Political Dissuasion

Nick Clegg's great betrayal

2010-04-25T08:51:00.002+01:00

Nick Clegg has vowed to end the "two party system" which he believes has crippled politics and government.

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!

Promises, promises...

Does Alex Salmond hate Scotland? Or is he just an idiot?

2010-04-22T08:00:00.000+01:00

I honestly can't decide.

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".

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.

This is why he is either an idiot or doesn't love his country.

THE CASE FOR 'SALMOND THE IDIOT'

If he genuinely believes that a hung parliament is best for Scotland, then shouting about it is about the worst thing he can do.

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.

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.

THE CASE FOR SALMOND: 'HATER OF SCOTLAND'

Is the same as the above but with different intentions.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Now I'm wondering... is he just an idiot?

What is a REAL Tory?

2010-04-20T21:42:00.001+01:00

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.

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.

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.

So what do real Tories, if Cam ain't one, believe in...?

- The real Tories want us out of the EU as soon as possible.

- Reversing the smoking ban "would at once collect votes in millions". Really?

- 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?

- "old fashioned pubs" shouldn't be closing down when "gruesome, noisy clubs" flourish, staying open late.

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.

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...

And the winner is... Cameron?

2010-04-15T22:46:00.002+01:00

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.

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.

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.

LibDem Tactical Voting?

2010-04-13T00:17:00.002+01:00

I have just watched the Paxman interview with Nick Clegg.

(First off, Paxman is atrocious. Why can't we have Dimbleby as the pointman at the BBC?)

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.

Will many people who aren't politically-minded have watched this? Probably not.
Should they have? Yes.

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.

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.

The Nick Clegg interview

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)

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.

Against spending silly money replcing Trident

No income tax for the first £10,000 for those on less than £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.

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).

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.
Abolishing this mentality (along with some of the jobs) is a much better pledge than ring-fencing for political cover.

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.

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.

I like Nick Clegg because he looks like he wants to punch Paxo. PD wants someone to punch Paxo.

I'm a fan of a local income tax

He has admitted a change of heart to now be anti-Euro - another big thing for me.

Bad point - he said "by golly"

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.

Well done Nick Clegg.

The issues that should be (but aren't) election priorities

2010-04-02T10:05:00.000+01:00

So, politics is a wide field covering more than just schools, hospitals and bloggers.

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...

Trident
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
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.

The Olympics
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.

The silence surrounding this £9bn event is typically worrying.

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.

This has f*ck up written all over it and whoever wins the election is going to look like a t*t.

Afghanistan
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.

I believe the total number of British soldiers lost now stands at 279.

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.
Subrosa 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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

Thank you Tony Blair

2010-01-30T14:02:00.001Z

I 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.

Did everything go 100% to plan in Iraq? No. Does anything? No.

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.

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.

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.

Tony Blair took the decision to invade and topple Saddam. Why?

Because if he hadn't;
- more people would have been killed, tortured and massively oppressed
- Saddam would still be trying to obtain biological weapons and WMDs
- the terrorist threat, both in the short and long terms, would be higher
- We, as a country, would have stood by and averted our eyes to people who needed our help and whom we could help.

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.

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

"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."

Thank you Tony Blair, for being as clear, honest and strong in your beliefs now as you were as Prime Minister.

It's our oil - a new Scotland

2009-12-20T13:28:00.003Z

Once more I watched that fantastic BBC programme A History of Scotland, presented by the wonderful Neil Oliver.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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 picture of the day...

2009-12-01T20:39:00.004Z

As they always say...you should never work with kids or animals......ain't that right Fiona?

The BBC begins advertising...

2009-11-17T22:18:00.004Z

Some of you may not be aware, but as of today, the BBC website has been including adverts on it's website.

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".

Apparently,

"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.

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.

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."

(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 OTHER TOP STORIES being moved about 4 inches down, out of view when you first open the page)

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!

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).

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 "clearly separated from editorial content. Advertising will not have any bearing on the news, information or programme content". 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.

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.

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.

(P.S. Does BBC Scotland get a cut of this money, I would like to know)

Dear Points of View...

Quote of the week...

2009-09-05T10:16:00.002+01:00

"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."

Political Dissuasion agrees.

Sometimes racial stereotyping is unavoidable...

2009-09-03T22:51:00.002+01:00

Sometimes the material just writes its self...

THE BITCH IS BACK

2009-08-03T23:06:00.000+01:00

No, I am not referring to myself as "the bitch".

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.

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!

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, here and here for example, but yet again, I just have to sit at my keyboard and give my red mist a voice.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And in her claims and belief that she is sticking up for the sisterhood...
Harman is picking a fight with the political ghosts of yesteryear. As in Edwina Currie's Times article, 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.

The state of UK politics - goodbye

2009-06-21T19:59:00.000+01:00

Dear Parliament,

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.

Every country is shaped in it's identity by those people that make the laws and control the money.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
The fact that nobody cares is what upsets me the most.

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.

The people of this country do not hold the power, the parties do.

And to keep their members happy, dodgy rules and laws and promises are made to sweeten the members and MPs.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

PD

A tax on phones?...Good idea

2009-06-16T23:40:00.000+01:00

Every 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Would you pay an extra 50p per month to have a landline? The majority of people would say yes.

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.
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.

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!

Cuts, cuts, everywhere...

2009-06-12T07:53:00.001+01:00

I know Gordo's had a damn good week, but can we all just stop the lies? Please?

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'.

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.

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.

Gordon Brown - THE DESTRUCTOR!

2009-06-09T20:19:00.006+01:00

First, he forced Tony Blair out of a job. One.

Now he's caused Neil Kinnock to lose his job. Two.
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).

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.

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?

Michael Foot must be s****ing himself.

New Labour - the musical?

2009-06-07T16:11:00.004+01:00

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...
(I need to find more to do on a Sunday!)

GORDON BROWN
One day more?
Another day, another destiny.
This never ending road to Calvary;
These men who seem to know my crime
Will surely come a second time.
One day more?

UKIP & BNP
I did not live until today

ED BALLS & YVETTE COOPER
How can I live when we are parted

GORDON BROWN
One day more?

HAZEL BLEARS
Tomorrow you'll be worlds away,
And yet, with you, my world has started!

GORDON BROWN
One more day all on my own.

CABINET
Will we ever meet again?

CAROLINE FLINT
One more day with him not caring.

ED BALLS
I was born to be with you.

CAROLINE FLINT
What a life I might have known.

HARRIET HARMAN & ALAN JOHNSON
And I swear I will be true!

CAROLINE FLINT
But he never saw me there.

HAZEL BLEARS
One more day before the storm!

ALASTAIR DARLING
Do I follow where she goes?

DAVID CAMERON
At the barricades of freedom.

TONY BLAIR
Shall I join my brothers there?

HAZEL BLEARS
When our ranks begin to form.

DAVID MILLIBAND
Do I stay; and do I dare?

GORDON BROWN
will you take your place with me?

DAVID CAMERON
The time is now, the day is here...

GORDON BROWN
One day more?

BLEARS, PURNELL, FALCONER, FLINT
One more day to revolution,
We will nip it in the bud!

Sir ALAN SUGAR
I will join these little schoolboys,
They will wet themselves with blood!

GORDON BROWN
One day more?

DAILY TELEGRAPH
Watch'em run amuck,
Catch'em as they fall,
Never know you're luck
When there's a free for all,
Here a little 'dip'
There a llittle touch,
Most of them are goners
So they won't miss much!

CONSERVATIVES
One day to a new beginning!
Raise the flag of freedom high!
Every man shall be a king!
Every man shall be a king!
There's a new world for the winning!
There's a new world to be won!

EVERYONE (except Gordon Brown)
Do you hear the people sing?

MANDELSON
My place is here. I fight with you!

GORDON BROWN
One day more!

BNP & UKIP
I did not live until today.

GORDON BROWN
One more day all on my own!

CABINET
How can I live when we are parted

DAVID CAMERON
I will join these people's heroes
I will follow where they go
I will learn their little secrets
I will know the things they know.

GORDON BROWN
One day more!

HAZEL BLEARS
Tomorrow you'll be worlds away

CAROLINE FLINT
What a life I might have known!

GLENYS KINNOCK
And yet with you my world has started

DAVID CAMERON
One more day to revolution
We will nip it in the bud,
We'll be ready for these schoolboys...

DAILY TELEGRAPH
Watch'em run amuck,
Catch'em as they fall,
Never know you're luck
When there's a free for all!

LABOUR
Tomorrow we'll be far away,
Tomorrow is the judgement day!

ALL
Tomorrow we'll discover
What our God in Heaven has in store!
One more dawn!
One more day!
One day more!

The So Solid Crew

2009-06-07T14:08:00.002+01:00

"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."

He asked for our thoughts, so...

2009-06-07T10:18:00.003+01:00

From Daniel1979's recommended reading post, I came across a piece from Tom Harris' blog.

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...

"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?"

In the hope that Tom (as well as others) genuinely wants to know what I think...here's what I think.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

Andrew Marr - the one man weaker than Gordon Brown

2009-05-31T10:16:00.002+01:00

Today's Andrew Marr Show was as bad as it gets.

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.

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.

At least ten times Andrew Marr would try to follow the typical route of questioning...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Unfortunately, Andrew Marr has got to either go, or search very hard for his political testicles.

Why Labour (UK) are unelectable...from Friday 5th June

2009-05-31T08:58:00.000+01:00

Ed Balls as Chancellor.

'Nuff said.

Why Scottish Labour are unelectable (part 1 of many)

2009-05-30T11:59:00.003+01:00

It is this sort of nonsense that makes Labour unelectable these days.

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

Alex Salmond "deliberately mislead the Scottish Parliament".

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.

THE POLICE DID NOT WANT THIS INFORMATION IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.

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.

Labour, however, would rather have a chance to attack Salmond than see what sensible Governance is all about.

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.

Totally unelectable.

Why I won't be voting in the General Election

2009-05-29T11:39:00.003+01:00

Frank 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, here.

With a blog entitled Political Dissuasion, it's not that surprising, but if there was a general election tomorrow, I'd probably not vote.

After reading Doctorvee's latest post, 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?

"People died for the right to vote"...Shut up. People died supporting racism, doesn't mean I should become a racist.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Who wants to see Hazel Blears in handcuffs?

2009-05-28T15:02:00.002+01:00

Old Holborn has decided that our dodgy MPs must face the music.

Owing to the crimes committed by various MPs of all parties, Old Holborn is organising Citizen's Arrests at Parliament 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. Here's a list of who the 'perps' are.

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.

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.

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.

The Tories are missing a trick...

2009-05-27T10:51:00.002+01:00

I'm not sure if the Tories are standing in front of an open goal and haven't noticed, or if they're standing in front of an open goal and waiting for the keeper to get back on to his line so that they can embarrass him by sending him the wrong way.

So Labour and the Tories are scrambling side-by-side to reach the top of the 'modernising reform' ladder, promising all sorts of ideas from 'power to the people' to electoral reform.

But a large part of the discussion is on the proposal to make parliaments fixed-term - every four years, an election is called. I've not read much fine detail on this idea, but I feel David Cameron is missing a trick. He is in favour of fixed term, but he should also come out and say that if the Prime Minister steps down from his position in the middle of a sitting parliament, there should then be, four years or not, a general election. This would put Gordon Brown on the back foot on the issue. He can either disagree, and be forced to defend his 'lack of modernisation credentials', or he can agree with the policy and have to take the flak of 'but you didn't do it when Blair stepped down - so why do you agree now?'.

This is a Prime Minister without a mandate and it is one of the easier, but effective ways of bashing him round the head. The public do not like this manouvre that Brown slithered through and will remind the electorate of his selfish, power hungry, controlling nature.

So why isn't Cameron going for it as a stipulation of these proposals? Is he waiting for GB to agree to four year fixed terms, and then going to pull the rabbit from the hat? It would have a much greater impact if this was the case, but Brown isn't an idiot and certainly isn't going to lay his head on the block and give Cameron the axe (because Brown would rather die than openly say 'Me and DC agree'), so Cameron should attack on this now, and could really hurt the Prime Minister with it.

Seems like an easy way to go 1-0 up.

IN YOUR FACE, GORDON BROWN!!!

2009-05-26T09:37:00.002+01:00

Well, despite Labour's attempts to limit my chances, I got a job.

Still, not a permanent one, but a solid six-month contract on good enough money with a view to it becoming permanent. After three months of genuine stress and worry, I got a job.

But, as I predicted, this is no thanks to Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and Labour's policy shop. Their measures to tackle the increase in unemployment since this recession bit our asses off seemed specifically designed to push people like me into the dirt and either abandon us, or tell us "tough shit sunshine, your only options now are starting at the bottom with a minimum wage".

Well Gordon, I triumphed in the face of adversity and ever decreasing odds of success.

I can't say I hope for or expect the same for you in the near future. Go f*** yourself!

"State f***ing funding?"

2009-05-22T11:41:00.000+01:00

I've been saying it for years. One way or another, we are going to end up paying for political parties. Under the guise of 'cleaning up the system', the next devious manoevre from our politicians is to introduce STATE FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES.

The problem for me, writing in the blogosphere, is that pretty much everyone here is a member of a political party and therefore can see benefits to themselves or their party in this proposal. Party hacks across the board will sing in favour of this because it guarantees a party's future and survival. All the main parties are in debt, and fewer people these days will want to, or be seen to, give money to political parties due to their tarnished reputation. And if it goes ahead it is the most corrupt move in modern politics, and those who agree with state funding for parties are purely selfish party hacks who have no concern for the greater good on this and only want to protect their own/their party's interests.

Taxpayers' money to pay for politics? No.
Taxes are to pay for services, and politics is not a service.
Government? Yes.
MPs? Yes.
Reasonable expenses? Yes.

What would we be paying for from these parties? What benefit would the country get? If the BNP get a seat in Westminster, how would you feel knowing your taxes were going towards their work? If you have been affected by the IRA, how would you feel knowing that your taxes are going towards Sinn Fein?

As I've said, time and time again, there is no valid reason to justify state funding of political parties. But those with the power, those who make the decisions, have a very vested interest.

Please feel free to tell me why you think this is a valid proposal. Please feel free to tell me how this helps democracy more than hinders it. Because I'm not buying it...though I'll end up paying for it.

F***ing thieves.

PMQ's...funny?

2009-05-20T12:17:00.002+01:00

Well, some rare moments of comedy crept into PMQs today.

When asked about the Royal Mail proposals Gordon Brown told the house that...

"The Royal Mail has been losing 5 million letters each year" which half the house took to mean they were lost in the post...a silly choice of words from our Prime Minister.

Then, Nick Clegg got pistol-whipped by the Speaker...and fair play to Mr Martin.

After asking his first question, the Speaker then went on to call the next MP for his question...forgetting that Nick Clegg was of course entitled to his follow up. After loud, long jeering from the house, the Speaker rose and said,
He thought the honourable gentleman had two bits in his question.
"Touche Mr Speaker" was Clegg's reply.

Indeed, quick-witted from the Speaker.

You gotta love 'em!

2009-05-20T11:07:00.001+01:00

I've said it again and again, and I'll say it once more...

I F***ING LOVE WIND FARMS.

I'd live to live right next to one, but as I live deep in the city, it's not going to happpen anytime soon. But, the more that are built, the better my chances of ending up living within sight of one. And on that note, I would like to express my delight at this news story about the biggest onshore windfarm in Britain being officially 'switched on'.

Just some of the important figures...

Green energy
140 turbines
Powering 180,000 homes
Jobs in Scotland created

This is all that mattters. I don't need to list more facts, because these are the ones that count.

So well done to ScottishPower Renewables. And with plans to expand and also create one 5times as big offshore, I applaud thee! You wonderful things.

BREAKING NEWS - Speaker to resign today

2009-05-19T10:49:00.000+01:00

I'm hearing some noises that Michael Martin will resign today/tomorrow.

STV has also picked this up and the BBC will have something shortly.

Priorities please

2009-05-19T10:46:00.001+01:00

Yes, the expenses story is a big sticky, juicy one for the media. When there's blood in the air and a scalp (or fifty) on the horizon, then journalists are going to chase that story until the cows come to their main or second home.

But whether it's the mainstream media's fault or ours, one thing for sure is that our priorities are out of whack. The Budget was labelled 'the Unemployment Budget' because unemployment is supposed to be the biggest problem that's going to hit this country throughout the recession.

And last week, it was announced that unemployment had reached 2.2million people, and growing.

Today, after a quick bit of searching, what do we all think the main story is? Not a tough one...expenses. But when unemployment is due to become the biggest social crisis this country has seen in decades, you would expect more coverage.

Today's main UK newspapers...
Stories with the word "expenses" in the headline - (at least) 15.
Stories with the word "unemployment" in the headline - 0.

Yes, there will be talk of unemployment in today's press. But again, having had a quick check, it is only mentioned in the stories about... expenses. Unemployment is no longer an issue to tackle, it is a stick with which to beat those who have claimed extravagant expenses, to shame them in comparison. Will the MSM begin to crucify Parliament (not just the Government) for not tackling the issues and being too focussed on saving their own skins? Will the MSM start running articles shaming the Government and all parties, for not devoting their energies to tackling unemployment, our national debt, repossessions etc? Probably not for a long, long time. This story's far too juicy.

And I could happily make out that the media should take the rap.

But really, Parliament should have agreed, at the very beginning of this mess to do what the Speaker suggested yesterday... stop claiming immediately until we come up with an interim system, all leaders and interested parties to meet in one room and thrash out an agreement. Spend more of your time (which, as we pay for it, our time) on the real issues, becuase we need to be talking about unemployment, the national debt, the REAL stuff that Parliament is supposed to be for...but alas, I'm living in a fantasyland where the media give a shit and politicians are in it for the right reasons, if I think that's going to happpen.

Labour Abandon Gordon Brown

2009-05-15T13:32:00.001+01:00

Former Labour MP Lord Soley, has possibly signalled Labour's intentions for the general election next year.

He said on The Daily Politics this morning...

"What I would hope would happen is, when we do have the election, almost certainly early next year...then I think people will, I hope, and indeed I hope the media will, pay more attention to individual candidates than they often do in the past. Very often, general elections are about this leader or that leader..."

So, Labour don't want people to look to Gordon Brown's leadership as an indicator or reason for a decision on who to vote for.

A damning verdict for Gordon Brown.

Bloggers' integrity...

2009-05-11T18:49:00.001+01:00

Yes, hold the front page, we're still all banging on about expenses.

I've tried not to, but looks like I'm being forced by expense pressure (as opposed to 'peer' pressure...get it?) into posting my rant about this.

My blog is called POLITICAL DISSUASION. "Why?" some may ask. Well, the last few weeks have highlighted and justified my view on parliamentary politics.

Here's a basic breakdown as to the reason's for my dissuasion...

1) All political parties' main priority is themselves. Parties do not want to win elections to better the country, but to better themselves and their image, lifestyle, status and legacy.
2) MPs join parties because they are the easier way to win a seat, win the cosy salary, the cosy job description and cosy allowances/expenses.
3) Members of parties will represent their party over representing their constituents most of the time. Even on issues MPs strongly disagree with, the party line is more important than democratic representation (I'm looking at Tom Harris' comments in this post).
4) Opposition parties will oppose for opposing's sake, and for no other reason than 'we can't let the other guys look like they're doing good'.
5) Expenses. Not just Westminster, but I have for many years been moaning and moaning about MEP expenses - and that they aren't being scrutinsed with the European elections coming up is beyond me!
6) There is so much good that could be done, so many productive policies, so much progress that we could make as a country if it wasn't for party politics. These things do not happen, do not make to the stage where they benefit people because...
7) Winning is more important than doing the right thing.

Everyone, especially the MPs know that they've been taking the piss. Everyone knows that 'the spirit of the rules' were not being upheld. And what will happen as a result? Nothing. Will Blears lose her seat? No. Will Morans get chucked? No.
Politics has never been a shining example of decency, but whatever was left of it is now being dragged through the mud. They fought to keep these expenses secret. They fought to be able to edit them, once all other avenues failed. They lined their pockets (and their curtains) at our expense and not one of them has the decency to say, yeah, we fucking milked it, we milked it like the cash-cow that it was and by God did those udders pay out in solid gold. We shouldn't have. We'll pay back what was against the spirit of the rules.

Not a chance, because politics isn't about that. It's about winning. It's about winning at the elections, it's about winning in Parliament and it's about winning in the property market.

Will any Tory bloggers really have the balls to say that those Tory MPs found out SHOULDN'T lose their seats or at least, pay the money back?
Will any Labour bloggers do the same for Labour MPs?
Salmond's even been slightly at it, so anyone going for him, demanding a repayment?

So, I challenge the Tory Bears, the Kezia Dugdales, the Yousuf Hamids, the Tom Harris', the SNP Tactical Voters, the Calum Cashleys, anyone who is a member of a party, to be as decent as we want our representatives to be and to hold them to account. As a member of no political party, I have no impact or influence on how YOUR representatives behave in the following few weeks. As a member of a party (a system which I again say ruins our potential as a country but keeps you all that bit coser to getting a cushy job), you are the only ones that can apply any real pressure.

Ask this question of yourself and your party...

"If it was just one political party that turned out to be fiddling the expenses, and it wasn't the one you're a member of...would you be calling for resignation?" YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE. If it was just the SNP MPs, Labour would be screaming it so much that Margaret Curran might have a heart-attack of joy.
If it was just the Tories, Gordon Brown and that tw@t Harman would certainly be calling for heads. Bloggers of every political persuasion would be no different.

But, as members of a party that is designed and aimed towards success for the party and not the country, I won't expect too much from anyone in that position.

The Tory/SNP vortex #2 (Blogosphere)

2009-05-08T17:48:00.000+01:00

Why don't Labour have a decent presence in the blogosphere?

Many claim that it is easier to blog, and have a successful 'blogging movement', when you are in opposition. To an extent I agree. The Tories don't have to defend policies which may not do exactly what they say on the tin, as Labour have to. Instead, the Tories can slag off Labour's failures (and even their successes) without having any need (yet) to offer a fully-functioning alternative.

It is much easier to grumble and bitch from the sidelines while the Government get on with the 'running of the country' stuff.

But then you look at the SNP. Certainly, they had a strong blog presence/movement in opposition, but after the crescendo of the election, they are the biggest party, the party of Government, and they're blogging presence swells further. So, Labour's suggestion (that they direct towards the Tories) that blogging is an opposition's toy, doesn't stand up.

Someone made the point that, as the SNP haven't formed a coalition, they can still play the fiery rebellious opposition role they used to, it's just that now they have more power and more platform. By having no formal ties to the other parties, they can still play some of their tactics as they did in opposition. The SNP, and this is not necessarily a bad thing, likes a 'fighting sort of politics'. They like to be pushed down and seen as the underdog and the hard-done-by, as this makes them, their members, and a natural tendency in the Scottish people, push back in the other direction. They can still play the 'everyone's picking on the SNP' card. And the other parties keep playing into their hands.
And as long as the SNP get to play the way they like to, they will always do well. They are in Government, and their blogging powers continue to grow. Labour, in Scotland, barely has a presence. Admittedly, neither do the Tories, but as this is Scotland and the Tories we're talking about, we shouldn't expect much.

The SNP made the transition from Opposition to Government, and for now, honeymoon or not, they have a strong presence. Some say they use bullying tactics throughout this e-world, and they may be right, but having seen very little evidence of this, I'll call it power, not bullying.

Accusations of SNP cyber-bullying, are instead just an example of power by numbers - the will of the many outweigh the will of the few. Online, there is a stronger SNP presence in Scotland than any other party. In England, it is the same for the Tories. Both these parties have made a point of reaching out beyond their grassroots and offering alternatives, ideas and patform for discussion.
Labour keep lurching back to their grassroots...wouldn't be surprised if Clause 4 was brought back as appeasement. Debate and discussion, both within themselves and as an outreach, is behind the SNP and Tory successes. Labour, controlled and terrified in equal measure by unions like Unite, do not have a freedom, or sense of themselves to create their own movement. They need to wait for the unions to tell them in what direction to go.

Gordon - "judge me on results"?

2009-05-05T16:10:00.002+01:00

There's always one, isn't there?

So I wonder, who will be the Labour Party's Joey Barton?

Joey plays for Newcastle United, who like Labour, are going down.
Joey got sent off for a vicious challenge, but as they were 2-0 down after 70 minutes, didn't really make a difference.
However, Alan Shearer, the boss, has decided that to deflect attention from the 'going down thing' and his complete failure as a leader to secure anything resmbling a win, by making an example of Joey Barton, calling him a coward and suspanding him until further notice. That's right Shearer, give the porr supporters someone else to blame, somewhere else for all that heat to be directed. They didn't lose because of Joey and they certainly aren't going down because of his sending off.
But that's how Newcastle and the retarded football media will make it look (like Beckham against Argentina).

So, with Labour 'going down' and a boss (brought in halfway through the season without the necessary qualifications - aka an election) who is unable to inspire his team to anything resembling a win, who will Gordon (Shearer) Brown make a scapegoat of? He had the chance to do it to that midget Blears but it's too late. She did all she could to be made the focus of derision, but seemingly Brown kept that one 'in the dressing(down) room'. Harman too was close, but begged ger way round the tv stations to avoid the hairdryer treatment.

Either Brown going to take it on the chin for the next year and say "I'll be judged on results" or he's going to find someone stepping out of line, and put all the failings on that person.

Ed Balls, friend or not, should be watching his back. He's a marked man.

The Tory/SNP vortex

2009-05-04T19:27:00.001+01:00

The Conservative Party are not the embodiment of "what Britain wants". They certainly aren't everyone's cup of tea, a large number of voters blindly hate them (e.g Scottish people who still can't get over Thatcher) and would never vote for them regardless of whatever change or policy they announced.

Every political party has a policy which invokes the "I could never vote for them because of..." reaction.
The Conservative Party have quite a few, to be honest. However, with the European elections coming up, I'll focus on the Conservatives policy on Europe.

I am still unconvinced on Britain's involvement with the EU, European Parliament etc. I think we reap a large number of benefits from increased involvement, while also losing control over issues which I feel we shouldn't do. I believe we should be involved, but maybe a less central format would suit us (and all other Europeans) better.

However, I do believe that Britain as a whole is pro-Europe. Sure there are the ridiculous elements like the constitution and pounds/kilos debacle, which we all think are nonsense, but they are to Europe what Lembit Opik is to the Liberal Democrats - just a silly bit that we have to put up with while receiving all the other stuff, the good stuff. I do believe that if Britain was asked, do we keep going with our 'Europe policy' as it is, or do we completely backtrack, pull out and say 'Non!', we'd overwhelmingly say "maintain".

However, the Conservative policy on this (along with various other issues) is at odds with the majority. The Conservative Party, who are due to be our elected Government very soon, have a policy and approach to Europe which we as a nation would not be in favour of. Iain Dale has done a (admittedly not very scientific) poll on voting intentions for the European elections and the Westminster election. The figures say quite a lot...
Tory vote for Euro election - 53%
Tory vote for Westminster - 73%.

Now these numbers may not be representative of the nation and are just a straw poll of bloggers, but they do show a trend that the Tories are less favoured when the topic is Europe.

However, despite this, and it's not as if their views on Europe are particularly secret, they will undoubtedly form the next Government and will probablt get the largest share of MEPs. If the Conservative Party had their ideal, we would be much, much more distanced from almost everything to do with Europe and this would have a massive impact on great swathes of Britain.

"We should be less involved - we should get out"

To me, sounds a bit similar to the ruling party in Scotland.

Yes, I'm saying it. The SNP and the Conservative Party are pretty similar.
The Tories would want more independence, the SNP want independence.
The Tories' views are at odds with the majority of the voters. Same with the SNP.
The Tories are about to become the Party of Government. The Scottish National Pary ARE the Party of Government.

So what do I conclude from this odd post? Two things.

1) The people don't care if they disagree with a political party on the really big issues, as long as they believe that policies they disagree with aren't going to be steamrolled over them onto the statute. It's a game of trust, like the European Constitution, where to quote Nick Clegg, "old fashioned decency" comes into it. Labour, on various occasions, have broken this trust which has hammered nail after nail in their electoral coffin.

2) As long as day-to-day we believe that you are going to be up front, honest, hard working and with the best intentions, the people will give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm yet to be fully convinced about independence, but would I vote for the SNP in the next Scottish Parliament election? I'd say 95% yes. I'm yet to be convinced by Cameron, and don't believe their policies on Europe are necessarily the right way to go, but will I vote Tory? Probably.

Winning an election right now, in the face of Labour disappearing with the Winter months, is pretty easy. The Labour Party have disintegrated and are nowhere near their climax of self-destruction, which I fear is yet to come. Across the UK (no offence Nats), yes, 'working class Glasgow-types' will always vote Labour. 'Posh types' will always vote Tory. But those in the middle are the ones that are their to be won and if successful, they win you election. The SNP knew that. They said "we believe in independence" but also want to make Scotland's hospitals better, our schools better, the bits that people really care about and notice. And that is why, despite their flagship policy being (for now) against the general view, they are still climbing in the polls and gaining approval from all angles and islands of Scotland.

Even with a leader that people are still sceptical about, the Tories, by promising decency, hard-work, honesty and to make progress on the things that matter, are going to walk this election.

They aren't even liked by the majority of people, but these days, politics and government is about 'in the cold light of day, who's going to do an all round better job?'.

The answer, to yet another question, is not Labour.

The second recession - same old New Labour

2009-05-03T09:02:00.000+01:00

The reason we are in this financial mess, is that when things were GOOD, we didn't plan for the days when things would be LESS GOOD. When we all (everyone, not just Government) had loads of money and loads of options for our money, all we did was spend it. Then, we all went out and borrowed more, and spent that. Then, orange girls called 'Raquelle' and 'Donna', who wanted to be like 'Cheryl' would go out and borrow even more, and spend that.

David Cameron, amongst others, has tried to make Brown learn from this lesson - the old adage of fixing the roof while the sun doth shine...

Well, right now the country is in debt.
We KNOW that in 2 years time, the country will be in debt to the tune of hundreds of £billions more, with no guarantee that we will be in any better position than now to pay it off.

Now, neither of these situations could be described as good but surely we have learned that, with hindsight, we should have been doing something, earlier, to tackle the tougher times? No? But instead of tackling 'this second branch of debt culture' now, we are going to wait.

In two years time, our debt levels will be LESS GOOD than they are now. The sun will not be shining. Are we tackling this? Are we beginning to pay it off? No, we are going to spend, spend spend. Same old mistakes. Same old Labour.

Right, time for Andy Marr...

Dear The Labour Party

2009-05-02T09:20:00.001+01:00

Dear The Labour Party,

I am a UK citizen. I intend to vote at the next election. I am not aligned to any political party, so like the majority Britain, my vote is still up for grabs.

Whether you have openly said it or not, you know, I know, my chest of drawers know, that Gordon Brown is not going to win the next election. So either you're going to stick with him and guarantee losing, or you'll force him out, elect a new leader and have the slimmest chance of winning.

We all know that it is the latter option that is going to happen.

Currently, the odds are as follows...
Harriet Harman - 3/1
Alan Johnson - 6/1
David Milliband - 7/1
James Purnell - 8/1
Hazel Blears - 80/1
Cherie Blair - 500/1

On behalf of everyone on this planet, please do not elect Harriet Harman as leader of the Labour Party. To be honest, the ammunition it would give bloggers would be immense, however, this would be too much of a good thing. I'd recommend that Mr A. Johnson. He's one of the few likeables you've got left.

Please. (PD falls to his knees), I'm on my knees, begging. Just anyone but her.

Yours
Political Dissuasion (on behalf of the UK)

The weakness of MPs

2009-05-01T16:49:00.001+01:00

I am not one for singling out bloggers and picking fights but...

Tom Harris has said something which has irked me.

"As I’ve said on this site before, I believe in the party system. I do not believe that MPs are elected purely for their own personal views; they’re elected because they represent one party or another. Major’s government collapsed when his MPs saw no reason to toe the party line."

I am not going to criticise Tom Harris MP specifically, as I am in no doubt that he is not alone in this view. But I have long believed that political parties are detrimental to the progress of this country, especially in our current situation.

The parties, although giving a simpler 'Party of Government' and 'Opposition Parties' divide, are designed to benefit themselves and their members.

Parties create a divide on issues, not based upon the proposed policy, but based on whether it's a Tory or Labour or Lib Dem proposal. Only very rarely does party politics not get in the way of progress (the Ghurka vote being one). Whips are employed to persuade MPs to vote against their own views, views which they believe would be better for the country, as opposed to the party.

The argument that "they're elected because they represent one party or another" is utter nonsense. Yes, the majority of the time, MPs are elected purely based upon which party they are a member of, however, I do not believe that constituents that vote for, say, a Labour MP a) agree 100% of the time with 100% of Labour's policies and b) expect that MP to vote blindly with 100% of those policies. Indeed, Mr Harris himself hasn't "toed the line" with his party on a range of issues from House of Lords reform to abortion limits. (I also believe that voters vote based on party because of apathy, having become unable to determine which schmuck is less schmucky than the other guy - though this, in particular, is not directed at Tom Harris).

MPs in my idealistic view, are elected to vote for what they think is right and against what they think is wrong. The party shouldn't come into it when it comes to governance and policy for the country - it is politics which creates the problems and parties create these politics.

Parties would rather gain the credit, or avoid the criticism, than do the right thing. Why, for example, are we as a country not going to be paying off our national debt, but instead increasing it, for the two years taking us to after the next election? It is to delay voters feeling the financial pain until after they can react in an election. It is to give people a false economy of how much we earn, how much is spent on public services etc so that Labour can get a few more years in power, as opposed to what is best for the country.

The average person in the UK is not a member of a political party. The avergae person doesn't care or know much about politics and I would confidently guess that in my age group, most people do not know the name or party of their local MP.

Any MP who feels the same as Tom's comments should be embarrassed. To an extent, what he is saying is that "it's not my qualities that I am judged on, it is just because I'm a member of one group or another". To admit that it is not their judgement, but their ability to obey when told what to do, is a shameful indictment of UK politics, and in particular, UK politicians.
To then claim that "in the private sector" we could earn up to £100,000 makes the whole argument hilarious. To be able to do what your told could also, "in the private sector" earn you £5.73/hour, if the only requirement is doing as your told.

"governments fall apart when discipline fails" (Tom Harris)

"discipline fails when the government's direction and intentions are wrong" (Political Dissuasion)

The most dangerous man in Britain

2009-05-01T00:45:00.001+01:00

Subrosa raises the point that the British people ought to be concerned by Gordon Brown's inability to face up to the reality of each day in politics. Subrosa's latest post shows an interview with GB where he is clearly in complete denial.

This man cannot accept criticism. He is pathologically unable to register it in his brain. In this video he argues that not only is he not performing "the youtube youturn", but that he should be being lauded with praise for his leadership over second home allowances.

This man is dangerous. If you said that he was defeated on the Ghurka issue, he would find a way to claim that it wasn't a defeat. If you told him he was down in the polls, he would no doubt claim that he questions those figures. And most dangerous of all, even though his fate is sealed, he is still playing politics with our country and its' finances in the (pathetic) hope that he will win the election. Ha!

As someone smarter than I pointed out the other day...

Gordon Brown is borrowing extreme £billions, emersing the country in a lifetime of debt. While other countries use any borrowing to make long-term 'boosts to the economy and infrastructure' (ie investments which will make a long-term difference), Gordon Brown is instead going to spend £700bn on putting this country back in the position that created the problem (mortgages/culture of borrowing). This a dangerous game he is playing, and we will all suffer for years to come as a result.

There is a new definition to 'false economy', and that is New Labour's Britain.

Sex / War - women hold the power

2009-04-30T10:43:00.002+01:00

Now this is one way to keep politicians in check.

Kenyan women's groups are protesting against infighting between political parties and leaders, and are also hoping their actions will lead to greater unity, thus avoiding a repeat of violence in 2007.

And how are these women's groups protesting...?

They are, nationwide, withholding sex from their men. They're even going to pay prostitutes not to sleep with the men. Well, that's certainly going to make them think about it.

The Tories' biggest problem is themselves

2009-04-29T12:55:00.001+01:00

The odds on the Tories winning the election are at 1-2. Pretty much a dead-cert.

On current polling, the Conservative Party are predicted to have a majority of between 40-70 seats. Not bad after 3 election defeats, so Mr Cameron et al must be feeling (quietly) pretty good about themselves.

However, one thing is niggling me about the next election result...few people will be that happy about it. Tony Blair was a once in a generation politician and Prime Minister. People were big, big fans of Tony Blair, as much as of the Labour Party.

But nobody is "a big David Cameron fan", and certainly not a "big Gordon Brown/Nick Clegg fan".

As much as it's a shoe-in that Cameron will be Prime Minister (as long as Brown is around), should it not be a more comfortable margin of victory? There is no clamour for Cameron, just a clamour for Brown to go, or at least stop what he's doing.
Nobody is pining for Cameron's policies, nobody is pointing to the Tory direction saying "that is the way we need to go".

It's still within the margin of error that a hung-parliament could be our next and considering the shambles of Brown and the Labour Party, shouldn't an opposition be further ahead? Think of what Cameron is up against...
- Brown openly bottling it about calling an election
- Despite never being elected as PM
- Not giving a referendum on the Constitution/Treaty
- The Iron Chancellor's policies creating most of the financial mess Britain is in
- The debt we are about to take on
- Smeargate
- Open disunity among the Labour Party
- Breaking manifesto pledges
- A party where Harriet Harman is important!!!
- An embarrassing u-turn/failure on MP's expenses
- Continuing the push for ID cards
- and so on...

When you are up against all this and your lead in the polls is less than assured, then surely you have to ask why?

It is because we do not believe David Cameron is 'the next big thing'. After the way Blair swept in and the whole Obama thing, maybe I'm expecting too much, but when/if Cameron becomes the next PM, the country will be relieved, not pleased. There will be no parties, no wave of national unity or a sense of hope in the new direction a new party of Government will bring. There will, instead, be folk saying "phew, thank god that's over".

People will be voting against a present Government, as opposed to voting for a new one. And it is this that should make Cameron worried. Labour, despite all their mischief, misdemeanour and misdirection, are still commanding the votes of swathes of the UK, and only a small change at the top stands in their way of being relevant again. Whether this is before or after the next election, Cameron should be wary either way.

Splitting the arrow on Princes Street

2009-04-28T13:25:00.004+01:00

I'm not exactly, 'a keen archer', but I'm pretty excited about the Archery World Cup being held in Princes Street Gardens in Edinburgh.

Can't think of a better setting, with two big banks either side, and with it being a free event, I imagine a huge crowd being drawn, especially if the weather holds out in September. This could be a very, very good advert for both Edinburgh and Scotland, with an estimated TV audience of 250million.

Random, indeed, but still exciting! Bravo to EventScotland, Edinburgh City Council and anyone else who was invloved in this!

An inconvenient truth - the flu end of the world

2009-04-28T10:34:00.003+01:00

I HAVE THE FLU!!! (pause for sympathy...)

So do some people in Israel, some in New Zealand, some in Airdrie.

However, I'm not panicking.

Like Bird Flu, the media has gone on the "humanity at risk" approach. Journalists are talking about "waves of the disease being transmitted". Gordon Brown is trying to look important by not only arranging a COBRA meeting (aka "just a meeting in a different room"), but by triumphantly announcing "I will be attending the COBRA meeting".

"Waves of the disease"? Really? That's a bit over-the-top.

Normal flu kills people. Swine Flu kills people. Sars was going to kill millions.
Somehow, I don't see this being anything we even remember in a month's time.

We have the flu. It's the worldwide equivalent of "there's a bug going about". That's it!

My friends in high places...

2009-04-27T17:33:00.004+01:00

If whoever at Westminster, that has spent three hours reading my various posts asking politicians to tackle unemployment properly, would like to use my ideas, please feel free.

Exclusive - Lord West Placed The Bet

2009-04-27T15:03:00.001+01:00

It's all a question of language...

Lord Brown: "I have never placed a bet at all while a minister ever on a political issue".
The crucial words here are "at all while a minister". Why put that in Lord West? Why throw that in?

The bet was made after Brown became Prime Minister - 28 June 2007

Lord West became a minister - 1 August 2007.

That leaves a 34 day gap where Brown was bouncing, the odds were high and Lord Brown was not a minister...

You say "I have never placed a bet on Labour losing the election" but can you confirm if you placed a bet that the Conservatives would win one, or that Labour would win in coalition? You do not rule out placing a bet, you just rule out that specific bet.

It's all about the language of the bet placed and the language West is using. Somehow, I think Lord West has been caught out. Somehow, I think Lord West placed a bet at 66-1 between 28/6/07 and 01/8/07. What say you, m'lord?

Labour's very own Dan Hannan?

2009-04-26T10:32:00.002+01:00

So an unnamed minister placed a bet at 66-1 that Gordon Brown would not win the next election.

I am shocked. Not that a Labour Government Minister placed such a bet, but for two other remarkable reasons...

1) shocked that any bookie offered 66-1, regardless of the 'Brown bounce', and
2) shocked that Labour actually have someone with foresight, forward thinking, realism and a keen eye for a good way to spend money, make money and not waste it.

Would the 'unnamed minister' please step forward and lay claim to the Labour leadership, and as a result, the country...

The Jobs Budget - a personal account

2009-04-23T13:39:00.000+01:00

It was billed as a 'Budget for Jobs'.
But for me, and no doubt many others in my situation, it'll turn out to be a 'Budget4Jobs', because that's how many I'll be doing.

I am a graduate, with management experience, top notch references and a winning smile.
Since redundancy in September 2008, I have been unable to secure permanent employment.

So how does the budget make it any easier for me to score a job? It doesn't.
If I was 25 or under, I would know that by September at the latest, I would have a job (as the Government will guarantee one to any under 25 who's been out of work for 12 months), but as I'm not, that doesn't help.
Job Centre Plus will receive £1.7bn, but, with no disrespect to anyone, the jobs that are advertised (and successfully obtained) through Job Centre are not the sort of jobs that I could, should and can be doing. Yes, I could do various jobs at the minimum wage, but morale and confidence are crucial parts of tackling recession and consumer confidence.
So what has the Government done for graduates who believe, rightly, that they should be earning at least something around the average salary? Nothing.

Are my employment prospects any better thanks to Darling and Co? No.

So thanks Labour. Once more, policy that won't make a difference.

Debt, debt, debt.

2009-04-22T12:37:00.003+01:00

National debt will be 79% of GDP by 2013/14?

WOW! We're ****ed.

We are already so far in debt, if we were a football club, we'd be docked points as the administrators knocked down our doors.

So to continue spending, continue borrowing, throwing our money around, literally throwing it in every (political) direction and not to cut anything (e.g. quangos, trident?) is scaring the cr@p out of Political Dissuasion. Al I can hear as I type is "investment", "new funding", "do more", "additional", "increase in...". Christ, this is bad!

And, the car scrappage scheme WILL happen. Lost it, they've lost it. He's just claimed we are a "confident Britain". I hope there's a net at the bottom of the cliff we've just been pushed off!

Nick Clegg...Impressive?

2009-04-22T12:32:00.000+01:00

Er, yes!

Hate to say it, as I would be performing a massive u-turn, but Clegg's been pretty strong recently, saying the right things and for once looked pretty good at PMQs today.

There. I said it.

Budget/PMQs - Brown stuck in the past

2009-04-22T12:09:00.002+01:00

"If we're going to have a Prime Minister that cannot accept the facts, we're not going to make any progress" David Cameron.

Gordon Brown then goes on to talk about the situation in the early 90s.

Cameron - Progress
Brown - Anything from 1997 and before.

Anyone remember when Labour kept saying "forward, not back"?

Budget - Cigarettes and Alcohol

2009-04-22T11:59:00.002+01:00

For the first time in (my) living memory, a Budget is due and I haven't heard a single mention of fuel duty, alcohol taxation and increased cigarette prices.

Do you reckon they've kept this quiet as all the £billions deficit is going to be paid off by smokers?

Seriously, this used to be the main focus on days like these...how times have changed!

Budget - the day begins

2009-04-22T10:26:00.003+01:00

Rumour has it that the ridiculous £2,000 car scrappage scheme was still not decided upon by 9am this morning!

Poor Alistair. Even the silly little policies that will make dog-all of a difference, even if they tried to trumpet it as a green revolution, are too worrying to be a no-brainer. Imagine the deliberations that will be going on for, oh, I don't know, say...£15bn service buts!

Solving Unemployment - update

2009-04-21T09:46:00.000+01:00

Further to my plan to 'solve unemployment', just an updated thought.

My suggestion is to only allow those who are NOT in full time, permanent employment apply for current vacancies. If a company goes through this process and still doesn't find a suitable candidate, then they can go to an 'open recruitment'. Essentially, giving priority to those most in need of work.

Most people have been this wouldn't work...but the Civil Service has it's very own priority recruitment procedures.

In some (maybe all, I'm not too sure) public sector departments/agencies, the recruitment process goes as follows...
Advertise internally without an external advertisement.
Advertise on a Civil Service personnel only site called CS-vacs (Civil Service Vacancies - essentially a wider, internal recruitment ONLY open to current Civil Servants)
If still unsuccessful at filling the post, the position would then go external, to an open recruitment.

So why can the public sector have this priority 'old boys network', a staggered process that benefits one grouping, when in principle, I want to introduce the same concept - only my concept would benefit those unemployed, desparately in need, as opposed to those already in a job, in the public sector, with disproportionate pensions and benefits. Keeping the gravy train for those who are already feasting on gravy is bad enough.

Look outside the public sector box and this could make a massive difference.

The UNEMPLOYMENT budget

2009-04-20T20:13:00.001+01:00

The Budget is set to be announced, highlighting many problems, more expense and detailing how BrowLing have saved Britain.

The 'green shoots of recovery' have been spotted, and it appears a turnaround is not far off. However, unemployment is one area which will be last to be reversed. It is widely estimated that unemployment will continue to rise to 3,250,000 people.
Within twelve months...
House prices may begin to recover, slowly.
Mortgage approvals may increase, slowly.
Share prices will begin to recover, slowly.
Businesses will be able to access credit, and pressure on them will be eased, slowly.
Our massive national debt can then begin to be repaid, very, very slowly.

But unemployment will still rise and it is widely anticipated that this will be the single biggest problem, even after the 'green shoots' begin to flower.

My idea, that I have written to all the relevant ministers and local MPs with, and got no reply whatsoever is

FOR 6 MONTHS, ANYONE IN FULL TIME PERMANENT EMPLOYMENT CANNOT APPLY FOR A NEW JOB. (see the post below for full description)

I have written before about how to solve the unemployment crisis, but to little success in spreading my idea. I am no expert in politics, legislation or employment, so I am aware there will be limitations to my proposal, but in principle, it works, and would make a massive, massive dent in the unemployment figures (and, in turn, monies paid out in benefits).
Please read it and help with suggestions as I am struggling to find any crucial and defining arguments against why it would work.

How to solve unemployment - an idea

2009-04-20T19:26:00.003+01:00

While my idea wouldn't eradicate unemployment, it would make a massive, positive difference in recession-hit times such as these, helping millions of people and fast-tracking one area of recovery which will lag far behind the rest of the country's 'green shoots'.

The idea...

For a six month period, anyone in full-time permanent employment, would not be able to apply for a new job.
It's as simple as that.

On average, there are 250,000 new job vacancies created each month in the UK. If all of these jobs went to unemployed citizens over a six month period, almost half of the projected unemployed (peaking at 3.25m) would be back in employment, earning, paying taxes, with a higher morale, and NOT receiving benefits.

Any future redundancies, made in these 6 months, would be a far less crippling blow then before, as new redundees(?) would have a far better chance of getting back too work.

The long-term unemployed would also be in a better position, with less excuses, to get back to work.

Some may argue that:
- It's not fair on businesses as they have a limited talent pool to choose from. I strongly believe that the majority of vacancies could be filled with a suitable candidate from those who are unemployed. If a company goes through the recruitment process and after interviewing the candidates, then they would then be allowed to advertise openly to all as they have a valid business case for it. If they do find a suitable candidate...then that's a big win for everyone!

- It's not fair on those currently in jobs who could miss out on opportunities. Sorry to sound socialist, but in the current climate, people should feel lucky they have a job. A six month hiatus will not cripple business or your career prospects, and this proposal, like tax rises, would be one of the effective sacrifices the country has to make to get back on it's feet.

- Those who hate their jobs would be stuck in a situation which is not good for them. I would argue that if it's that bad you would have quit before, so you can put up with it for the next 6 months. If you can't put up with it, if it is really that bad, then you would be quitting regardless, only now you would have a better chance of finding work than you would be without this policy.

- And although we would no doubt have to get it passed some European directive, I'm sure that this would be do-able, if we really put our minds to it!

In addition to this policy, businesses could be encouraged by getting paid some of the money that would otherwise have been spent on unemployment benefit, an incentive scheme.

Stopping those already in a job applying for a new one would be massively beneficial for this country, with very, very few negative consequences. The taxpayer would save money in paying less in benefits. The unemployed, those worst affected by the recession, would be given that helping hand that VAT cuts and mortgage approval schemes do not offer them.

We would be better off as a country, and am yet to find any arguments against this policy which outweigh the benefits, so please feel free to let me know if there are any. This is the type of "tough decision" our country willhave to make over the next few years.

The Smearing Speaker - Michael Martin's now at it!

2009-04-20T18:29:00.005+01:00

It seems that those Labour folks just can't stop telling lies!

Michael Martin has accused the Tamil Tiger protestors, demonstrating on Parliament Square today, of using children to stop police getting in about the protestors to monitor the situation.

He claims they are pushing the kids to the front so that the police are unable to force their way through into the middle of the crowds.

However, the police have said this is not the case...hmmm. The police may not have the best press right now, but I'll take their word for it as they are ACTUALLY THERE, rather than the fat man in the chair. More lies, more Labour!

Salmond trumps Brown

2009-04-19T11:53:00.002+01:00

Jenny Hjul in the Times has written an excellent piece on the Salmond/Brown comparison.

Last week saw the SNP conference, and also the first UK Government cabinet meeting to be held in Scotland for 90 years. Hjul highlights, excellently, the problems Brown now has north of the border... and Salmond is the biggest problem for him.

It is summed up beautifully when Hjul writes...
"Salmond’s popularity has little to do with independence, which two-thirds of Scots reject. It is based on his perceived ability to run Scotland differently".

How Labour, as a whole, aren't openly shouting for Brown to go, is beyond me. The desperation of the man, whcih is seeping into the party en masse, is truly worrying, not only for the party, but for the country for 2 more years.

Got what it takes? Er, not really!

2009-04-18T12:00:00.003+01:00

So, Salmond's new slogan for Scotland is...

"We've got what it takes" supported by the Scotland flag, promising to guide Scotland through, and out of, the recession.

Just one problem, before any Nats are thinking about getting tattooed. We've not got what it takes. The SNP doesn't have what it takes, the Scottish Parliament doesn't have what it takes, Scotland dooesn't have what it takes. In fact, by definition, the SNP have been saying for years that we don't...

We don't have the financial powers to see us through, to do it ourselves, to set our own course as Scotland. We are at the mercy of Westminster because, on these matters, we're the UK, not Scotland.

We may have the talent (debatable to some),
We may have the will,
We may have a progressive Parliament,
We may even have consensus from time to time,
And we may have a catchy slogan...
But as Scotty would say..."We just can't do it Captain, we don't have the powerrrrrrr"

So let's not kid ourselves, and let's not have the SNP turning into New Labour, by giving us slogans which do nothing, and mean less ( remember forward, not back?). We're about to have a UK budget (remember Nats, we are still part of that thing) and Scotland will probably take a big financial hit as Brown tries to quash morale in Scotland for independence. We're also about to be whacked, quite hard, with tax increases left, right and centre.

So don't forget, you may have what it takes, but we actually don't.
Westminster's still the daddy, albeit for now, but they are.

Scrapping Policy - Labourstyle

2009-04-15T18:11:00.004+01:00

Well, in the true style of Gordon Brown's Government, they come up with a bad idea, that they think can appease a small (but crucially Labour-donating) minority of people, and talk about it so much, and pass the focus from Minister to Prime Minister back to Minister and so on, until no one is any longer paying that much attention, and sneakily get their foolish, typically Labour, policy through with no one calling them on it.

£2,000 to scrap your car, if you buy a new greener one.

Modern cars are not "green", "clean" or "environmentally-friendly".
They may be greener than the old ones but adding "-er" to something doesn't make it what it isn't.

I am richer than my best friend - doesn't make me rich.
Shaun Wright-Philips is taller than an oompa-loompa - doesn't make him tall.
Joseph Fritzel is nicer than Adolf Hitler was - doesn't make him nice!

So, when Gordon Brown, Darling or Mandelson say that by doing this they are helping the environment, they're stretching it a bit. There are cars being produced that can run on hydrogen (which only emit O2 - steam). THAT'S a green car. If the car industry's in a mess, then it's in a mess, and the way it had being going, for many years before the recession, we should not be surprised that they face massive cuts and redundancies. Basically, this policy is just ANOTHER way of giving ANOTHER industry ANOTHER, but this way the Government can avoid the public seeing a big whopping figure (£ ,000,000s) on the front pages and causing ANOTHER panic. For years the car industry has struggled, and it's only going to get worse.

Do we really want to pump £millions into an industry that is just a large scale equivalent of Woolworths? Some lovely memories, cherished brands, a British institution, part of our history BUT LOSING MONEY AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO. With Woolies, the Government were right to let it sink, and unfortunately, the titanic car industry must do the same.

It would result in large scale redundancies, but unless the Government nationalise the car plants, these are going to happen sooner or later. Better to tackle a problem at it's earliest (good advice for mortgage brokers 2 years ago) rather than putting it aside, swallowing money, only for the same scenario to raise it's head now.

The car industry and their unions are MASSIVE financial backers of the Labour Party and that is why they will get help and the Government are sneaking it in through the boot. If we encourage investment (both in industry and the consumers) in real environmentally friendly cars, then you can have my backing, but this policy is just designed to keep the Labour Party cupboards stocked, not about good governance.

Gordon Brown's talks...again

2009-04-13T21:47:00.001+01:00

Gordon Brown on the SmearGate nonsense...“Any activity such as this that affects the reputation of our politics is a matter of great regret to me and I am ready to take whatever action is necessary to improve our political system.”

"...I am ready to take whatever action is necessary to..." - JUST SHUT THE F*** UP!

Stop saying "will do whatever is necessary", "must do whatever it takes" and "the necessary action". These are not policies. These are not tactics. These are not confidence-inspiring strategic announcements with which the country can look forward.

After a very brief google search, Gordon Brown has used the phrase "whatever is necessary", not including any other variations, on the following topics...

The Government steadying/saving the banks
The Government tackling unemployment
The Government helping the car industry
To preserve the union against Scottish Independence
To ensure investment in digital technologies
To defend Britain from terrorism
To ensure petrol supplies to petrol stations
The Government getting money back from Icelandic banks
The Government helping out the Eastern European countries
The Government's war in Afghanistan
The Government's war in Iraq

and so on...and so on...

And apart from petrol distribution and Scottish Independence, none of the above are looking like the rosiest of gradens at present (and independence is only being flushed out because he fucked the economy, and in turn, suspiciously sold off the Scottish banks pretty quickly).

We need action, we need a plan and strategy and a thought-process and... just something. Not the same flimsy line, like the G20 saying, "Problem solved, we'll all do whatever is necessary - and go after tax-havens. The recession is defeated". No Gordo, we need "We will do ______ (this is where you insert an actual policy, drive, initiative... like solving the unemployment crisis?).

So shut up, roll up your sleeves, and just f***ing DO SOMETHING. Stop talking about how you're leading us, stop reminding us "as Prime Minister". You call the Tories 'the do nothing party', but bluster is not graft so you are just as guilty as your criticism.

How to solve unemployment

2009-04-12T22:31:00.005+01:00

As I don't have any insider gossip on Draper, Guido, McBride, LabourList, RedRag or anything related to this "gasp" provoking scandal, I thought I'd write something about the more important stuff.

Today children...unemployment. It is not as sexy a topic as SmearGate, I'll grant you, but in the grand scheme of things I'm listing it as more important in the long run than telling some lies, and who told you to tell those lies.

As Political Dissuasion does from time to time, I have a wacky idea that I know has little hope of ever becoming part of an economic recovery plan (like my under-appreciated flat rate of income tax curveball).

Unemployment is soaring and is expected to hit 3million. If you speak to the large number of people you know who are currently job-hunting, they will tell you how difficult it is, how many people are applying for each job and how few jobs there are in the first place.

What if, for six months, only those unemployed or not in full-time permanent employment were allowed to apply for jobs? This would reduce the unemployment numbers, relieve jobseeker allowance expenditure, and solve a large part of the gloom surrounding this recession. I know it seems a bit of an odd suggestion, but I feel that the benefits of this would outweigh the negatives by a long way. And as it would only be for, say six months, this would create very little drawback for industry. Yes, some sectors would be allowed, for very specific posts, some exceptions, but only in very rare circumstances. And after going through a full recruitment process, if a company cannot find any candidates at all who are suitable, then, and only then, would they be allowed to 'openly recruit'.

When Gordon Brown highlights how many vacancies there are in the country, it doesn't make a difference to my experience (or hope) of still not being able to find employment. This system would find jobs for those who have suitable experience and skills which would suit the employer.

So employers would have two options, either:

- look at what's out there and if you find someone suitable, you've got an employee you approve of and if that fails then after that, you can open it up to anyone, or,
- hold off for six months and make the appointment then.

Those wanting to move jobs or who hate their jobs will have to make the sacrifice of 'sticking it out' for those six months, part of the national sacrifice we all have to make in these times (which will soon include - higher taxes, less public service expenditure, a return to 17.5% VAT, lower or no pay rises, lower or no bonuses, a crackdown on 'expenses', negative equity for more people, mortage difficulty etc etc etc). Those made redundant would have a much healthier chance of not becoming one of the long-term unemployed, getting back to work and generally creating a stronger, working economy.

The difference this policy would make to people's lives (potentially 3million people!), would be enormous.And all it would take is 6 months to make a huge dent, in a huge problem.

Simples!

Cameron to abolish Scotland

2009-04-12T10:58:00.002+01:00

It doesn't take a genius to read between the lines on this one...

"Cameron to cut the cost of politics by axeing 60 MPs"

And how many MPs does Scotland have?

59. It's pretty basic maths.

So, Cameron is obviously plotting to axe Scotland and one other MP... if I wasDavid Davis, I'd be worried.

"Political End of the World" Awards

2009-04-08T17:07:00.003+01:00

Gordon Brown wants a 'Green New Deal' to save the environment.

This follows the 'Global New Deal' he wants to save the world's economy.

Which in turn follows the 'New Deal', which he wants to save our skills shortage and unemployment figures.

Somehow, like most of politics, it's the same old story with the same no results.

The environment is in a stiffer, more dangerous, more problematic and more ignored recession than any economy has been in history. I am a smug b*st*rd and love being able to say "I told you so", but on this matter, genuinely with the world at stake, I'd rather be wrong.
Wrong that global warming is even more serious than our Governments are letting on and looking at.
And wrong that our Governments won't take the appropriate action until it's far, far too late.

I do believe that my generation is the generation to fix it. I believe that we understand the risk, accept the sacrifices that need to be made, and are willing to do it. The problem is, by the time that my generation is in a position to enact the appropriate changes, in about 20-30 years, it will be too late.

Politicians, political parties, Governments and Leaders of the world are not controlled by 'doing the right thing'. They are concerned with winning elections. They are not concerned with the consequences of 20-30years time, as they will not be around or will be closing in on their twilight. They cannot make decisions now, not that will save the planet but also produce big vote-winning headlines. Politicians control government, government controls policy and policies across the world dictates the world's future. So when politicians only live in the short-term, focussed on the next, nearest win how can we tackle the big issues.

Haven't we just learned this in the financial crisis? Waiting til it crashes around us, then finding the solution afterwards has just proven to us to be the difficult way to do it.

So Gordon cannot claim to be green. Neither can Cameron, to be honest. Pilot schemes across the country, starting in two years? Yet another headline, no hardline.

Gordon cannot claim a Green Budget is about to descend upon Britain when it is happy to expand Heathrow and Stanstead. Governments cannot claim to be green when they bail out car companies without imposing strict, progressive targets towards cleaner methods of transport.

It's all a bit worrying that the Government is still approving coal plants. Coal Plants!! About as dirty a concept as Paris Hilton.

Ask someone who's just found out they have terminal lung cancer...
Do they wish they could go back and stop smoking?
Do they wish they could go back and listen to the hundreds of individual people who said STOP?
Do they wish they could go back and heed the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that said, if you keep polluting yourself, you will die?

Yes.

And in this generation, these days, now, can these people claim...
I didn't know the risks?
Nobody told me?

No.

These are the same arguments that can be levelled against Governments not doing enough on global warming. "Smoking is a mug's game". We are going to end up with the environmental equivalent of lung cancer, terminal lung cancer, a disease that once it gets so far along, we can do nothing about. Do we. as a country, as a world, really want to say "Yeah, we will, one day" until we get to the regret? No. But will we? Yes.

Rife Sexist Politics

2009-04-07T18:54:00.001+01:00

There has been a lot of chat and bitching and biting around the issue of All Women Shortlists, with both men and women of the blogosphere pitching their views on either side of the argument.

There have been accusations of sexism and offense and all the usual clammerings of shite that usually appear when there's a chance for some bloggers to look, Oh So PC. But you know what...anyone that says that women are under represented in politics is fucking delusional. I'd rather know that the right decisions are being taken, rather than whatever decision is being taken is being taken proportionally across the sexes/races/social classes/religions etc. Women may not make up the majority of politicians, but they, as women are not under-represented on issues which affect women.

I say this, because I recently found out that the first ever official debate in the House of Commons on Men's Health was held... on 5 March 2009. Yes, that's right, a month ago.

I could waste the next three years of my life totalling up the number of different debates that have taken place on women's health, but I won't, for now I'll use the term “lots”.

Breast cancer, cervical cancer, screening programmes, IVF treatments to name but a few, are some of the “lots” of time and energy and time and politics that have been spent on these issues – worthy issues I'd like to add. But for our Government to have held ONE official debate on the topic of men's health is truly appalling. One example...we could do with more time and money spent on getting men to discuss grabbing their balls and playing 'hunt the lump'.

Would having more women in politics have made this issue more prominent, more 'tackled'? (excuse the pun). No, would it have been less so? I doubt it.

If women think that they are getting a raw deal out of the product that is governance (aka policy), then that is one thing they are right to argue about. But the most recent AWS debate hasn't focussed on this. Instead there have been accusations that men, and men alone, are responsible for “The Holocaust. The Cold War. The collapse of the world’s financial system and the deepest recession for decades.”. Yeah, cos women, 'Blair's Babes' for example, weren't involved in any Afghanistan chat, of course!

In modern politics, polling has more sway than anything over MPs (male or female). Polling takes into account the views of the nation, men and women. Politicians' main priority is getting re-elected, and getting into Government. Pandering to women is a massive part of any party's strategy. No party is going to be elected, or re-elected if they can be labelled as sexist. So whether an MP is male or female, it doesn't matter, because they will vote along the lines that polling dictates, reflecting the voters' wishes. If anyone wants to argue that polling is conducted in a way that benefits men over women, I'd love to hear it – but then again, I've always loved listen to crazy folks.

Here's a couple of examples where women, despite being less in numbers in politics, certainly get the bigger slice of the equality pie...

Domestic abuse – debate on this issue focusses almost entirely on the effect on women. I admit that they are more the victim in this, but pretty much no debate or policy is targeted at helping men.

Custody rights – more than 90% of custody battles result in settlements being made in favour of the mother (just ask Fathers4Justice) usually on the basis that “a mother's bond is closer”.

But on men's health, for there to have been one debate, ever, is truly scandalous, especially compared to the millions of pounds and hours spent on women-only issues. I'm not saying we shoulldn't be paying this money and using our time on these things, but when women want to talk about equality, let's look at it across the board. Just because you're not 50% of those making the decisions, doesn't mean you're being hard done by. In some cases women are, in some cases it's men. I'd be interested to know if men and women agree that the important thing is what is decided, rather than who decides it.

Let's spend less time chasing false equalities like 50:50 splits.

Let's spend more time talking about my nuts.

How to flush away the biggest poo

2009-04-03T09:23:00.005+01:00

George Foulkes. He's like that jobby that even after three flushes, won't go away - we could pour boiling water on it, hit it with a stick, even ask it nicely, but it just won't go and just keeps stinking out the House. I've never heard a real name that rhymes with "ridiculous wanker", but if you listen closely to the words 'George Foulkes', I can definitely hear a similarity.

Without making much noise about it, Alex Salmond cancelled this week's FMQs owing to the helicopter crash in the North East. He cancelled it, and moved on. He didn't do a Gordon Brown and say 'this is what I've done, and this is why I've done it, and this is why I am wonderfully respectful and this is what I've done' and over-egg the pudding. Apart from people in the blogosphere, who like a chance to sling mud across the e-chamber, the regular people of Scotland won't have noticed that it was cancelled. Whether we like it or not, politics is not popular and most of Scotland couldn't give two hoots about FMQs, because, like PMQs, it makes fuck all difference. Christ, it barely even reaches the Scottish news coverage.

Parties just try and score points, not for the sake of bettering oor wee nation, but as a means of suppressing their inner smugness (SNP), jealousy (Lab), ineptitude (LibDems) or ineffectiveness (Con). Nobody gives a shit - not in the real world.

So George Foulkes, with any excuse to waste oxygen in the name of democracy, comes out and slates Salmond for cancelling it. It's never a good sign when Kezia and Foulkes are attacking from the same hymn sheet, because this is usually the case when Kez realises, "Oh shit, he's having one of his oaf-ish, buffoon days, spouting shit, thinking he's making the world a better place. Better get on the soapbox and try and make some sense of his words to justify it". A thankless task for young Kezia.

In the same way that Georgie likes to bumble nonsense, the Nats (along with everyone else) like to take any chance to shoot him down (and let's face it, there's many a chance). SNP Tactical Voting continues his attack on Labour politicians this week by hitting out at George The Mouth. New blogger, "unashamedly pro-SNP" An Original Idea, gets a solid kick in, taking after most Nats, and normal people, by hitting hard and highlighting a Labour double standard from Foulkes.

But, if we live in a democracy, and pretty much everyone thinks he's an embarrassment (and that includes Labour members), how can we not get rid of him? Surely, somehow, there's a method of flushing away the biggest shit in the parliament? This "Labour attack dog" is just a blinkering idiot who wanders about clueless. He's like Dorothy, just landed in a new world and doesn't understand that no one knows where he came from but he's causing trouble and, in general, life would be better and more peaceful if he just attached a basket to his waist, and spouting his nonsense, hot air-ballooned it out of here and went away. Everywhere he goes, trouble is created, naively thinking that everyone's nice and likes him...er, nope. You spout your crap and Toto Dugdale is sent out to try and make you look like real politician, but to no avail.

We want rid of you, Scotland wants rid of you. You wast our time, our money and our parliament. Cancelling FMQs? Salmond just saved the taxpayer another £100 that you'd have cost us with a stupid shitty question. He saved you embarrassment - well, for now.

G20 latest - early rumours

2009-04-02T15:09:00.002+01:00

Ok, so there's some details sneaking out of the G20 discussions, and for those cynics out there, prepare to to feel justified by your view - the worlld has not, yet been saved.

However, "Big progress has been made" on tax-havens...apparently.

There is supposedly going to be something called "The OECD List" of tax havens. What is this OECD List? Well, as you may think, it's not a policy, it's not an action plan, it is a list of how countries are doing on the topic of tax-havens. Yes, there will be a breakdown of Good, Bad, and Middle with no other mention of how Bad countries willl be treated, or punished, so presumably there will be none.

First of all, this will do nothing to make a difference to the current problems we're facing. It just means everything on tax havens will remain the same but those who want to 'haven their tax', will have a brochure of where to go.

Also, and I've said this before, but why are they focussing on the pointless things such as tax-havens and bankers' bonuses? These things are small fry in the big picture and do not affect the markets and confidence. It may make people feel better, cos when the chips are down, there's nothing people like more than 'bashing the rich', but surely the politics of saying we're doing something to those nasty successful people doesn't make a difference (a real financial one, as opposed to a finding a scapegoat - Fred Goodwin, tax havens - one).

Any further rumours or confirmations...to follow.

Mr and Mrs Smith = nothing

2009-03-31T15:49:00.003+01:00

Jacqui Smith is rumoured to be a dead-cert for being 'redistributed' during a reshuffle, obviously having to pay the maximum price for the porngate incident.

I'm not a huge fan of the Home Secretary, but this seems like the MSM going way, way over the top and holding a staggering grip of power over public opinion and British politics. The Fred Goodwin issue was bad enough.

But Jacqui Smith, or someone on her staff, made a genuine administrative error...to the tune of £21, that's all! That's nothing! And when it's a mistake (would a politician really try to get porn through on expenses and risk it getting into the press? Er, nope) and nothing dodgy, then thew world is not right.

It's the political equivalent of me accidentally typing the wrong button when entering my PIN number - someone/something points out the mistake, I automatically rectify it.

If this woman loses her ministerial post over this, rather than job performance, then this country and it's media has gone loopy, and Gordon Brown is obviously so scared of any 'bad stuff' that he has already lost the election.

Decree by Tom Harris - Thou must not criticise Gordon

2009-03-26T12:40:00.004Z

Tom Harris usually has something decent to say...however...

His latest post criticises a Tory MEP for criticising the Labour Prime Minister. No, seriously, Tom is appalled that this has happened, because "Criticising your country’s leader in a foreign country has been frowned upon for years". Are you serious Mr Harris?

Because it's frowned upon? Come on! I could list many, many things Gordon Brown's done that I've frowned upon, but let's stick with the hot topic of rinsing our coffers.

First off, Gordon Brown is making a speech, in Europe, talking about, among other things, the British economy. Daniel Hannan is one of Britian's representatives in Europe. He works...wait for it as this may be a surprise to some...in a foreign country. It is his job to make comment and don't think it's the worst idea, when you have a point to raise, to take the rare opportunity when the target audience of your point is in town, to say it to his face. He wasn't grandstanding, he made a point, shared his views (without mentioning any political parties) and sat down.

I for one am delighted that someone is saying to Gordon what needs to be heard. I am more concerned with how the financial mess is going, and that we are going to get out of it and people are going to stand up when things aren't going too well, than politicians conducting themselves in a manner that 'just isn't cricket'.

This isn't medieval times. When the castle is under attack, the last thing we want to hear is hundreds of calls of "Protect The King!". Believe us Tom, and believe the reaction, the King is the least of our concerns.

Gordon just can't get rid of the guilt

2009-03-26T00:06:00.002Z

So, investors don't want to risk their money on the shoogly peg that is our economy?

Surely Gordon realises, as someone who cherished praise, and boasted about it, from the private sector as Chancellor, that if you are willing to take their praise, then you must accept their judgement when they think you've fucked up?

The markets have spoken and Gordon a) got it wrong, b) is still getting it wrong and c) will continue to get it wrong in the future, because few investors believe in any of your actions.

You fucked up Gordo, you cannot sell the gilts, and you cannot lay the guilt on America.

The world is suffering because the world over got debt heavy.

But Britain is suffering because you led us, like a dirty prostitute, down a dirty back alley and infected us. Overpaying your abused whore in cash afterwards, out of guilt, does not treat the bigger, sticky problem that is near-on impossible to treat.

Tory MEPs saving the day?

2009-03-24T23:20:00.003Z

Never before have I been impressed by an MEP. In my previous post (which is now defunct), I tried to say what Daniel Hannan says here in his address to Gordon Brown...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs

Spot on!

Hands off the money!

2009-03-24T18:47:00.000Z

Mervyn King has said we do not need, as we cannot afford, another stimulus package from Gordon Brown.

"We will become the Do Nothing party" are not words I expect to hear him say. In fact, I expect Gordon Brown to become the new Claudio Ranieri, aka 'The Tinkerman' and not be able to leave it alone.

It is no secret that Alaistair Darling is trying to convince Gordon that he cannot put out 1,000 bushfires with 100 bank notes.

Some fires have to burn, and will not do much damage. Some will need a targetted approach, and only in the right conditions.

But having got "The Tories are the Do Nothing Party" tattooed on his soul last month, do we imagine that Gordon wiill, at any time be seen to 'do nothing'. Well, recently, all Labour have done is nothing. Announcements of plans and schemes yet to be do not count as action, but the worry now is that Gordon tries to prove everyone wrong by a) doing something, b) doing it with a shed load of borrowed cash, c) doing it badly or the wrong thing and c) do it not for the greater good, but to continue their (admittedly, potentially very successful) 'do nothing' accusation.

The politics being played with our economy are dangerous. So leave well alone for now Gordon, listen to what people are telling you and stop panicking. Stop, take a breath and then aproach the problem because right now you look and sound like a water pistol trying to shout down 5th November.

"No Pakistanis need apply" (*amended)

2009-03-24T10:50:00.002Z

I would like to get the cliché of “positive discrimination is still discrimination” out of the road early, but it's true. It's only positive discrimination if it's in your favour. Otherwise, there's nothing positive about it, for you.

Kezia Dugdale and Yapping Yousuf are both in favour of positive discrimination in the form of all women shortlisting. SNP Tactical Voting and J. Arthur MacNumpty are against it. Harriett Harmann is becoming legendary for her alternative approach to sensible policies and I have written briefly on this topic before in relation to Miss Harmann but owing to the current debate, I feel I have to give a detailed view.

No matter who you are, whatever race, religion, sex, sexuality, it is not right to deliberately restrict someone on this basis – in fact, it's against the law under equalities legislation.

If I were to try to stand in any of Labour's all women shortlist constituencies, I would not be allowed to do so and would be told, in a tremendously proud, 'aren't I being so PC', smug way, that this is acceptable as it is positive discrimination, and the Yousufs and Harmanns of this world would be perfectly ok with this.

If I owned a printing shop and a Pakistani man/woman applied, and despite being the best person for the job, I told him/her that “You cannot have the job because you're Pakistani” and claimed I was just enacting a policy of positive discrimination, I would be charged by the authorities and pilloried by the same Labour members who championed the day I couldn't stand as a Labour candidate. This is a double standard that cannot be accepted.

My biggest fear would be that any racist/bigot business owner (who might like to use phrases such as the title of this post) could just turn around and claim that he/she isn't giving a job to someone from any particular grouping because it's positive discrimination and there'd be nothing to stop them as Labour will have set a precedent. They may not use the phrase in the title of this post, but someone who felt like this could now have a valid means of acting on his/her views in whatever racist way they wished to do so. Adding the word 'positive' isn't always a good thing...HIV positive isn't the good version of HIV.

(“Clean coal is an industry myth...like saying healthy botulism... child-safe plutonium” C.J. Cregg - West Wing)

We cannot make discrimination, in any form, an acceptable piece of our culture. There is no claim from Yousuf or Kezia that this would make for a better qualified parliament – more diverse I agree, but not necessarily better qualified. I don't give a shit what size, colour, or shaped genitalia my local MP has, I just want to know that he/she was the best one standing and that this conclusion was agreed across the whole community. To propose AWSs implies that either the local parties are sexist (in which case, take a look at yourselves and don't impose the implications – AWS's – on the electorate) or that the country is - and if this is the case, then unless we have women only constituencies, the problem wouldn't be resolved.

No, the truth behind this ridiculous policy lies in both Kezia and Yousuf's posts.

“We desperately need to boost our local parties” - Yapping Yousuf

“Nobody in this debate seems capable of addressing the fundamental issue which is that of the decline in the membership of political parties” Kezia Dugdale

Hold...on...a...fucking...minute!

You expect me (and the 90%+ of people who are choosing not to be members of political parties) to accept a limit to my rights so that you guys can increase your membership? NO! We do not need political parties – they are not an essential part of the British parliamentary system and governance of the nation. We need a parliament. We need a Prime Minister. That's it.

“The fundamental issue”? How, oh how is depleting membership responsible for not enough women being in parliament? That is by far the most ridiculous thing I've ever read in any political commentary. Ten years ago, their were significantly more people paid up as members of political parties, but we were no closer then to a 50/50 split of Mps then.

You've tried introducing state funding, which I'm against, but now you want to make me (unemployed) even less employable purely because I'm a man, so that the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, the Lib Dems etc can increase their membership and in turn their revenues so that we can give people like you (party hacks with a passionate hobby) something to do on a weekend? No, simply this is not right and am amazed you think this is an acceptable argument in favour. This, by such a long, long way, goes against the principals of democracy and anyone who is in favour of all women shortlists (and any other form of positive discrimination) is doing it to better their own chances, not to better the greater good.

(I apologise for any offence caused by the original title of this post. As I said in the orginal draft of this post, these were certainly not my views but I used this 'shock-tactic' phrase as a means of highlighting potential drawbacks to what is discussed in this post - the title has now been amended - my thanks to he/she who emailed with a change request and a more appropriate title).

TramSham

2009-03-20T16:27:00.002Z

So the trams' future comes down to the next few hours, the last-gasp negotiations and the desperate attempts to keep the trams from going of the rails.

I am not a fan of the trams. To me, it is just an attempt to be 'more European' rather than addressing a need or providing a service. We have a top notch bus service which will run side by side with the trams, which makes me think what's the point.

But now, the political hot cross bun that is the Edinburgh trams system is 'under threat'. At 5.30 pm, the issue could descend into a ridiculous farce, even going as far as the courts to decide the outcome of who's owed what and does what and why.

Somehow, I'm not surprised. Government contracts are cushy enough, rarely coming in on time or on budget - and I doubt the trams will be any different. But to gazump at the last minute by demanding more money is just ridiculous, but clever on the contractors' behalf.

The Government, who it must be pointed out are against these trams, cannot risk delaying for soooo long while Princes St is closed - businesses will suffer, tourism will suffer, and Scotland as a whole will suffer. They will be pilloried by all Edinburgh business if the chaos that is already effecting the city has to be extended due to a shutdown of works while court cases and independent analysts carry out their tasks. They will be hounded by opposition parties if they just stump up the cash without a fight but they'll have little option but to cave - to an extent.

When Governments are forced into an unwinnablle corner (eg Fire Services strike), the trick of Governments is to say we will offer you the carrot but only by beating you with the stick of "reform". As this reform is not a tool the SNP can use in this case, I am wondering what political fudge of language they will be forced to use to avoid using the phrase "ok gov, I'll pay, how much you wanting?". After growing up in the world of Labour, this is what I expect from politics.

Salmond and the SNP, however, are a very different kettle of fish. I hope that they hold out, go through the courts and maintain the moral high ground by not caving and making sure we pay no more than we should and also making sure that if the contractors are proven to be trying a last minute tramway robbery, fucking them for every added expense to TIEs legal bills, compensation to businesses and a big fat apology to commuters.

I no longer trust politicians to deal with these things and as this scheeme is against the wishes of the SNP, I feel extremely sorry for them as this is a complete no-win.

These companies are determined to screw more money out of the Government and if they don't get it, they may well pull out or fold.

If they do get more money, the opposition parties will blow their tops in the campest pantomime performance since Blair's Diana speech.

If they cancel the project, or put it on indefeinte hold, they'll be viewed to have wasted taxpayers' money.

The SNP have been handed a poisoned chalice, but in this world, these days, with politics and business as it is, they have no option but to take a big fucking gulp and only hope that the pain is quick and those that handed them this problem are fair in their reactions - which we all know is never going to happen.

The poison of the SNP - Part II

2009-03-16T18:58:00.003Z

"I agree with the Lib Dems". I said this earlier today.

That felt terrible, saying that. I want to wash in itchy acid to take away the liberal pain I'm feeling, but unforunately, it's true, I agree with the Liberal Democrats.

We need to forget about Scottish independence, at least for now.

I am, essentially, in favour of independence. I think that there are many reasons that it is for the better, and despite some very obvious drawbacks and unsolved problems, as long as we did it in a mature way (so, not just doing it so our gracious First Minister can democratically give England the finger), then it would be a good move forward.

However, right now, it matters not. In 'normal' times, it could work as we would have a decent enough idea of how the economy would react, behave and be affected. However, in the midst of serious uncertainty, it would be lunacy. Do it when you know you can plan things, build on things and set out realistic markers for progress. But if the SNP are going to throw serious weight behind a) campaigning for a referendum and b) in the event of there being one, a full-on campaign for a Yes to Independence, then they will be revealing themselves to be the party that many people feared they were...more focussed on telling Westminster to go fuck themselves than looking after the interests 5,000,000+ who live in the best small country in Northern Britain.
I want independence - in the right conditions - but not at any cost. And I don't hate the English as many Scots (of all political persuasions) do.

I am currently unemployed, and living in London. I own a flat in Edinburgh which I rent out. I have no significant savings to speak of and currently no knowledge of when I will next be employed, especially not at any decent salary level.

Yet, for some reason, in spite of the things above, I spend 50 per cent of my free time (which, being unemployed, is a lot of free time), thinking of buying a house down in London and where I would like to buy and what furniture I would need and what furniture I would like from BoConcept, Habitat and how big a Buddabag to get.

If I spent this 50% of my time, instead of thinking about houses but instead looking for work, technically I would be twice as likely to get a job. Then I could, in turn, think about buying a house and in turn looking at furniture from BoConcept, Habitat and Buddabags.
But while I spend this time thinking about house-hunting, my thought-process is crazy!

But if the SNP are spending any significant time planning for independence/a pro-independence referendum campaign, then they are just as foolish as me. We cannot consider the next step until we sort out where we're at just now.

The thing is, I realise what I'm thinking, realise it's the wrong way around and am admitting my thought process needs changing. Worryingly, I fear the SNP do not have this ability. They are too stubborn, too proud to do the right thing. Admittedly most politicians and political parties are, but right now, the SNP are carrying the can of responsibility that they asked for, and they will be neglecting their obligations if they waste time, and money (like I've been doing), on the wrong 'priority'.

I once described the SNP as having an "Independence or bust philosophy" and CyberNats were, as ever, quick to rally in their online campaign of quelling the dissent. Now, in the midst of global financial meltdown, it could literally, politically and worryingly, be "Independence or bust".

Global Warning

2009-03-14T18:43:00.003Z

The worldwide recession has really, really fucked things up.

Not just because I'm unemployed and struggling to find any work, but because people are losing their jobs, their homes, their savings and their confidence in the powers-that-be across the globe.

This is a problem that was not a surprise to everyone. Paul Moore, the HBOS whistleblower knew it. He tried to tell people about it. Nothing was done. The FSA either knew and did fuck all, or they did fuck all in the first place which led to them not knowing.

The Government can claim they had no idea how dangerously banks were leveraged against 'toxic debts', though we don't believe them. Brown can claim innocence by saying that this is a worldwide problem started in America and nothing to do with his casually flirtive relationship with the City and debt.

The result is quite a big fucking deal. Whether world leaders knew beforehand, is now a moot point. The important thing just now is how we tackle it. Chasing Fred Goodwin's pension is not going to make any difference to the financial status of the country. Ending tax havens isn't going to re-instill confidence and fluidity and liquididty to the nation.

The Government is not trying to fix the problem, they are trying to win the political war of the recession.

The problem got so out of hand it is proving almost impossible to take action to counter, avoid or alter it's effects. The problem is now so bad, that we are all, to one extent or another, financially affected/troubled/fucked.

This is bad enough. But imagine the worldwide problem being faced is much, much worse than the global recession. Imagine this much bigger problem was highlighted to the Government over and over and over again for years, and they still didn't take the appropriate steps to avert it or prepare the nation for its' effects. Imagine they continued to try to win the political war instead of tackling the problem.

This is what's happening with global warming. It is. No one is taking the necessary big steps, making the necessary big reforms to have the necessary big benefits the world needs. This problem we know is happening, we know is bigger than the recession and we are being told, over and over and over again that it need addressed now.

But, like telling the banks that their business models are tending towards zero and financially fisting the nation, Governments across the land are not facing up to the problem, facing up to the businesses (replace RBS for Shell and Lehmann Brothers for Exxon Mobil) and facing up to the consequences of not doing enough before it's too late.

Imagine the problems we are currently facing (and really struggling to deal with) in finance are to be relatively transferred to the flooding, displacement and famine associated with global warming. Imagine the day when people not being able to buy a house because of banks unwilling to lend are replaced by those dying because of lack of clean water, flooding and disease.

In this situation, whoever is in charge will probably go suing the big oil firms (if they're still around), hauling them before committees, trying to create the new villain, like Fred Goodwin.

The G20 will not do anything worthwhile this year. No one will. Politics and politicians, by not acting now, are killing people in 50 years. This isn't a political war they need to fight right now, and they won't be around in 50 years so won't tackle it now because winning now is what matters these days, fuck the future.

Ok, so where was I...?

2009-03-14T18:12:00.003Z

With a fart of fanfare, Political Dissuasion has returned.

Having been bitch-whipped and man-slapped by the credit-crunch-inspired redundancy, unemployment and meagrely paid temp work, I have returned more cynical than before, looking to share my disillusion with our 'broke society' with you all.

I plan to avoid talking about the credit-crunch, recession, stimulus, debt:GDP ratios, unemployment, bankers' bonuses and Gordon Brown's pathetic attempts to reassure the country (rather than fixing it) as much as possible, but let's face it, it's going to come up.

It's like Man U playing Bolton, endeavouring to play attractive attacking football, but when you're faced with such spoiling dour shit that won't let you 'do your thang', you sometimes just have to play the game to win. (NB - I don't consider myself the Man U of blogging, it's just a similie)

So for now I'll let you dhry your whet appetite for politically dissuasive commentary and allow you to prepare for some truly random posts as I play catch up from my 5 months in absentia.

Technology crash

2008-11-04T12:37:00.001Z

Due to my imploding laptop, I won't be blogging for a wee while.

I'm sorry to disappoint the seven of you that read the blog, but I will be back soon enough.

PD

Turning the tables, Cable style

2008-10-30T00:45:00.002Z

Just a wee thought.

If an average person goes over their overdraft limit, or credit card limit etc to such an extent that the bank aren't willing to extend 'standard' borrowing to you, you're sort of 'in the shit'. That's when the bank manager comes along and says, "there is another option, you could enter into a Voluntary Arrangement where we'll help you out with funds but keep a hand on how much you can have at a time, to make sure you're not spending outside your means or being reackless, but most of all, to stop you getting into trouble again in the future".

I say, the Government, which has got itself into a financial pickle/stupour recently, should eneter into such an agreement, where they have to ask permission before they do anything with a significant amount of money. Make Vince Cable the bank manager who calls the shots. If you want, Deal Or No Deal style, all the cabinet can open their red boxes and Vince can phone down and give them an offer of funds for their department's plans. They don't even have to see him face to face.

I just like the idea of Noel Edmonds saying "so, Gordon, you've got an offer of full funding for school-building projects and all NHS funding you ask for, Deal or No Deal"

Well Noel, I came here with a target in mind, and that target is more debt

(Banker is heard laughing down the phone. Gordon realises his greed, his pride, his desperation has played straight into the banker's hands.)

The British people have just been mugged

2008-10-26T09:34:00.002Z

In an extension of my last post, fearing we are all about to fund political parties through taxes, my instincts have been proven correct.

This morning, on the Andrew Marr show, Alastair Campbell, a man I have enormous time and respect for, signalled that state funding for political parties is the direction that political parties want to go.

In a discussion on "we have to sort out parties' funding", Marr and Campbell repeatedly used the phrase 'a new way of funding', without going into graphic detail. It was only at the very end of this part of the interview, that Campbell dropped in the line "It's going to be very difficult to convince the public, especially in these economic times, that their money, might have to go towards political parties".

Most bloggers out there are card-carrying members, or openly suportive of a political party. I am not, so maybe there's something I'm missing, but I don't see why we should fund political parties. If we do, should we then offer funding to the 1922 Committee? How far does it go?

Campbell also spoke about, 'people don't realise how difficult it is to run a political party' and how expensive it is. Just because it's difficult, just because it's expensive, just because it's corrupt, doesn't mean we should 'call it in' to be a state matter. If there is something dodgy going on, then we should be finding a way to stop it being dodgy, stamping out the corruption and making it clean. If parties go bust or have to scale back considerably, then fine. Political parties are not banks. They do not offer the public an essential or even crucial service (like healthcare or mortgages) and therefore must not be considered state funding suitable.

The British people are being mugged, live on television, at Millbank, Downing Street and in the Houses of Parliament and fuck all will be done about it. I know very few bloggers read my blog, so I can't expect a flurry of suggestions, but if you have any reasons why we should go down the road of state funding, where it's for the good of the people, then please let me know, as I am convinced there is no such valid proposition.

In the same way that muggings and other violent crimes are not properly reported, this mugging of the British taxpayer is passing us by unnoticed.

State Funding of Political Parties

2008-10-25T12:50:00.001+01:00

How do political parties get their money?

Or, in more recent times, the question will be, where do political parties get the money to pay off their debts?

Well, it comes as no surprise to any of us, that party political fundraising is about as clean and honest as a lying poo. We know that parties receive 'foreign donations' through British companies. That loophole was deliberately left in by the parties when they created the guidelines. Is it right? No. Do we care? Unless the circumstances are properly dodgy, then not really. We know it goes on, we turn a blind eye to it.

But now, due to more media coverage of 'the murky world of political fundraising', we can look forward to yet another debate about STATE FUNDING FOR POLITICAL PARTIES.

Er, what? I don't fucking think so! Do I look like a Russian billionaire that wants to give money to organisations that, on their own, benefit me not a jot? No thank you.

State funding for political parties is the most ridiculous, yet probable solution to these problems. Society needs Government, not politics. We pay for the services of our country, from nurses and firefighters, to Ministers and MPs. These things are what we pay for, these are the things that make our country work. Our Government is not dependant on political parties, it is dependant on MPs/ministers/Prime Ministers working together to run our country. Political parties are not our responsibility.

The three main parties are in a heep of debt - would the state fund their 'bail-out' in the same way they did the banks? Would our money be going towards paying off Gordon Brown's desperate PR campaign recently and the thousands of pounds spent preparing for a General Election that never even happened? No fucking doubt about it if STATE FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES takes hold.

I cannot see any justification, any benefit, any one good point that I would agree with in favour of state funding for them. If you have any, please let me know.

I have always viewed political parties as working (not deliberately) to the detriment of the country, where petty squabbles take precedence over national benefit...and if state funding for them comes in, then we are subsidising a tool that offers little benefit to us.

If the BNP gained a seat in the House of Commons, would everyone's taxes, in part, go towards funding the BNP? How would foreign nationals living here feel about our country then?

Political parties play no necessary part in running this country, they are an added activity that the MP chooses to take on, but being a member of Labour, Tory, or an independent makes no difference to his statutory role as a Member of Parliament. Much like if David Davis, a Tory MP, plays squash during his lunch break. Should we subsidise that? Of course we shouldn't and it's a childish point, but to me, it would be like funding something as irrelevant.

An MP doesn't HAVE TO be a member of a party.
A Minister doesn't HAVE TO be a member of a party.
Christ, even a Prime Minister doesn't necessarily have to be a member of a political party.

And the Civil Servants do the rest.

So the day we introduce state funding for them is the day when we consign ourselves, forever more, to this style of detrimental governance.

Harriet Harman lied to the house!!!

2008-10-15T17:14:00.002+01:00

Harriet Harman today, filling in for "superman" Gordon Brown at PMQs, said that national debt stood at 37% of GDP. As someone who is always keen to criticise this waste of a politician...

WRONG. LIES. INCORRECT. MISLEADING.

Harriet should know, especially with '(the man formerly known as the Iron Chancellor) Gordon's Big Book' in front of her the whole time, that national debt currently stands at 43% of GDP, the same percentage that it stood at in 1997!

And the really worrying part? This doesn't include Northern Rock or the latest BanksBailout package, a whack of billions more debt which will take it up to roughly 46/47%.

I'm not going to make the whole 'boom and bust' comment that is the easy attack on Labour right now, rubbing all of GB's comments in his and his party's faces, instead I'm just going to expect Harriet to apologise and for Labour to admit that their Government (much like their party) is starting to owe more than can be reasonably maintained.

So well done Harriet, your lies were the only highlight in a dull PMQs.
I owe you a debt of gratitude.

Independence - a blogospheric discussion

2008-10-14T15:23:00.002+01:00

If you haven't read Doctorvee's challenge of discussion concerning the constitutional future of Scotland/UK, then I urge everyone to do so. There are two posts on his page on this in a running series.

It is this type of 'conversation' that started me blogging and by creating this platform, Doctorvee is opening up the blogosphere to a real airing of views on the matter.

---------------------------

How I view the constitutional future of an 'independent' Scotland...hmmmm...

I am still neither for nor against an independent Scotland, haven't yet made up my mind or been persuaded, though I have always tended towards the pro-independence side of the argument and am confident that within the next 10-15 years, Scotland will have voted YES to independence.

It's a good point that due to the EU/NATO/EC/Euro etc, we would not in fact be fully independent and I'm pretty sure that most people would agree that we'd be keen to be a member of at least one of the internationals organisations out there.

But of the question of UK based independence? Doctorvee suggests some powers may not be removed from the authority of Westminster on the basis of practicality. I (kind of) agree. On defence and the military, I would be keen to keep the current set up, with it all being controlled as one unit. I don't want a separate Scottish Army and a separate Former United Kingdom's Welsh-Anglo Reservists (FUKWAR?), I want the British Army/UK Army/Isles Army, whatever you want to call it. Essentially, Scottish independence with an Entente Cordial (*more on this later) with the rest of the Former UK (FUKs?) on defence.

This would then lead to questions of "who calls the shots when crunch time comes". Whether that's Westminster, or an inter-governmental committee that was set up who we give control to, I still believe we would all be in a better position with this kind of set up (I could go into specifics, but it'd be pointless - you get the principle).

I also believe, as I'm sure many will agree, that after gaining independence, we would be keeping the sterling pound (£) for the foreseeable future, and again, I would recommend that we keep the current Bank of England set up (with at least one of the board of governors being selected by the Scottish Parliament). Then, if we chose to take on the Euro, keep the sterling pound or even a new currency 'the Jock' (pennies could be 'jockles?), we could do so when we wished, but the stabiliy this would offer in the early years, I think, would be a reasonable way to progress.

Then there is the issue of what we currently call a 'national emergency' - the attempted bombings in London and Glasgow airport and foot-and-mouth for example.

As I detailed before(*), we would have some sort of agreement - an entente cordial, a council of ministers, some sort of mechanism - where when it was necessary, the two Governments would have an agreed council/team made up of the relevant minsters, advisers etc who would, as part of their jobs, take charge of such matters, making decisions as a whole. These would be agreed withint strict, set parameters which would (hopefully) avoid any political posturing or manoeuvers in order to deal with the serious issues. Again, this is where working with (not necessarily as a part of) Westminster would be, in my view, a sensible course of action.

So to answer Doctorvee's questions...

"I am going to ask if everyone believes that different powers should be held at different levels. This could be Scotland as part of the EU, Scotland as part of the UK and the EU, or whatever other permutations you care to come up with. I have already noted that I think almost everyone agrees with the principle of this. Am I wrong?"

You are not wrong. I believe, as do you, that the modern world no longer operates, in the main, as a planet made up of all independent nations. I believe we would be better served by being part of the EU (especially in our infancy as an independent nation).

I have always been very sceptical of the EU as an institution, and don' believe it is nearly as efficient and effective as it could or should be, but the principle of the EU is a good one for an independent Scotland, and as long as we aren't forced into signing the (hopefully doomed) EU constitution, then I'm confident Scotland would prosper.

I, however don't believe we necessarily have to be part of the UK, though we can and should work closely with them within a new 'British Isles Union' (or something along those lines) within which we can gain and offer help when it is best for us all on very few, but very important issues.

Day to day Government, such as schools and hospitals and transport etc, yes, should be part of an independent Scotland, but we should have tools, mechanisms and trust enough to utilise the UK, the EU, whoever, with such links being embedded into our national plan.

Over to you Doctorvee...

Explain the economy - I'm stupid

2008-10-13T20:11:00.004+01:00

I've tried not to blog much about the 'financial meltdown', any of the seven 'Black Fridays' we've experienced or the falling share prices of pretty much everything - partly because I'm so bored of the story, and partly becuse most of it simply doesn't make sense to me.

But my main topic of ignorance, is the one that gets me most angry and confused all at the same time. If all the banks are in the same mess, where they do't have enough capital, why is the main focus of sorting out the economy and the banking industry dependant on "Banks having the confidence to lend to each other again".

If we are about to throw £37bn (on top of the other cash we've wished down the river) to these ailing banks, why is it that we are doing so, just so that they can lebd to each other.

How I see it (and this is where the 'stupid' probably comes in), is that the banks are pretty much in debt (due to the mortgage writedowns) and we are bailing them out but then we're encouraging them(!) to borrow more from other banks and then inter-lend.

What?

Hypothetical - Two sisters are maxed out on their credit cards, at the limit of their overdrafts, smashed the piggy bank with pennies left to get them through the month.

Dad then gives them £1,000 each to get them through the month, enough to 'get by'.

Then one of them has to borrow more later on in the month.

This girl shouldn't be getting daddies money any more, in my opinion.

A few months back, we ploughed billions into the markets, "to free up liquidity" and encourage inter-bank lending. Now, we're doing the same thing, when we were before led to believe the last happy-sack of £billions should free up the markets.

We, like the dad, shouldn't be funding a system like this, or is there more to it I just don't get?
Please help me understand this, because I'm beginning to see the banks as wannabe wags who just shop for shoes.

The Poison of the SNP

2008-10-11T09:55:00.001+01:00

Welcome to the blogosphere - soon to be renamed 'The SNP chatroom'.

The CyberNats must have had a merry dance when Kezia Dugdale announced her blogging days were at an end, though I cannot see it as anything more than pathetic that this should be seen as a victory for the SNP.

There is a slight concern at Political Dissuasion HQ, that the SNP, when faced with someone capable, will turn into the News of the World in their relentless, irrelevant pursuit of someone just to break them. There are so, so many SNP/pro-independence blogs out here in blogland, and who can argue against it? If Independence is on the up, and people are feeling passionate enough about it to blog and write and debate, then that's just bloody lovely.

If the SNP/pro-independence supporters are just out to crush anyone else's suggestion that independence might not be the shining light for this country, then in that case what's the point?

Like her or hate her, Kezia Dugdale was one of very, very few Scottish Labour blogs out there, and as a result, offering a different opinion to the backslapping, thigh-rubbing SNP blogs, created GENUINE DEBATE. Like her or hate her, she was voted by the blogosphere to be one of the most popular blogs to read, voted for by folks from across the spectrum (yes, even some SNP supporters voted for her!).

She came in for stick, but she'll have expected that being one of very few prominent Labour blogs around. She'll have expected it, because although she defends him to the hilt, Kezia knows that Lord Foulkes is a walking ridicule of Scottish politics and like community art, is a waste of taxpayers money.

But why would the SNP be pleased that she's a goner? If she was just one girl, pushing 'nothing more than the party-line', then why would the SNP give a shit?

Well, I've realised, as much as the SNP talk about consensus politics and listening to the people and working together, that is not their end game. They want to ridicule and politically crucify anyone who stands in their way, especially in the blogosphere. The amount of abuse some anti-independence blogs have received has been ridiculous.
I've always had a sense that the SNP since winning in 2007, had a bit of 'gallas swagger' to them, which I kind of liked, felt Scotland needed. I always thought that Salmond seemed a wee bit too smug, a bit of a 'wee shit' sense about him, which after WetWipeMcConnell, we definitely needed.

But now, to me, there are strong elements within the SNP, both in Parliament and outside in the blogosphere, the street, wherever you find these Nats, that are just a bunch of nasty shits. Really, there are so many reasons I should support the SNP, and if you go through the archives, you'll see me applauding them and Salmond time and time again.

But they've just sort of gone back to being angry, sort of like Labour are now. They've obvioulsy realised that even if they get their independence referendum, they'll probably lose it. Which worries me. I've always worried about the SNP's 'Independence or bust' philosophy and I'm worried they're only willing to play nice if they get independence - if not, they'll just be an angry bunch of wanna-be freedomites, who just walk about in a bad fucking mood, looking for someone to take it out on.
This doesn't help when we have an opposition who is too angry at the SNP for winning.

Government - ANGRY with no easy fix.
Opposition - ANGRY with no easy fix.

Not a good set up for political harmony, methinks.

So this nasty edge to the SNP is eeking out. Disagree with us in an effective way, and we'll come after you, spend hours trying pick a hole in a mere suggestion, and generally, not being nice.

The arrogance of winning combined with the frustration of (probably) not getting independence is a Nationalist brew, as they had all these plans and dreams for an independent Scotland that their motivation, and their intentions have been hampered, leaving an impotent SNP.

As winter draws nearer, the skies, like the SNP are turning darker by the day.

Man Flu...Man crash-landed

2008-10-05T09:32:00.002+01:00

OK, so has not been a good week, and I'm going to blame Gordon Brown.

1) I have a severe, possibly critical case of man-flu, and have phoned all my loved ones, just incase the worst happens - only the elderly are offered and encouraged to get a flu shot, so due to age discrimination, I'm blaming Brown for my illness and possible death (it's a BAD case of man-flu!)

2) I was made redundant last week, and although I didn't work in a financial background, I'm blaming the credit crunch, which in turn, I'm blaming Gordon Brown for. (I was initially delighted to 'get paid to quit', but once I realised there are either no jobs out there or so many bankers claiming they have skills they don't really have, and it dawned on me I might not saunter jovially into another job on better money, now I'm bummed)

3) The weather. Yes, I'm blaming the Prime Minister for the weather. Global warming, your the PM, every time it rains I'm going to blame global warming, which in turn I'm going to blame on you.

4) All of the above + football.

I'm playing football today which...

Isn't good at the best of times when it's sh*tting it down with rain.
And you have a life-threatening cold/man-flu/disease/plague/sniffel.
And it costs £5.

So fuck you Gordon Brown, thanks for fucking up my weekend.

SNP throw their toys out the tram

2008-10-03T15:48:00.004+01:00

I can here SNP Tactical Voting "Yip"ing at this one. And Georgio Foulkes getting ready to rant again.

An SNP councillor is calling for the resignation of the boss of Edinburgh's tram project.

He claims that "gridlock" on the first day of roadworks on the Mound, means that this is a massive failure, and TIE chief Willie Gallagher should resign.

Now, I've not been a fan of the trams4edinburgh idea from the beginning, and still think they're a bad idea, but Steve Cardownie is making a fool of himself.

Day One: something goes wrong, so someone should get sacked? What a nonsense philosophy.

My focus of agitation towards leader of the SNP group, Cardownie, is two-fold.

ONE - for the last few months, if you tried to travel up Leith Walk during rush hour in a car or bus, you were met with gridlock and ridiculous delays and diversions. Did you scream about it then? No. You only grumble (grumble = demanding a resignation) when

"It was just terrible on Wednesday, I had to make two U-turns to get home as it was pandemonium." Aww, bless.

Ok, so because you had some difficulty driving in Edinburgh (where it's difficult enough anyway), you blow a fuse? This is what you call a ridiculous case of political road rage.

If you gave a toss about transport and infrastructure and Edinburgh, you'd have known that Leith Walk was like this already, has been for months, but you didn't, and you didn't complain, so don't just moan because it inconveniences you a wee bit.

TWO - Anyone who sits on Edinburgh City Council, can shut the f*ck up when talking about traffic and gridlock in the capital. Edinburgh City Council are legendary for their inability, AS A COUNCIL (so don't be blaming contractors), regardless of which party held control, when it comes to roadworks and gridlock. Maybe it was gridlocked because everything else was in such a mess that a tiny bit of roadworks (remember, this is just DAY ONE) sends it over the edge.

So George Foulkes, if you want to rant at this guy, go ahead.

Although I don't agree with the trams, they're going ahead and I just have to live with it. Part of living with it is accepting that to make progress, things will have to be disrupted for a while. The SNP have to realise, that the votes have been cast, counted and verified and we're having a tram system and what comes with that. To demand the resignation of TIE's Willie Gallagher is just the SNP through their toys oot the tram because they didn't get what they wanted.

---------------------------

He also uses the most potentially dangerous line anyone from the SNP could throw out there...

"The buck has to stop somewhere, so I would say that would be the chief executive...he is responsible so he has to resign.
"How could it have gone so badly and how do we know it won't happen again? With power comes responsibility."

So the next time Salmond/the Government/a Government agency/an SNP employee messes up, I expect to here from Steve Cardownie with such phrases directed towards Salmond.

Scottish Labour - Another councillor...another scandal

2008-10-02T17:56:00.003+01:00

It looks like after the SNP's gun-totin', Councillor Hanif, Labour's councillors are now at it.

John Holden, Labour representative for Inverness South, has apparently been arrested for fraud. Well I can't help but chuckle.

Will the Iain Grays, the Cathy Jamiesons and the Kezia Dugdales be screaming "SHAME!" from the parliament's poorly built rooftops? Will they instantly be demanding that Holden be suspended, punished, resign, expelled from the party or at worst, put down?

I'm guessing not.

And you know they won't, and you know they'll come up with some pish, even if he's found guilty, to explain that he did nothing wrong, Labour's shite smells of roses and it's actually all Alex Salmond's fault.

And the difference between Holden and Hanif? Holden (if found guilty) will have broken the law, whereas Hanif will just have done something that society frowns upon. Now, I'm not defending Hanif's weaponised-butlins soujourn, but it must be said that he didn't break the law, whereas if found guilty, Holden will have done.

Even if Hanif was pointing a Kalashnikov at Scottish Labour, they still wouldn't hold their hands up.

And we know why. Labour's policy is (and I'll concede, almost all political parties are exactly the same, it's just that the current issue concerns a Labour member)

"Not in our backyard! (but if it's in our frontyard, then we mustn't grumble)."

I hope to see Labour pushing for the same punishment they demanded for Hanif, because Holden's actions are deemed by our laws to be worse than Hanif's.

Go on Labour prove me wrong - but we know you won't. "SHAME!"

The new Met commissioner...

2008-10-02T15:08:00.002+01:00

Well, isn't this a strange event?

I could go on and on and on about the history of Sir Ian Blair, but I won't. The de Menezes issue and his blatant Labourism probably didn't help, but the worst part in all of this, the scandalously sickening, wrong bit in all of this, is the prolonged, vicious campaign that the London Evening Standard ran against him for years. He was hounded to the same extent by this paper as Ken Livingstone was, and when you are the only real 'London paper', you're going to hold an unhealthy sway over Londoner's views.

So yet again, the media has hounded this man to the end of his career. We really need to sort this media nonsense out. But anyway, on to the main reason for my post.

With such media scrutiny (some of it warranted due to the nature of the job, some it really not), this appointment, an appointment made by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, against a Conservative London mayor and a Conservative-swinging London Evening Standard, is almost a mini-by-election for the Labour Government.

This role, which only recently has become so well publicised and politicised, is now considered fair game in the same way that Robin Cook's love life and John Prescott's waist to the media were, where they do not feel compelled to focus on the issues (ie how good he/she'll be at the job) but will focus on personality politics.

And if Labour appoint someone that has any smackage of scandal, then suddenly, that is the story - not the future of the Met, not the necessary reforms to systems in the organisation, not the future of counter-terrorism operations - that 'Labour appoint crony' or something that detracts from the issue.

But the problem now is, with the role being so public and the media - and politicians - being so intrusive into the politics of what should be a non-political role, that Labour will struggle to find anyone to take the job. It's no secret that very few people would be willing to take it.

But with the Tories on the march in the polls, Boris as London Mayor (who will certainly be putting his buffoon's worth in) and the ridiculously Tory London Evening Standard, then Jacqui Smith will have to appoint someone whiter than white. Better make that bluer than blue if you want to avoid a PR fight.

Iraq v The Economy - put your money where your future is

2008-09-25T12:36:00.003+01:00

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!

One's purse is empty - Our Scabby Queen

2008-09-25T12:08:00.005+01:00

"ROOM TO LET

House 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."

It looks like the credit crunch is even hitting the royal family.

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).

Katholicism Kelly (Krackpot)

2008-09-24T12:00:00.004+01:00

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.

The scandal unfolds... media/government pt2

2008-09-22T16:31:00.004+01:00

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.

Gordon Brown, the Banks and the Media - the impotents of society

2008-09-19T12:01:00.003+01:00

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.

Carlsberg don't do Labour Shadow Cabinets, but if they did...

2008-09-16T13:22:00.000+01:00

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.

Criminally Liberal

2008-09-16T10:28:00.000+01:00

"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.

That Gray area between truth and appearance of truth - where Labour lies

2008-09-15T13:01:00.000+01:00

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.

The bitch is back

2008-09-15T10:00:00.000+01:00

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!

Gray days - the right way forward

2008-09-13T12:47:00.000+01:00

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.