tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13954244564941478302024-03-13T18:56:49.868+00:00Political DissuasionPolitical Dissuasionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11444377943477287319noreply@blogger.comBlogger151125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1395424456494147830.post-18736923392075449812010-04-25T08:51:00.002+01:002010-04-25T08:55:46.026+01:00Nick Clegg's great betrayalNick Clegg has vowed to end the "two party system" which he believes has crippled politics and government.<br /><br />That's all good and well Nick, but you've blasted Labour out the water so hard and so far that you've created a new two party system!<br /><br />Promises, promises...Political Dissuasionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11444377943477287319noreply@blogger.com63tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1395424456494147830.post-19074490901088704152010-04-22T08:00:00.000+01:002010-04-22T08:00:08.269+01:00Does Alex Salmond hate Scotland? Or is he just an idiot?I honestly can't decide.<br /><br />Salmond has announced that a hung Parliament will be the most beneficial result for the Scottish people. He believes that without one party dictating it's will upon the political process and country at large, "Scotland's greatest opportunity exists".<br /><br />Salmond's SNP manifesto launch has received serious news coverage and column inches down south in England, and publicity-eyed Salmond will no doubt be as chuffed as an Irish alter boy that he has received so much press in the 'big boy papers'. But the papers aren't talking about the manifesto, they are focussed on what he has said about a hung parliament being great news for Scotland.<br /><br />This is why he is either an idiot or doesn't love his country.<br /><br />THE CASE FOR 'SALMOND THE IDIOT'<br /><br />If he genuinely believes that a hung parliament is best for Scotland, then shouting about it is about the worst thing he can do. <br /><br />Whether we like it or not, Scotland is not a popular place down in England - to them, all we do is take, whinge and rain. The Barnett formula, although often reported wrongly in the press, has created a buiding tension among many English men and women. We get more money per head than them and they know this and ain't happy about it. Our MPs get to vote on England only issues and they know this and ain't happy about it. Seriously, more than we recognise, sheltered above the border, resentment towards the Scots is a growing, growing force.<br /><br />And whether we Scots like it or not, the more the English think about the imbalances, the more likely they are to vote Conservative. And the more likely England is to vote Conservative, the less likely the chances of a hung parliament. And if a hung parliament is the best thing for Scotland, Salmond shouldn't be doing the one thing that will guarantee more Tory votes south of the border. If he can't see this, or is choosing to be blind to the reality...he's an idiot.<br /><br /><br />THE CASE FOR SALMOND: 'HATER OF SCOTLAND'<br /><br />Is the same as the above but with different intentions.<br /><br />Salmond's no political novice. It has long been believed that a Tory Government in Westminster is preferred by the SNP camp because they can then stoke up the anti-Tory, "remember Thatcher?", poll-tax reminiscent politics that seems to strike at the tribalism in Scots blood to 'inspire' independence. If the best thing for Scotland is a hung parliament, as he says, then why say so? Whether the SNP gets 7 or 20 seats, the possibility of a hung parliament or a majority is not going to be decided by the SNP's benches. The more he talks about what Scotland will gain from a hung parliament, the more likely English voters are to vote against ending up with a hung parliament.<br /><br />Salmond denounces the three main parties' "cuts agenda". This comment should qualify Salmond for the "IDIOT" section above becuase he seems to be the only one left in the UK who doesn't realise WE NEED A CUTS AGENDA, WE HAVE A F***ING BIG HOLE IN OUR ACCOUNTS. With Salmond saying that Scotland should not be affected by the (necessary) cuts, people in England will hear nothing but Scottish people not willing to do their bit to cut the deficit, Scottish people saying "give us even more money". This will not endear Scots, or anything that will benefit us Scots, to the majority of those in England.<br /><br />So if Salmond's plan is to provoke English voters to go for a Tory Government, just so he can pick his independence fight, then he is not doing what is best for Scotland, which in his own words, is a hung parliament. This means he ain't doing what he's doing out of love for Scotland. It's his love for the fight.<br /><br />I've often wondered if Salmond, given the option, would like Scottish independence or whether he just likes the 'struggle' and would prefer to sling punches rather than walk away successful. <br /><br />Now I'm wondering... is he just an idiot?Political Dissuasionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11444377943477287319noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1395424456494147830.post-71969448951029961962010-04-20T21:42:00.001+01:002010-04-20T21:41:33.574+01:00What is a REAL Tory?Want to know what the Tories are really like? Think Cameron's representing the Conservative Party members when he tries to be a friendly face, Dave-from-next-door type? Nope.<br /><br />Every now and again, the press hint at rumblings of discontent within the blue ranks of British politics. Many outside (and inside) the party believe Cameron is leading his people down a road they would rather not travel, that what he says doesn't represent what they feel and that a bit of a mutiny has only been staved off by a guaranteed success in the election and the promised land of Government.<br /><br />Well, if Norman Stone's article in the London Evening Standard is representative of real Tory views, then Cameron has a problem in the basement and the British public are close to electing a Jeckyll and Hyde outfit, with no guarantee of which one'll be in charge. Talking about the Cameron campaign so far, Stone says of the Tories "This is not our world". So, DavCam's not representing his people.<br /><br />So what do real Tories, if Cam ain't one, believe in...?<br /><br />- The real Tories want us out of the EU as soon as possible.<br /><br />- Reversing the smoking ban "would at once collect votes in millions". Really?<br /><br />- In comparison with Istanbul, he explains..."If an able-bodied young man started begging, he would be honour-killed and quite right too". Does that sound like the friendlier, more compassionate Conservatives we've been hearing about?<br /><br />- "old fashioned pubs" shouldn't be closing down when "gruesome, noisy clubs" flourish, staying open late.<br /><br />Most of all, what sums up the Conservative mentality? Stone highlights how losing this election would be great news for the party, because the Tories could take over later, looking like even shinier knights in shining armour. Ah, there's nothing more endearing about those Tories than the their commitment to what's the best for...the country? No... the party.<br /><br />If you're not sure about voting Tory, read this article. It is this outdated mentality which scares the crap out of the public and what the Tories are trying to hide away, their dirty secret, their true selves. I would love to hear Norman Stone's views on education, poor people, homosexuality...Political Dissuasionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11444377943477287319noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1395424456494147830.post-10063529203352219282010-04-15T22:46:00.002+01:002010-04-15T22:52:04.100+01:00And the winner is... Cameron?Yes, Clegg won the debate. But Cameron is, by far, the big winner tonight. As much as the Lib Dems may have made big moves, whether it's right or not (it's not, btw) the fight is between Labour and Tory, and David Cameron won that particular fight by a long way.<br /><br />Brown appeared to have a tactic of attack Cameron, try to appear cosy with Clegg and hope the piggy-in-the-middle offensive worked. It didn't. Every time he said "I think Nick and I are in agreement" or "Nick agrees with me" or "Nick supports our policy", Clegg slapped him down and left him looking stranded, desparate and out of his depth. Cameron appeared calm, assured and comfortable.<br /><br />It depends on how you would categorise a win, but without a shadow of a doubt, for me, Cameron got the most out of it, and what he'll have got is votes at the expense of Labour.Political Dissuasionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11444377943477287319noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1395424456494147830.post-7894284272001282772010-04-13T00:17:00.002+01:002010-04-13T00:23:35.338+01:00LibDem Tactical Voting?I have just watched the Paxman interview with Nick Clegg.<br /><br />(First off, Paxman is atrocious. Why can't we have Dimbleby as the pointman at the BBC?)<br /><br />Nick Clegg, starting from a weak Lib Dem position and up against a system and media that seems committed to maintaining a Labour/Conservative grip on our political system, is a man doing a tough job and is fighting against a strong current.<br /><br />Will many people who aren't politically-minded have watched this? Probably not.<br />Should they have? Yes.<br /><br />Nick Clegg has impressed me over the last year. I have a hstory of slating the LibDems, often with good reason (sometimes not) but he is slowly edging his party to the front of my swing-voter mind. If you haven't seen the interview, I would recommend doing so...with one warning. No matter if you are a LibDem fan, or a staunch die-hard of another party and just want to see Clegg f*ck up...you will hate Paxman at the end of this, he's truly a waste of BBC pay.<br /><br />I posted last week on how it is worrying that there is no "policy" (remember that word?) being discussed. This election, so far has been about cuts, cutting techniques and the tools used to make the cuts. No one has spoken about, regardless of the cuts, what they'll do with education, health, policing... until now.<br /><br />The Nick Clegg interview<br /><br />Here's why I think Clegg is as good, if not a damn sight more worthy, as any other potential PM we have... (these are things that are important to me, so you may not agree or care about some of these)<br /><br />Nick Clegg, and the LibDems in general, acknowledges flaws in electoral method and that number of votes, rather than seats is also important. As one of the few bloggers (and like the majority of the country) who isn't entrenched in the die-hard psyche of what their party tells them to religously think, defend and preach, I am not in love with the power of parties on the political process. Seeing it outside the box of parties and being consistently focussed on this as an issue is one head turner for me.<br /><br />Against spending silly money replcing Trident<br /><br />No income tax for the first £10,000 for those on less than<span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>£100,000. Ok, so it's not PDs dream scenario of the flat rate of tax, but at least the LibDems agree that the poorest (and yes, some others will benefit) should be given a lot more help. I am a massive fan of no tax on the first £10-12,000 and is a policy which will have a huge impact on people's lives. I thought that his comment to Paxman "If you don't think that £300 to someone on £8,000 a year is a big step forward..." was perfectly put and Clegg, not just in this interview, is the one leader who seems to appreciate what life is like in the real world.<br /><br />I was also impressed by Clegg's acknowledgement of the circumstances of the £20-30k bracket. This is the majority of people throughout the UK and yet, the focus in politics is always on the super-rich (attacking them) or the super-poor (playing Robin Hood, trying to be their hero).<br /><br />By not "ring-fencing" NHS funding, Nick Clegg has hit the nail on the head with what has gone wrong in Britain. Spending on health has ballooned over the last 13 years with no direct link in increased service. When he spoke about the new management positions throughout the NHS, this is what Britain has become, a society by beaurocracy.<br />Abolishing this mentality (along with some of the jobs) is a much better pledge than ring-fencing for political cover.<br /><br />His schools premium policy - at this stage I know too little about it to have an informed opinion on this specific policy, but I was hugely impressed that finally a leading politician sees 'poor schools' as something that also exists outside the London headline boroughs.<br /><br />On schools Clegg claims..."Under Labour if you're poor, it matters where you're poor" I work in the public sector with schools throughout the UK and what Clegg says IS 100% TRUE. What Clegg talks about here is a perfect example of Govt focussing on one area, throwing time and money at it and issuing a massive press release. This is not education policy and Clegg has nailed this one.<br /><br />I like Nick Clegg because he looks like he wants to punch Paxo. PD wants someone to punch Paxo.<br /><br />I'm a fan of a local income tax<br /><br />He has admitted a change of heart to now be anti-Euro - another big thing for me.<br /><br />Bad point - he said "by golly"<br /><br /><br />All in all, I think Clegg has done himslef and his party no harm at all in this interview. I'm not yet on the road to voting LibDem but he has certainly turned my head and impressed me enormously. The LibDems won't get the press they deserve or the respect, but come polling day, I can see them getting far more than the 20% the pools are indicating.<br /><br />Well done Nick Clegg.Political Dissuasionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11444377943477287319noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1395424456494147830.post-23154231976360213922010-04-02T10:05:00.000+01:002010-04-02T10:06:19.082+01:00The issues that should be (but aren't) election prioritiesSo, politics is a wide field covering more than just schools, hospitals and bloggers.<br /><br />Here are some of the big issues that aren't being discussed (so far) at the election, that could (and should) have a massive part to play...<br /><br />Trident<br />How we can be talking about budget cuts without a serious discussion going on about cutting Trident just highlights how wasteful our political parties are. The Government has conceded that<br />Trident will cost the British taxpayer £20bn. Now, not only is that a lot of nurses, it's also a lot of money. Opposition to Trident isn't just within the fringes of society, it is a widespread and morally powerful issue that some politicians are sitting quietly on, knowing that if this becomes a hot topic, their consciences will not allow them to tow the party line.<br /><br /><br />The Olympics<br />We, the UK, are hosting the Olympics in 847 days. Usually, in any other country, this would be something to celebrate, to draw on during an election and to inspire positivity during such a gloomy time. Yet, even now it's election time, one of the biggest events during the next parliament and I've not heard it mentioned once in the pre-election build up.<br /><br />The silence surrounding this £9bn event is typically worrying.<br /><br />Are we going to produce the sporting equivalent of the Millenium Dome? This is an event which has cost us £billions and will (hopefully) bring in many more £billions, but also has the potential to embarrass or galvanise our country. Yet no real noise (other than repeating an updating press release) at all from the Prime Minister, David Cameron, the Press.<br /><br />This has f*ck up written all over it and whoever wins the election is going to look like a t*t.<br /><br /><br />Afghanistan<br />No, not the funding of our armed forces, I mean the actual conflict. It's not going well. This is never going to be a vote winner for the Government which is why it is not being dicussed.<br /><br />I believe the total number of British soldiers lost now stands at 279.<br /><br />I'm sick of hearing politicians spinning the line, 'if you attack us on the war you do not support our troops' and when asked a question on the conflict replying with no detail in the answer but highlighting the courage and bravery of our armed forces. If you respect our brave, courageous heroes, you will discuss the issue properly.<br /><a href="http://subrosa-blonde.blogspot.com/2010/04/afghanistan.html">Subrosa</a> highlighted an article in the Telegraph which questions why the Prime Minister is so quiet on the Afghanistan issue and increases the claim that his "antipathy" is worrying. I do now worry and believe that the Prime Minister does not regard the armed forces or the conflicts we are engaged in as anything other than "something that just comes with the job". What is equally terrifying is that I genuinely believe David Cameron is of exactly the same mindset.<br /><br />Some have said Cameron just doesn't want to look like he's using the armed forces as a political tool because he'd get hounded out. I just don't buy it. Cameron wants to win voters round, in his own words on a "local" level and doesn't register the war in his head.<br /><br />The war is a horrible result of misjudgement. The public don't support the war (but, politicians, we do still support the troops) and there is no obvious definition of what a win, success of endgame is. This is a major issue for the majority of the country and it is being sidelined during this election.<br /><br /><br />These are just some issues which I think should be getting more 'Prime Ministerial' attention from the Prime Minister, Cameron and Clegg. The Lib Dems are better on these issues, but the important thing is that Nick Clegg is not. His party 'gets it' but he doesn't use this when being leader. He is playing the 'Prime Ministerial' game which he cannot win and will look like nothing other than a desparate wannabe throughout if he tries to go toe-to-toe on "the so-called big issues" against "the so-called big boys".<br /><br />I've not blogged for a while so might come back to this throughout the election to see what else isn't but should be discussed. The recession, the credit crunch, all that is being overdone and we are starting to lose focus on who we want to govern the rest of what we do. The majority of people's lives will only be impacted in a small way by the recession and the majority of Britain is not the credit crunch. We need to remember that one way or another, cuts or no cuts, everything else is still there and someone needs to organise it.Political Dissuasionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11444377943477287319noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1395424456494147830.post-64574175579136665632010-01-30T14:02:00.001+00:002010-01-30T14:02:34.756+00:00Thank you Tony BlairI will start off this post by saying that Tony Blair got it right. He got it right in deciding to go to war and he got it right yesterday at the Chillcot Inquiry.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigKD2w7MUrgrliwzKEflzdJgJt8QVegZTwf9_0bp-qzdDNrtPhWxbx2V6J4r26c6JGrDlBs29dP8sk8TQYvfx-QMpjy9-qXU8i31bT9u67wK6erdukE4zgK3IBs5rMkYXdmS-jtTffvuuM/s1600-h/blair.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 385px; height: 185px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigKD2w7MUrgrliwzKEflzdJgJt8QVegZTwf9_0bp-qzdDNrtPhWxbx2V6J4r26c6JGrDlBs29dP8sk8TQYvfx-QMpjy9-qXU8i31bT9u67wK6erdukE4zgK3IBs5rMkYXdmS-jtTffvuuM/s400/blair.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5432485500296266290" border="0" /></a>Did everything go 100% to plan in Iraq? No. Does anything? No.<br /><br />So thank you Tony Blair. Many people expected (and demanded) that you show up, explain what you did, say sorry and piss off. Had you done that, it would have set a precedent that if there is a great swathe of (mostly) irrational feeling/anger and ill-informed-oppposition, then the mob must have its way. The number of journalists, protestors, grieving family members and all-round rabble-rousers who were salivating at the prospect of Tony Blair, tail between his legs saying "You know what, you're right. I signed a deal in blood with Bush, I made up the 45 minute claim all on my own and by the way, we did it for oil". Some people need an outlet for their grief and some people just need someone to hate. Blair fits the bill for a lot of people in this, but wrongly so.<br /><br />Every war, and I do mean EVERY WAR, has had some people who believe it is illegal, or unjust, or not morally sound and Iraq was/is no different. As Blair said yesterday, it was a "divisive" issue and being in his job, he had to make a decision to pull the trigger or walk away. Had he walked away, and left Saddam to it, there would also have been protests from Human Rights organisations saying "you must do something for the Iraqi people" as there had been for years before.<br /><br />His job was looking at the evidence that was presented to him and judging the situation based on that. Tony Blair wasn't on the front line looking for WMDs and providing intelligence reports. He was presented with reports that said "He's got them". The British Prime Minister's job is to protect the people of the UK but also, as a big player on the world stage, our country has a morale obligation to help out elsewhere where we see injustice, both through diplomatic routes, trade embargoes and, where necessary, military intervention and the day we don't see that as our role, then we are less of a country and less as people than we think.<br /><br />Tony Blair took the decision to invade and topple Saddam. Why?<br /><br />Because if he hadn't;<br />- more people would have been killed, tortured and massively oppressed<br />- Saddam would still be trying to obtain biological weapons and WMDs<br />- the terrorist threat, both in the short and long terms, would be higher<br />- We, as a country, would have stood by and averted our eyes to people who needed our help and whom we could help.<br /><br />Families who have lost loved-ones in the conflict will no doubt be grieving but that is the risk of signing up to the military. The men and women that take on this role are brave commendable people who understand the risks. A good friend has recently joined the Marines and will be posted to Afghanistan shortly. Am I happy about it? No. But this is what he wants to do and he understands that he might never come back. Most members of the miltary I speak to understand why they signed up, why they are in Afghanistan and Iraq.<br /><br />I think that the most important of Tony Blair's submission yesterday, which has been printed completely out of context by the Times to help spin it's atrocious article, is<br /><br />"<span style="font-style: italic;">And that in time to come, if Iraq becomes, as I hope and believe that it will, the country that it's people want to it to be, then we can look back - in particular our armed forces can look back - with an immense sense of pride and achievement in what they did.</span>"<br /><br />Thank you Tony Blair, for being as clear, honest and strong in your beliefs now as you were as Prime Minister.Political Dissuasionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11444377943477287319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1395424456494147830.post-39913018022832285662009-12-20T13:28:00.003+00:002009-12-20T13:32:41.998+00:00It's our oil - a new ScotlandOnce more I watched that fantastic BBC programme <span style="font-style: italic;">A History of Scotland</span>, presented by the wonderful Neil Oliver.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhT9JdCCOGnQJYXFRA0mAHqM-xSnycnahhezzufQtplOhX9hdIp_tegU3_cgAWFNYQcMX6T0VdWtYM9EkDEmO-z7hrvnc4PFKs1UoNWCu8mtkwtSSYkG4E2mOFggNO9GznD9RJfLEkJUTut/s1600-h/oliver.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhT9JdCCOGnQJYXFRA0mAHqM-xSnycnahhezzufQtplOhX9hdIp_tegU3_cgAWFNYQcMX6T0VdWtYM9EkDEmO-z7hrvnc4PFKs1UoNWCu8mtkwtSSYkG4E2mOFggNO9GznD9RJfLEkJUTut/s400/oliver.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5417310452843595250" border="0" /></a><br />Last night's episode was on Scotland 1920 - 2000, and was on Scotland's economic decline under various Westminster Governments, mass emigration to foreign lands to seek a better life and industry. It is an embarrassment that few Scots will know anything about these things (myself included). However, last night's episode was an extremely fair, but political, hour.<br /><br />Towards the end it focussed on "Scotland's oil" and how the benefits it could offer increased the pro-independence/Home Rule feelings throughout the country.<br /><br />I apologise for sounding like an SNP blogger, but having watched it...we got screwed. I now understand Salmond's ramblings about Norway, about what we could have achieved and could still achieve if we owned our own oil. To become independent on the basis of North Sea oil supporting us is, however, no longer realistic. There isn't enough left, we've missed out on the chance to use it while it lasted to invest in our country and will run out before the full effects would be realised. However, I strongly believe that we can have our own new oil in renewables.<br /><br />Yes, yes, it's been said before, "we can be at the forefront of renewables technology, leading the way and reap the economic benefits blah blah blah". My suggestion is more focussed.<br /><br />You may have read the story about the proposed Nigg wind farm being delayed. You may have also read the story about the Vestas plant on the Isle of Wight closing due to planning delays and no support from Government.<br /><br />Planning delays are the biggest hinderance to any real progress and development (and therefore economic benefit) from the renewables sector. The UK has lost Vestas with jobs lost, and if we are not careful, KBR will decide that £100m could be put to better use elsewhere. We need to give them the signal that says, "No it wouldn't".<br /><br />First of all, we need a faster, more efficient and more pro-renewables panel to decide the planning process. Aesthetics are, I'm afraid, not a valid argument against a wind farm. We need companies who want to invest in our country, bringing jobs to the remote communities to feel like they can do business here. We also need to make it more appealling and we would do that by lowering taxes for renewables firms. I don't know enough about taxation and I know (before anyone points out) that we currently don't really have the power to do it at the moment anyway, but renewables firms should be encouraged to come here as they would only have to pay minimal taxes, a couple of % each year, maximum. The more they invest, over the years, the better off as a country we would be.<br /><br />Vestas wanted to make wind turbines, but were given no assistance. KBR wants to build an offshore windfarm and are currently reviewing this as a high-risk project as well as facing delay after delay. We need to do all we can, both for Scotland and the environment. Scots were denied a real voice at the Copenhagen table (and a real voice over our oil). But Copenhagen was never going to fix the problem. To do the right thing, to better Scotland, to be as green as we should and to right the wrongs of our oil, Independence may well be the answer to this sceptic as A History of Scotland has shown that Westminster rarely best serves our cold little country.Political Dissuasionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11444377943477287319noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1395424456494147830.post-88673147154664337562009-12-01T20:39:00.004+00:002009-12-01T20:42:05.870+00:00Political picture of the day...<span style="font-weight: bold;">As they always say...you should never work with kids or animals...</span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjW13P_VEgxBUp4lWeUmHAGe33qPA4p0EFGakc2GcpI2yeVbFocx7q6i97lNsw7Oo3d-zMzSRe107dVyOk4ZAOpjqkolW72Hu3kArVFWRuJKnbrCCHYOQlIHse-FEZ1uSwM-zZYESuu99Yq/s1600/educat2.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 350px; height: 308px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjW13P_VEgxBUp4lWeUmHAGe33qPA4p0EFGakc2GcpI2yeVbFocx7q6i97lNsw7Oo3d-zMzSRe107dVyOk4ZAOpjqkolW72Hu3kArVFWRuJKnbrCCHYOQlIHse-FEZ1uSwM-zZYESuu99Yq/s400/educat2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5410370322810002434" border="0" /></a><span style="font-weight: bold;">...ain't that right Fiona?</span>Political Dissuasionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11444377943477287319noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1395424456494147830.post-26049875314101971262009-11-17T22:18:00.004+00:002009-11-17T22:53:43.788+00:00The BBC begins advertising...Some of you may not be aware, but as of today, the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbc.com/faq/">BBC website has been including adverts on it's website</a>.<br /><br />The Beeb, paid for by taxpayers, has very quietly found a revenue stream outwith that of our pockets. However, if you go to the BBC News pages, you probably won't see it. That's because it is (apparently) advertising only "to visitors outside of the UK".<br /><br />Apparently,<br /><p style="font-style: italic;">"We've introduced advertising to visitors outside of the UK because the new revenue created will allow us to further improve our journalism, our programmes and our website in the years ahead.</p> <p style="font-style: italic;">Impartiality is of the utmost importance to us at the BBC and for this reason advertising will be clearly separated from editorial content. Advertising will not have any bearing on the news, information or programme content or create the impression of endorsement by the BBC.</p> <p style="font-style: italic;">We guarantee that you will continue to receive the same high-quality independent content that has made the BBC website one of the most popular news and entertainment sites in the world."</p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqVePClKSL2nJrRRs5J0nMOxJlSiSBBC-xKY5e8l0qZefOxrJ7dQZwaPS4FwLV9B5U0_P5ymfeGF0BUeeC5-m21J4MMFDnOB-kiU9q6SNt-3D6YRQhOq0WG3F11KzUnGDXngJP9g-DULH3/s1600/BBC.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 412px; height: 236px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqVePClKSL2nJrRRs5J0nMOxJlSiSBBC-xKY5e8l0qZefOxrJ7dQZwaPS4FwLV9B5U0_P5ymfeGF0BUeeC5-m21J4MMFDnOB-kiU9q6SNt-3D6YRQhOq0WG3F11KzUnGDXngJP9g-DULH3/s400/BBC.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5405206195946171954" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >(here's a basic mock up of how it looks - top yellow box: advert. Side yellow box: where adverts are now being placed also with the <span style="font-weight: bold;">OTHER TOP STORIES </span>being moved about 4 inches down, out of view when you first open the page)<br /><br /></span>But when I went on the website, from my office, in the UK, I could see those adverts as plain as day. That'll be the gap in the 99.96% accuracy then!<br /><br />But my first big question is...if the BBC is now generating other revenue streams, whether outside the UK or not, will this affect the license fee? Nope - I'm going to guess not. (obviously this is not on the Frequently Asked Questions page, yet).<br /><br />But my other question is...if the adverts are at the very top of the screen, pushing all the news content down by a few inches, and there is also an advert prominently at the top right where visitors are used to clicking for news links, how can they claim that this is "<span style="font-style: italic;">clearly separated from editorial content. Advertising will not have any bearing on the news, information or programme content</span>". Clearly replacing, not separated. You have put an ad where a large proportion of the 'clicking' takes place on your page and the first view of the page now contains adverts when it didn't before and as a result...LESS NEWS at first sight.<br /><br />What limits or controls will be put on what/who can advertise? There is nothing about this on the information pages. Is there an ethical list made up, so as not to support anything like the airline industry, the oil industry etc? Could David Cameron or Nick Griffin get an ad on there becuase if it's purely based on "who's got the biggest wallet" then there is a major ethical problem for the organisation.<br /><br />I am a staunch fan and supporter of the BBC in general but the integrity of the Beeb is in question now. They are resorting to tactics which it is supposed to avoid and all with as little fanfare as possible and to be honest, in these hostile times for the BBC, it is, without realising it, looking for a fight that many will be happy to take it up on - and making me angry during lunch when I'm at work trying to read the news or about Rod Stewart as next Scotland manager.<br /><br />(P.S. Does BBC Scotland get a cut of this money, I would like to know)<br /><br />Dear Points of View...Political Dissuasionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11444377943477287319noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1395424456494147830.post-61255625540147032582009-09-05T10:16:00.002+01:002009-09-05T10:19:37.321+01:00Quote of the week...<h3 class="UIIntentionalStory_Message" ft="{"type":"msg"}">"I think that Harriet Harman should run the country. Not THIS country. Some country where there is a possibility of a bloody military coup and she is violently dispatched to be watched on youtube."<br /></h3><h3 class="UIIntentionalStory_Message" ft="{"type":"msg"}"><br /></h3><h3 class="UIIntentionalStory_Message" ft="{"type":"msg"}">Political Dissuasion agrees.<br /></h3>Political Dissuasionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11444377943477287319noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1395424456494147830.post-85948469277897399602009-09-03T22:51:00.002+01:002009-09-03T22:53:05.415+01:00Sometimes racial stereotyping is unavoidable...<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh37lt85fMb9ZPg_J5SxQLa5Yg3fDa1kMleH5foh9qbtM-ERoGRIOpSf-QNWSYFVEdS7LYKw6kgkpEk70fAd7Z4erXudDKsquDsZPFDdeM6Df71GS3vvQK1-Z1Vz_xaWb_C0ZD99wk-DcEj/s1600-h/little+drum.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 301px; height: 381px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh37lt85fMb9ZPg_J5SxQLa5Yg3fDa1kMleH5foh9qbtM-ERoGRIOpSf-QNWSYFVEdS7LYKw6kgkpEk70fAd7Z4erXudDKsquDsZPFDdeM6Df71GS3vvQK1-Z1Vz_xaWb_C0ZD99wk-DcEj/s400/little+drum.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5377362252092641890" border="0" /></a>Sometimes the material just writes its self...Political Dissuasionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11444377943477287319noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1395424456494147830.post-71751764966637881302009-08-03T23:06:00.000+01:002009-08-03T23:07:09.858+01:00THE BITCH IS BACKNo, I am not referring to myself as "the bitch".<br /><br />I am of course talking about the female Labour MP - who wakes up every morning, reaches down to her crotch, has a rummage about, finds she still has no testicles, then decides that this must be the only reason why she isn't/won't be Prime Minister - Harriet Harman.<br /><br />I've recently given up swearing, so this is the toughest post I'll ever write. As you may or may not know, Harman (aka Harperson) is my least favourite living object on earth. Wayne Rooney? Nope. Nettles? Nope. Joseph Fritzel? Not even close!<br /><br />Harriet Harman, to quote Edwina Currie, is "on a different planet" and "mad, that is now clear". I've posted before about this crazy lunatic, <a href="http://politicaldissuasion.blogspot.com/2009/05/dear-labour-party_02.html">here</a> and <a href="http://politicaldissuasion.blogspot.com/2008/06/dyou-think-shes-on.html">here</a> for example, but yet again, I just have to sit at my keyboard and give my red mist a voice.<br /><br />Any form of positive discrimination is just a bad idea. It makes one group look pathetic (like the guy who only got the job because his dad owns the business) and makes the other group resentful. Do this in a business and you do not for a happy workplace make...do this UK wide and between the sexes (i.e. 100% of the population) and you're asking for a revolution that needs not occur and is a war against ghosts.<br /><br />Women and men have the same opportunities in business, politics, sport...pretty much every area of British society. To insist upon having the two top jobs fenced in to the 'one man, one woman' split is so far removed from a) democracy and b) anything that can resemble an intelligent executive structure.<br /><br />In politics, in the top jobs, I think we can all agree we want 'the best person for the job'. Well, seeing as the best people were smart enough to avoid parliamentary politics, we'll settle for the best MPs for the jobs. To then add another layer of filtering from the ability-criteria, that we must also have a crotch-check, is nothing more than gesture politics.<br /><br />Would a woman be better than a man at running a Government, a bank or big organisation? No.Would a man be better than a woman? No. There's no such debate, that is what I find hilarious. There is no widespread (or even thinly-spread) field of discussion in society about a lack of rights or opportunities for women. There are no claims from inside or outside organisations that the recession was because of the hairy sacks containing sperm generators being attached to members of the boards.<br /><br />Not once over the last few years (yes, she's been harping on about this for that long), have I heard her applaud, or acknowledge Thatcher being PM. Thatcher, the woman MP elected three times? Ring any belles? If she at least mentioned Thatcher in all of this, I might, just might, think she was doing this for some (albeit obscure) greater good that she thought worth fighting for. But her failure to even draw on Thatcher's achievements highlights, to many readers, that this isn't a "men/women in society" debate, it's a "Harriet/other leadership candidates in the Labour Party" debate.<br /><br />And in her claims and belief that she is sticking up for the sisterhood...<br />Harman is picking a fight with the political ghosts of yesteryear. As in Edwina Currie's <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6736798.ece">Times article</a>, if Harman thinks she is representing woman by (in the loosest meaning of the word) "tackling" this issue, ask the women of the UK what they want a deputy PM, whatever their gender, to be focussing on? It's not this.Political Dissuasionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11444377943477287319noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1395424456494147830.post-47467717715278633162009-06-21T19:59:00.000+01:002009-06-21T20:00:23.729+01:00The state of UK politics - goodbyeDear Parliament,<br /><br />I've given up. I have finally lost all hope for a politics I believe in. This country we live in now, is a shadow of what it believes itself to be.<br /><br />Every country is shaped in it's identity by those people that make the laws and control the money.<br /><br />And the people in the UK with that power, with a very few exceptions, are a corrupt, morally empty, unashamed collaboration of moral terrorists. We could, and probably will, wail on about the MPs' expenses scandal. But there is no point. Fairness, decency, honesty, integrity - these are characteristics of our MPs that have now been stretched beyond repair and although it is not broken, it's shape will never be the same.<br /><br />How any MP, party leader or party member could disagree that people like Jim Devine should be sacked is beyond me and most reasonable people. That he is not even expelled from the party does not even merit a response as it should not be the case. The fact that these people get to continue in their jobs, on what I regard as a significant salary receiving an equally significant pension, simply cannot be justified...but justify it Parliament does. This is one example which could easily fit into the bracket of almost every other party.<br /><br />Safety in numbers, fraud en masse. If only one MP was found to have been "on the fiddle", every other MP, every party, would be clamouring to find a way for him to be removed form his post. There is no doubt he/she would not have lasted more than a month. So when the charges are there, for all to see, against half of parliament, it makes no sense to anyone that resignations are not as regular as daylight.<br /><br />The back-scratching of politics has long upset many people, but even the "mother of all scandals in the mother of all democracies" is not enough to change the system, the culture of being above everyone and everything else. Not just on expenses.<br /><br />Political parties are falsifying this country. MPs will vote against what they believe in, simply to please the party. How can an MP have any sense of integrity when he/she is elected (as an MP, NOT as a member of a political party) to vote on various issues, and he/she is knowingly voting for policies and initiatives that he/she thinks are detrimental to the nation? They are voting for things that they think are wrong but claim they act in their constituents' best interests. That nobody else in the blogospehere or political world seem to see the irony, juxtaposition or hypocrisy of any of this is startling.<br />The fact that nobody cares is what upsets me the most.<br /><br />When your elected representatives are voting in favour of something they think is a bad idea, in complete opposition to what they do believe, there is no way this can be justified.<br /><br />The people of this country do not hold the power, the parties do.<br /><br />And to keep their members happy, dodgy rules and laws and promises are made to sweeten the members and MPs.<br /><br />Next the parties will be, without recompense, strolling down the road to state funding for political parties - state-sponsored moral terrorism ripping a vaccuum through this country's future for many years to come.<br /><br />Our Parliament and it's members have been exposed for what they are. Political parties have proven to us that they are not about decency, honesty or 'for the people'...they reward internal loyalty more than honourable characteritics.<br /><br />But when you do what you think is wrong because the bigger boys told you to, then you are part of a system not fit to look in the mirror.<br /><br />Some wonder why people don't vote. I don't. I know that no matter how I vote, it won't make a difference. I know that the corruption will continue, the self-interest will always maintain a murky presence and decisions will not always be made for the right reasons. I know that when criminals are deciding their own fate, and morally devoid groups are those making the rules there is no point in having hope.<br /><br />I know that this country is not what it believes itself to be and, even during a time as blatantly scandal-ridden as this, change will never be significant enough to better this country.<br /><br />PDPolitical Dissuasionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11444377943477287319noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1395424456494147830.post-41406708167024896392009-06-16T23:40:00.000+01:002009-06-16T23:41:05.345+01:00A tax on phones?...Good ideaEvery landline, according to new plans just announced, will be taxed to the tune of £6 each year to help pay for the expansion of high-speed internet, in particular across rural areas.<br /><br />In the current political temperature, adding a new tax onto anything is never going to result in anything other than a negative headline and reaction. But this is not a bad policy.<br /><br />For the equivalent of 50p a month, we can, as a nation, help invest in what for some will be a vital and welcome tool which we all have come to expect as standard. Gordon compared it to being as important as electricity and running water, which is over-egging and already over-egged pudding, but the internet should not be out of reach (literally, or otherwise) for any UK citizen.<br /><br />Taxes are going to have to rise. Cuts are going to have to be made. While this scheme will not fund the whole project of getting every corner of the UK 'connected', it is not a significant amount to pay. Some may argue that if you choose to live in the countryside, you choose the lifestyle and the limitations that come with it and presently, good internet access is about as scarce as a bus in some of these remote areas. Without wanting to sound like an Oxfam fundraising chugger, "for less than one pound a month, you could give these ruralites the chance to watch porn", it is not too much to ask. It is also, a tax you can opt out of. Nowadays, few of my friends even have a landline - we all use mobiles. If you don't want to pay the tax, you always have the option of opting out. A blind rise in income tax to cover the various extras that will need to be funded would have been a much more contentious (and arguably, unfair) way of addressing such matters. Instead, 'you pay for what you enjoy' forms of temporary taxation make you appreciate why you're paying the extra.<br /><br />It's like the complaining that goes on about Jonathan Ross's salary. If you asked the millions of people who arrange their Friday schedule to watch his show, if they would mind paying an extra 50p per week on top of the TV licence to fund his wages...you'd more than make your money back on his salary because he is worth that extra money...people will pay because they know quality when they see it.<br /><br />Would you pay an extra 50p per month to have a landline? The majority of people would say yes.<br /><br />This is a policy that will invest a lot of money (admittedly, not enough to do the whole job) in bringing more oppportunities to the rural dwellers of our fair land.<br />Think of the benefit for farmers and local produce makers. They will be offered opportunites never before available to them. Think of the resources that would be a touch away to school kids in rural schools, that was not available before.<br /><br />This is the point of the policy, and to be honest, this is the point of taxes in general. It's a good policy with the right aims. People will slam it for a number of reasons, mainly kicking a man when he's down, but headline's over 50p per month? Pah!Political Dissuasionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11444377943477287319noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1395424456494147830.post-91688707252827842152009-06-12T07:53:00.001+01:002009-06-12T07:59:00.210+01:00Cuts, cuts, everywhere...I know Gordo's had a damn good week, but can we all just stop the lies? Please?<br /><br />We've just borrowed a hefty amount of money, spending it on some good things, some bad things. But in order to repay our debts, we will, at some stage, have to cut spending. We all know that it has to happen, that there are going to have to be some 'lean times'.<br /><br />So let's not have Labour saying "Look, the Tories are going to cut", and Tories, let's not have you saying "we wouldn't", because any political party that doesn't see spending 'restraint' as a necessity in the near future doesn't deserve the responsibility. Yes it would be nice if the new Government could come in and announce this new spending plan, and that new record investment, but having pissed all our money away, like my toe nails, things will need cutting soon.<br /><br />Instead, we are left with more abysmal politics justifying why nobody in the real world gives a shit about what is said and done in the world of politics.Political Dissuasionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11444377943477287319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1395424456494147830.post-34855361878659902502009-06-09T20:19:00.006+01:002009-06-09T20:53:18.542+01:00Gordon Brown - THE DESTRUCTOR!First, he forced Tony Blair out of a job. One.<br /><br />Now he's caused Neil Kinnock to lose his job. Two.<br />Owing to his wife's new responsibilities, word has it that Neil Kinnock will step down as Chairman of the British Council, as it would create a conflict of interest for dear Glynis (just had this confirmed that early July is his end date).<br /><br />Margaret Beckett, who, previously in an 'acting' role of Leader, has also just left her housing brief behind, not to mention that Brown dropped her before...three.<br /><br />I am a fan of conspiracy theories, but would it be stretching it to suggest he had anything to do with John Smith's death? Four?<br /><br />Michael Foot must be s****ing himself.Political Dissuasionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11444377943477287319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1395424456494147830.post-35791978368833185862009-06-07T16:11:00.004+01:002009-06-07T16:23:01.288+01:00New Labour - the musical?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBDxi-sPXeqmyst0LueOzu8ej_C7qL0mLe2f_v-XX37R8oX4mhy3CoFJiG66ky_CGb6hiLYiOakJMbI7vcHhb8-rF-b_GT4NBMbpVicSDSL4PzctcIfXQbK4FOOcmHe0t27SVq-d5Fiuo4/s1600-h/lesmis.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 146px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBDxi-sPXeqmyst0LueOzu8ej_C7qL0mLe2f_v-XX37R8oX4mhy3CoFJiG66ky_CGb6hiLYiOakJMbI7vcHhb8-rF-b_GT4NBMbpVicSDSL4PzctcIfXQbK4FOOcmHe0t27SVq-d5Fiuo4/s200/lesmis.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5344603797754800274" border="0" /></a><br />Incase you don't know, Les Miserables is about the French revolution. With the European election results due tomorrow, I think the lyrics to ONE DAY MORE, one of the songs from the musical are remarkably poignant, even in modern times. I've changed none of the lyrics, just which characters sing them...<br />(I need to find more to do on a Sunday!)<br /><br /><br />GORDON BROWN<br />One day more?<br />Another day, another destiny.<br />This never ending road to Calvary;<br />These men who seem to know my crime<br />Will surely come a second time.<br />One day more?<br /><br />UKIP & BNP<br />I did not live until today<br /><br />ED BALLS & YVETTE COOPER<br />How can I live when we are parted<br /><br />GORDON BROWN<br />One day more?<br /><br />HAZEL BLEARS<br />Tomorrow you'll be worlds away,<br />And yet, with you, my world has started!<br /><br />GORDON BROWN<br />One more day all on my own.<br /><br />CABINET<br />Will we ever meet again?<br /><br />CAROLINE FLINT<br />One more day with him not caring.<br /><br />ED BALLS<br />I was born to be with you.<br /><br />CAROLINE FLINT<br />What a life I might have known.<br /><br />HARRIET HARMAN & ALAN JOHNSON<br />And I swear I will be true!<br /><br />CAROLINE FLINT<br />But he never saw me there.<br /><br />HAZEL BLEARS<br />One more day before the storm!<br /><br />ALASTAIR DARLING<br />Do I follow where she goes?<br /><br />DAVID CAMERON<br />At the barricades of freedom.<br /><br />TONY BLAIR<br />Shall I join my brothers there?<br /><br />HAZEL BLEARS<br />When our ranks begin to form.<br /><br />DAVID MILLIBAND<br />Do I stay; and do I dare?<br /><br />GORDON BROWN<br />will you take your place with me?<br /><br />DAVID CAMERON<br />The time is now, the day is here...<br /><br />GORDON BROWN<br />One day more?<br /><br />BLEARS, PURNELL, FALCONER, FLINT<br />One more day to revolution,<br />We will nip it in the bud!<br /><br />Sir ALAN SUGAR<br />I will join these little schoolboys,<br />They will wet themselves with blood!<br /><br />GORDON BROWN<br />One day more?<br /><br />DAILY TELEGRAPH<br />Watch'em run amuck,<br />Catch'em as they fall,<br />Never know you're luck<br />When there's a free for all,<br />Here a little 'dip'<br />There a llittle touch,<br />Most of them are goners<br />So they won't miss much!<br /><br />CONSERVATIVES<br />One day to a new beginning!<br />Raise the flag of freedom high!<br />Every man shall be a king!<br />Every man shall be a king!<br />There's a new world for the winning!<br />There's a new world to be won!<br /><br />EVERYONE (except Gordon Brown)<br />Do you hear the people sing?<br /><br />MANDELSON<br />My place is here. I fight with you!<br /><br />GORDON BROWN<br />One day more!<br /><br />BNP & UKIP<br />I did not live until today.<br /><br />GORDON BROWN<br />One more day all on my own!<br /><br />CABINET<br />How can I live when we are parted<br /><br />DAVID CAMERON<br />I will join these people's heroes<br />I will follow where they go<br />I will learn their little secrets<br />I will know the things they know.<br /><br />GORDON BROWN<br />One day more!<br /><br />HAZEL BLEARS<br />Tomorrow you'll be worlds away<br /><br />CAROLINE FLINT<br />What a life I might have known!<br /><br />GLENYS KINNOCK<br />And yet with you my world has started<br /><br />DAVID CAMERON<br />One more day to revolution<br />We will nip it in the bud,<br />We'll be ready for these schoolboys...<br /><br />DAILY TELEGRAPH<br />Watch'em run amuck,<br />Catch'em as they fall,<br />Never know you're luck<br />When there's a free for all!<br /><br />LABOUR<br />Tomorrow we'll be far away,<br />Tomorrow is the judgement day!<br /><br />ALL<br />Tomorrow we'll discover<br />What our God in Heaven has in store!<br />One more dawn!<br />One more day!<br />One day more!Political Dissuasionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11444377943477287319noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1395424456494147830.post-60209478406848387232009-06-07T14:08:00.002+01:002009-06-07T14:12:52.232+01:00The So Solid Crew<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaw3pL41KeeKBS5zUcDBCJarJoys2ES6g0hielTpBQ7341FuYCakb4R6ppt8lDgyzgRV5c9ElpgdkpZc1QoX0puGMNWo_bVsBu6bwqZhBpIHcopfa9xQXTYG8rk2K5szyQvtbFrXOui_0d/s1600-h/Man_In_A_Boat-gallery-final.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaw3pL41KeeKBS5zUcDBCJarJoys2ES6g0hielTpBQ7341FuYCakb4R6ppt8lDgyzgRV5c9ElpgdkpZc1QoX0puGMNWo_bVsBu6bwqZhBpIHcopfa9xQXTYG8rk2K5szyQvtbFrXOui_0d/s400/Man_In_A_Boat-gallery-final.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5344572189847962498" border="0" /></a><br />"I believe I am the man to lead this country through these difficult times, tackling the challenges this country is facing, taking the necessary action unlike the opposition party who would do nothing. I also bought a boat."Political Dissuasionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11444377943477287319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1395424456494147830.post-85894695382644438752009-06-07T10:18:00.003+01:002009-06-07T10:26:43.372+01:00He asked for our thoughts, so...From Daniel1979's <a href="http://daniel1979blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/here-is-my-latest-recommended-reading.html">recommended reading</a> post, I came across <a href="http://www.tomharris.org.uk/2009/06/02/you-heard-it-here-first/">a piece from Tom Harris' blog</a>.<br /><br />Not always a fan of this MP's views, I must say that Mr Harris has hit the nail on the head - one hammer, one nail, one hit, and the thing is flush against the wall. Whether he has a vested interest Labour agenda or not is irrelevant when he says...<br /><br />"<span style="font-style: italic;">Secondly, the Conservatives’ lead in the polls seems far more to do with Labour’s unpopularity than with David Cameron’s (or his party’s) popularity. Cameron has still not sealed the deal. Now, why is that, do you think?</span>"<br /><br />In the hope that Tom (as well as others) genuinely wants to know what I think...here's what I think.<br /><br />David Cameron and the Tories are not winning elections this week, and won't do in the general election. Labour has lost them. There is no clamour for David Cameron, there is no flashback to 1997 with cries of "Toneeeeeeeeee" everywhere Blair went that is comparable for DC.<br /><br />The news stories are not about Conservative policy, they are not about, in any detail whatsoever, why Cameron, Johnson (or, in the name of fairness, Glegg) would be a better PM for our country. They are not about how different things will be when a change comes. They are not about 'a new wave of politics' or political opinion - it is purely that Gordon Brown/Labour are bad.<br /><br />When Tony Blair was crushing the already crumpled John Major, it was through policy, alternative direction, "a New Britain". And by golly, did we all sign up for that! The mood of the country went through the roof, people had hope and belief and as a nation, there was a very strong positive vibe, unrelenting everywhere you went for the first few years. People bought into, and wanted, the new product that Labour were offering. People knew about it, in detail. They could point to specific things and say, "that is why I'm voting for him, that is what will make my life better". This is not the case with David Cameron, as I've said before. He's not carrying the vote. It's just that right now, he's more attractive an option than the others. But when you are the political equivalent to 'the prettier one of the Neville brothers', this doesn't mean you're actually attractive. I'd say Harriet Harman is more attractive than Betty Boothroyd, doesn't mean I fancy Harriet (in case you don't already know, scientists have proved that Harman is indeed Beelzebub in a bra).<br /><br />So it's the old saying "the best of a bad bunch". Cameron, when elected, will not last long. He will not be able to hold the country for 3 or 4 terms because he doesn't carry the public's passion that 'the big players' do and have done.<br /><br />Tipped as 'The Heir to Blair', he is nothing of the sort. Yes, he'll probably win by a landslide and yes, he's a bit young...but that's it, the similarities end there.<br /><br />Tony Blair was a once-in-a-generation Prime Minister. We can all bang on about the Iraq war, but that man offered the country something different, we all bought into it, he took us along for the ride and dropped us off in a much better place.<br /><br />Cameron, is nothing but the skanky slapper you go home with when you're drunk and you've just dumped your long term girlfriend and you need a quick-fix of something different. Until he offers something that we are following, rather than the current situation where we're only next to him because we moved across the room to get away from Labour, the Tories should be wary about planning for a significant period of Government.<br /><br />When the ruling party are in this much dissarray, and have been for months, and the country still isn't crying "David will save us!", you're nothing more than 'some other girl'.Political Dissuasionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11444377943477287319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1395424456494147830.post-21153417713507432052009-05-31T10:16:00.002+01:002009-05-31T10:18:32.391+01:00Andrew Marr - the one man weaker than Gordon BrownToday's Andrew Marr Show was as bad as it gets.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4HxunMVv4GFmgP1sBf9PCdZAop4woI_22o6GvEIqhAm3xurlsYSKVcrYsd8dixeSmQ7JBAlyERqX_7iw9RfExsFdrWRB5yuo4FA9a7zPzeMEGuP0WUveL53lQELDK0iHjxuFI2aeMw54r/s1600-h/marr.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 174px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4HxunMVv4GFmgP1sBf9PCdZAop4woI_22o6GvEIqhAm3xurlsYSKVcrYsd8dixeSmQ7JBAlyERqX_7iw9RfExsFdrWRB5yuo4FA9a7zPzeMEGuP0WUveL53lQELDK0iHjxuFI2aeMw54r/s400/marr.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5341914878065716754" border="0" /></a><br />He is no longer a serious interviewer or journalist. Week after week, the "BBC flagship political programme" is used by politicians as a megaphone to get their point across with almost no direction, challlenge or scrutiny from Marr.<br /><br />Labour have made quite a big thing recently about trying to deflect the MPs expenses scandal onto how the BBC spend their money (e.g. Foulkes attacking Maitlis), and whether this, or Gordon Brown's thinly veiled threat to the Beeb on this morning's show has any influence on how they report and 'deal with' politicians is up for debate...but Andrew Marr is slowly becoming the one person in politics looking weaker than Gordon Brown.<br /><br />At least ten times Andrew Marr would try to follow the typical route of questioning...<br /><br />He gives an example of incompetence, or fraud, or double standard, then follows it up with a question to be answered on this topic. But, yet again, as soon as he mentions 'the bad thing', Gordon Brown - on at least TEN occassions - interrupted with "Hold on, hold on" and went on a two-minute sound-byte filled speech where he has no question t answer, thus giving the interviewee a free reign on anything he wants to say on the topic.<br /><br />When Marr does try, after a long gospel reading according to Gordon, to put in some framing of a question, or to query anything that has been said, Brown just talked over him. And by the time Brown had finished his lecture, Marr moved onto the next topic for supposed 'questioning', and we would go threough the same process. Brown didn't answer a single question this morning and he only received about three. Fair play to Brown, he's hanging on for dear life, but for Andrew Marr, if he watches a recording of the show, must be embarrassed by what he sees.<br /><br />Whether it's Government ministers, the PM, Leader of the Opposition or Shadow Cabinet members, Marr has lost any sort of authority over his programme and it's content. If Brown/Cameron can just talk over him and avoid any scrutiny, then Marr is proving to be a weak link in the BBC's poitical team. Andrew Neil poses more threat to ministers avoiding an answer.<br /><br />At a time like this, an interview with Marr was exactly what Gordon Brown needed...a 15 minute slot on BBC1 where he can preach to the land why he is worthy of office.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Andrew Marr has got to either go, or search very hard for his political testicles.Political Dissuasionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11444377943477287319noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1395424456494147830.post-33727923259822842402009-05-31T08:58:00.000+01:002009-05-31T08:59:06.935+01:00Why Labour (UK) are unelectable...from Friday 5th JuneEd Balls as Chancellor.<br /><br />'Nuff said.Political Dissuasionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11444377943477287319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1395424456494147830.post-36272699502382614112009-05-30T11:59:00.003+01:002009-05-30T12:09:53.601+01:00Why Scottish Labour are unelectable (part 1 of many)It is this sort of nonsense that makes Labour unelectable these days.<br /><br />First Minister knew about another escaped prisoner from Castle Huntly. First Minister didn't include this new addition to the figures he used at FMQs. Therefore, Labour decree<br /><br />Alex Salmond "deliberately mislead the Scottish Parliament".<br /><br />If by not making public the most recent case, as per police advice, Salmond was indeed misleading Parliament. However, if he ignored police advice and decided to announce this at FMQs he would, in the police's opinion, have made it harder for the escapee to be captured.<br /><br />THE POLICE DID NOT WANT THIS INFORMATION IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.<br /><br />When it comes to law and order, whether you're SNP, Labour or UKIP, you listen to the police advice. When it comes to community safety regarding an escaped prisoner, you listen to police advice.<br /><br />Labour, however, would rather have a chance to attack Salmond than see what sensible Governance is all about.<br /><br />It's all about Politics and Governance. Labour would rather play politics while Salmond is doing what any sensible party in Government would do...the right thing.<br /><br />Totally unelectable.Political Dissuasionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11444377943477287319noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1395424456494147830.post-56302222309962404032009-05-29T11:39:00.003+01:002009-05-29T11:58:14.327+01:00Why I won't be voting in the General ElectionFrank Skinner has written an excellent piece in the Times on voting in general elections and the problems with modern politics. Is definitely bang on and worth a read, <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/frank_skinner/article6382505.ece">here</a>.<br /><br />With a blog entitled Political Dissuasion, it's not that surprising, but if there was a general election tomorrow, I'd probably not vote.<br /><br />After reading <a href="http://doctorvee.co.uk/2009/05/29/a-pathetic-situation/">Doctorvee's latest post</a>, I thought quite hard on the issue and realised that I am no better off if I do - the country isn't, democracy isn't, so why is it a problem not to vote?<br /><br />"People died for the right to vote"...Shut up. People died supporting racism, doesn't mean I should become a racist.<br /><br />Not as a result of the expenses scandal (though it firmed my view), but I have always been strongly against the power political parties have over our democracy. These are groups of people out to better their own ends, and do not act in the public interest most of the time. Their priority is their party and as our political system is embedded in a party-based junta. By voting for the one that is the lesser of all ills would be me condoning this form of politics. Ideally, I would vote for the Greens, or Jury Team, but as these candidates will never succeed in the election, there is no point in voting for them.<br /><br />This is where B-grade politicos will tell me "if everyone thinks like that, then of course they won't get in". But seeing as that is the reality and we all do live in the real world, that in the next year, my vote won't make a difference, I don't have much time for that fairy-assed argument.<br /><br />I cannot vote for one of the main parties as I believe they are what is wrong with our political system - and as they are the ones in control and will continue to be for such a very long time, the problem will continue. Whether I am becoming cynical in my old age, or just facing up to the reality, I don't know, but I do now accept that it is valid not to vote.<br /><br />Seriously, why should I? Why is there a ridiculous pressure to vote when more than 50% of people don't care? If turnout is high, then politicians can point to the stats and say "Look, we're valid. And what we're doing is valid." But it's not. The results (Bills, Laws etc) are valid, but the politics of it all is so disconnected from the reality of the electorate that...what's the point? For years turnout has decreased and apart from the odd rumble of "ooh, I wonder why", the parties don't care as this plays into their hands.<br /><br />Good luck to all of you who believe that what you and/or your party is doing is benefitting democracy and our lives. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced and seeing as you and your party have made British democracy impotent to the common voter, I shan't be voting.Political Dissuasionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11444377943477287319noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1395424456494147830.post-83401557788607355362009-05-28T15:02:00.002+01:002009-05-28T15:04:11.187+01:00Who wants to see Hazel Blears in handcuffs?<a href="http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/">Old Holborn</a> has decided that our dodgy MPs must face the music.<br /><br />Owing to the crimes committed by various MPs of all parties, <a href="http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/2009/05/time-for-some-citizens-arrests-june-1st.html">Old Holborn is organising Citizen's Arrests at Parliament</a> on Monday 1 June 2009 at 9am. Seeing as the police won't do it, it looks like it's up to the public, once again. <a href="http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/2009/05/citizens-arrest-warrants-issued.html">Here's a list of who the 'perps' are</a>.<br /><br />And seeing as I am, as it turns out, free on Monday at 9am, I will be joining Old Holborn down there. I get to live out the real-version of my childhood 'Cops and Robbers' adventures.<br /><br />Personally, I'd love to be the one who captures Hazel Blears, but as she's one of the Borrowers (I mean the little people, I don't mean borrowing our taxes), she'll probbaly be too nimble for my big hands to catch. Ming Campbell's probably more realistic for me.<br /><br />So if you're free, or if you're not free but you're suitably pissed off with criminals getting away with it, come on down and do your bit for justice, democracy and childhood fantasy.<br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFAEoBMid8bdhAjJA_ixnos7H-YNoN-Fdg5-zuI0Gz-3w8bCU-wZueJyEF0kibBZgBYG09NgImJC_hgFEW9MbB9qlEkpPEHoqbP2-N0hbjlU66Iq_MKbApA5zwfgWmCKStEuJRcqulWgQk/s1600-h/citzarrest"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 278px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFAEoBMid8bdhAjJA_ixnos7H-YNoN-Fdg5-zuI0Gz-3w8bCU-wZueJyEF0kibBZgBYG09NgImJC_hgFEW9MbB9qlEkpPEHoqbP2-N0hbjlU66Iq_MKbApA5zwfgWmCKStEuJRcqulWgQk/s400/citzarrest" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5340873555849693634" border="0" /></a>Political Dissuasionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11444377943477287319noreply@blogger.com0