knowing there's nothing he can do, almost feeling sorry for him.
Stamp duty freezes will not make the BIG DIFFERENCE that people want right now, and by saying "we have a plan", you build up expectations that everything will be sorted asap. But we know that's not how the free-market works. You cannot control foreign economies which have a massive impact on our own, so stop kidding yourself on.
Energy bills is another example.
Price of food is yet another.
Why do you think that no other party, not even leading independent businessmen, economists and industry professionals, have come up with a solution? Because there isn't a man-made way of fixing this. And all this running around, trying to look Prime Ministerial is like something from Faulty Towers where everyone but the character knows his panic is in vain.
And the worst part for Gordon Brown is that the Tories are doing nothing productive on the issue. They, day-in, day-out, ask what is the PM doing on this and that, and as a result GB jumps, saying "Look, I'm doing something". You've fallen into their very simple trap.
Any activity on your part cannot be successful to the extent that it will eradicate the problem, which in turn can be deemed a failure on your part.
And all the Tries need to do, day-in, day-out, is nothing except ask, "What is the Prime Minister doing on...", knowing that you will do it, and get your fingers burnt.
This is how the Tories will win the next election, by doing practically nothing.
Because they know, that nothing can, and nothing should, be done, by our PM.
Thursday, 11 September 2008
An SNP training camp?
I may be a bit late and missed the debate a few months back, but anyway, my tuppence worth...
David McLetchie, the chief whip and former party leader, added: "If we are to deny its use by anyone other than the separatists, then we deny the right of all Scots to fly their own flag.
"The Union Flag belongs to Britain, the Saltire to Scotland. The vast majority of us are proud to fly both, as proud patriots, not narrow nationalists."
No this has nothing to do with our favourite gun-slinging SNP councillor, this is the stooshie about repainting the fleet of Scotland's trains. For those who have just yawned at the thought of trains, I apologise.
After Transport Scotland announced that the First Scotrail fleet was to be repainted based around the saltire flag, Labour decided they had to have a bit of a huff about it.
Labour questioned whether the SNP was using the Saltire for nationalistic aims rather than the "simple patriotic pride in Scotland, which we all share".
George Foulkes described it as "independence by creep"
That silly old duffer then went on to claim "they try to brainwash people into independence instead (of debating the issues) with a strategy of incremental changes".
Hang on George, we're talking about painting trains in the colours of Scotland's flag.
Do you then think that flying the Saltire, anywhere, by anyone, in Scotland, classes that perosn, politician or not, SNP or not, as trying to "brainwash" all who pass by? What a ridiculous thought Lord Foulkes.
As you could probably have guessed with this sort of situation, Labour didn't do their homework.
Yes, this idea, this brainwashing, independence fuelled, nat-graffitti-paint-job was actually initiated not by the SNP, but by Transport Scotland, and was in the plans well before the SNP got their hands on power - so Labour then?
George, you've got a very able backroom team throughout the party, surely one of them, at your request could have realised this within minutes of a google search. But no, the concept of 'think before you speak' proves further alien to our esteemed Labour embarrassment.
Only the Tories (for potentially colour-based reasons) have come out with any sensible comments on the issue...
The wisdom of David McLetchie shining through...
(from the Telegraph)
(The Conservatives) welcomed the new colour scheme and said the Saltire was a symbol of Scotland and not the flag of nationalism.
David McLetchie, the chief whip and former party leader, added: "If we are to deny its use by anyone other than the separatists, then we deny the right of all Scots to fly their own flag.
"The Union Flag belongs to Britain, the Saltire to Scotland. The vast majority of us are proud to fly both, as proud patriots, not narrow nationalists."
Also, Labour hadn't taken the time to read the proposals as to WHY the change was suggested, it was for continuity in the event of another franchise takeover, to avoid confusion in the future, to assist THE COMMUTERS, people not mentioned by the Labour Party in their clamour.
Well done Transport Scotland.
Well done First Group (for agreeing to shrink you're own logo for the cause)
Well done the Scottish Conservative Party, for having sense, maturity and a real understanding of what politics should be about.
Results of a C-diff public inquiry
Labour want a public inquiry into the C-Diff deaths at Vale of Leven Hospital?
Brave, considering the verdict will probably be something along the lines of...
"After years of under investment and slapdash policies, the changes recently undertaken by the SNP Government didn't stand a chance of fixing things in such a short space of time. Much like some of the victims, help came too late, and bad practises, both at the Vale of Leven Hospital and at the Scottish Parliament were far too imbedded and ignored, that these unfortunate events were almost inevitable."
Hospitals with not enough funds. Hospitals with not enough nursing staff, so having to stretch their minimal funds even further by using agency nurses. Hospitals with cleanliness issues, health & safety issues, low morale and poor inspection rates - this is the legacy of Labour.
Now, we all know they'll wriggle out of any condemnation they receive in an inquiry, whereas I would hope, and have come to expect the SNP to hold its hands up to anything their Government has done wrong and find a solution, as opposed to the Labour method of shouting as loud as they can to drown anything else out that "WE'VE NEVER DONE ANYTHIN' WRONG, YA BASS".
If Labour and the SNP are both found to be at fault over the past few years, what the chances that they throw muck across the chamber at each other, rather than trying together to find a solution, what the hope that any MSP says, "blame shlame, what's our way forward"? I am hoping the SNP are strong enough to ignore sour Labour chants, and I'd also hope that Labour have seen that trying to shit on the SNP just isn't working as a winning strategy.
So stop looking for inquiries into this and that hoping that just one will say "It's all because of the SNP/Labour" as it's never going to happen and give you the slur you dream of.
SNP - You're the Government, fix it.
Labour - You want to be the Government, prove it.
Brave, considering the verdict will probably be something along the lines of...
"After years of under investment and slapdash policies, the changes recently undertaken by the SNP Government didn't stand a chance of fixing things in such a short space of time. Much like some of the victims, help came too late, and bad practises, both at the Vale of Leven Hospital and at the Scottish Parliament were far too imbedded and ignored, that these unfortunate events were almost inevitable."
Hospitals with not enough funds. Hospitals with not enough nursing staff, so having to stretch their minimal funds even further by using agency nurses. Hospitals with cleanliness issues, health & safety issues, low morale and poor inspection rates - this is the legacy of Labour.
Now, we all know they'll wriggle out of any condemnation they receive in an inquiry, whereas I would hope, and have come to expect the SNP to hold its hands up to anything their Government has done wrong and find a solution, as opposed to the Labour method of shouting as loud as they can to drown anything else out that "WE'VE NEVER DONE ANYTHIN' WRONG, YA BASS".
If Labour and the SNP are both found to be at fault over the past few years, what the chances that they throw muck across the chamber at each other, rather than trying together to find a solution, what the hope that any MSP says, "blame shlame, what's our way forward"? I am hoping the SNP are strong enough to ignore sour Labour chants, and I'd also hope that Labour have seen that trying to shit on the SNP just isn't working as a winning strategy.
So stop looking for inquiries into this and that hoping that just one will say "It's all because of the SNP/Labour" as it's never going to happen and give you the slur you dream of.
SNP - You're the Government, fix it.
Labour - You want to be the Government, prove it.
Wednesday, 10 September 2008
The SNP and the Green issue - a short tale
We hear a lot of bluster and bold words from politicians about renewable energy. We have targets, Commissions, we even have things called 'green taxes', which, by any other name are just 'taxes'.
But what we don't have is a renewable energy strategy, a clear programme for progress on how we are going to tackle this energy problem.
Now, based on how few of bloggers write about this topic, this shows that it's never going to really top the agenda. Cross-party name-calling, nit-picking, trying to catch each other out on minor inconsistencies and 'my dick's bigger than your dick' is mostly what goes on in the blogosphere. Come to think of it, that's most of what goes on in the Scottish Parliament.
But politicians, in particlular the SNP Government are one of the few parties with enough of a brash, 'fuck it, let's give it a shot' attitude to doing things for our little country. They have set ambitious targets (31% of power from renewables by 2011 and 50% by 2020) and if they match them, I'll be mightily impressed!
So tomorrow sees the Sustainable Scotland conference on how Scotland is facing up to the challenges of the 21st century at Our Dynamic Earth, seemingly with a particular focus on energy and the environment. Jim Mather will be delivering a keynote on clean energy and the question of how Scotland can be a world-leader in this field.
Considering one of the big questions/fears about an independent Scotland is one of how our economy will cope as a future independent nation, and that with most believing that when the oil runs out, our money will have to come from renewables, there ought to be a greater focus on Mather's speech than there is.
Further to this, the SNP Government seems to be getting an open appraisal at the event with Richard Wakeford, the Scottish Government's director general for environment speaking in a review of Government policy and strategy and considering progress (it's an appraisal "Here's how you've done for this last year, and now we'll set some targets for the next").
But will this get reported? Probably not.
Will it be blogged about by anyone other than the annoying hippy-brigade? Doubt it.
To an extent, if we do end up independent, whether you want it or not, major factors for our economy need to be examined, planned, thought through and tested before we can be confident of their success, and that means starting now.
I'm all in favour of a radical renewable energy policy, carpet-bomb the hills with windfarms for all I care, I freaking love them. Go back to Peterhead and get the tidal power project, that Labour frittered away to avoid upsetting Westminster, back on track.
Step up to the plate Jim Mather, this should be a big test for you (though probably won't be), give us a real, strong forward strategy, one that we can reduce emmissions with, but also that we can take to the world, share with the world and sell to the world.
When you talk about 'clean energy' talk about real solutions, not ones that just pander to business (if you try to convince us that 'clean coal' is anything other than just a con, you'll have failed). Talk about how we can really do this, why it's necessary and most of all, why this is a damn good idea for Scotland. You and your party have made good, promising strides so far, don't fade now.
But what we don't have is a renewable energy strategy, a clear programme for progress on how we are going to tackle this energy problem.
Now, based on how few of bloggers write about this topic, this shows that it's never going to really top the agenda. Cross-party name-calling, nit-picking, trying to catch each other out on minor inconsistencies and 'my dick's bigger than your dick' is mostly what goes on in the blogosphere. Come to think of it, that's most of what goes on in the Scottish Parliament.
But politicians, in particlular the SNP Government are one of the few parties with enough of a brash, 'fuck it, let's give it a shot' attitude to doing things for our little country. They have set ambitious targets (31% of power from renewables by 2011 and 50% by 2020) and if they match them, I'll be mightily impressed!
So tomorrow sees the Sustainable Scotland conference on how Scotland is facing up to the challenges of the 21st century at Our Dynamic Earth, seemingly with a particular focus on energy and the environment. Jim Mather will be delivering a keynote on clean energy and the question of how Scotland can be a world-leader in this field.
Considering one of the big questions/fears about an independent Scotland is one of how our economy will cope as a future independent nation, and that with most believing that when the oil runs out, our money will have to come from renewables, there ought to be a greater focus on Mather's speech than there is.
Further to this, the SNP Government seems to be getting an open appraisal at the event with Richard Wakeford, the Scottish Government's director general for environment speaking in a review of Government policy and strategy and considering progress (it's an appraisal "Here's how you've done for this last year, and now we'll set some targets for the next").
But will this get reported? Probably not.
Will it be blogged about by anyone other than the annoying hippy-brigade? Doubt it.
To an extent, if we do end up independent, whether you want it or not, major factors for our economy need to be examined, planned, thought through and tested before we can be confident of their success, and that means starting now.
I'm all in favour of a radical renewable energy policy, carpet-bomb the hills with windfarms for all I care, I freaking love them. Go back to Peterhead and get the tidal power project, that Labour frittered away to avoid upsetting Westminster, back on track.
Step up to the plate Jim Mather, this should be a big test for you (though probably won't be), give us a real, strong forward strategy, one that we can reduce emmissions with, but also that we can take to the world, share with the world and sell to the world.
When you talk about 'clean energy' talk about real solutions, not ones that just pander to business (if you try to convince us that 'clean coal' is anything other than just a con, you'll have failed). Talk about how we can really do this, why it's necessary and most of all, why this is a damn good idea for Scotland. You and your party have made good, promising strides so far, don't fade now.
Sunday, 7 September 2008
A flat rate of tax
It's not popular, and to be honest, it's never going to happen but I believe in a flat rate of income tax.
There. I said it.
I know almost no one agrees with me, and I know that I'll take pelters for this, but to me, a flat rate of income tax is the fairest way to do it. The TUC has said tax the rich more, but to me, that's just a shit idea which furthers Britain's mindset of "let's punish those who are successful".
I won't go into the details of it all, because I'm not introducing a bill with this, though the numbers pretty much stack up, but all in all, I say...
Make the first £12,000 of someone's wages tax free.
Everything above that £12,000, should be taxed at 38%.
This would do three important things.
1) people on the lowest wages, would be helped the most.
2) it is fairer, as everyone would be paying an equal share of their disposable income.
3) I'd be slightly better off, and so would you probably.
Do the math yourself, both for your own wages, but also for the poorer people in society, and tell me this isn't at least worth considering.
I don't believe the rich should get taxed more, I believe that as a citizen, I am just as responsible for the 'upkeep of society' as someone with £50million sat in the bank, and if 38% is what keeps it at current spending levels, then I'm all in favour.
I know I'm in the minority on this, but I can't see how?
There. I said it.
I know almost no one agrees with me, and I know that I'll take pelters for this, but to me, a flat rate of income tax is the fairest way to do it. The TUC has said tax the rich more, but to me, that's just a shit idea which furthers Britain's mindset of "let's punish those who are successful".
I won't go into the details of it all, because I'm not introducing a bill with this, though the numbers pretty much stack up, but all in all, I say...
Make the first £12,000 of someone's wages tax free.
Everything above that £12,000, should be taxed at 38%.
This would do three important things.
1) people on the lowest wages, would be helped the most.
2) it is fairer, as everyone would be paying an equal share of their disposable income.
3) I'd be slightly better off, and so would you probably.
Do the math yourself, both for your own wages, but also for the poorer people in society, and tell me this isn't at least worth considering.
I don't believe the rich should get taxed more, I believe that as a citizen, I am just as responsible for the 'upkeep of society' as someone with £50million sat in the bank, and if 38% is what keeps it at current spending levels, then I'm all in favour.
I know I'm in the minority on this, but I can't see how?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
