With all the trouble labour are getting themselves into over sleaze, it is a wonder how they find time to do anything else.
The reported position in MSM is that Labour are trying to deduct at source amounts out of their ever decreasing number of councilors allowances for being a councilor. You can read the Daily Fascist Mail here or the BBC here.
The standards board are looking into it.
Allowances are paid to councilors because they spend sometimes considerable amounts of time doing work for their electorate. They don't get paid a huge amount.
Asking them to pay some over seems fair enough, however demanding it isn't.
The real issue though is getting a council to spend its time effectively collecting money for a political party. You are not supposed to use council resources for party work, and that clearly is party work. This is where Labour are in my view in trouble. Of course some Labour weasels have come out of the woodwork to defend the position but I can't see it washing.
Friday, November 24, 2006
The Tosser Test
The Conservative party have just launched this website. Personally I find the language a bit unnecessary. According to Iain Dale Norman Tebbit said:
However he then went on with:
However the website and campaign seems to be getting a lot of media attention which is good. It is after all not aimed at me. It has to be said lots of Labour and Liberal people are just attacking the site without looking at what it is trying to achieve. No surprise there.
The aim of the site is to help people deal with personal debt and to avoid it if possible. Its a good thing I say. It would also be nice if there was less irresponsible lending as well as borrowing.
"I suppose this is a mark of the permissive society which has been lauded by the Labour Party over many years. There is no foul language nor physical or moral degradation which is not now embraced by the current orthodoxy. Unfortunately, the orthodoxy has reached the Conservative Party."With which I agree.
However he then went on with:
"It is not a word I would even use about Polly Toynbee."I disagree with Lord Tebbit on this. I would.
However the website and campaign seems to be getting a lot of media attention which is good. It is after all not aimed at me. It has to be said lots of Labour and Liberal people are just attacking the site without looking at what it is trying to achieve. No surprise there.
The aim of the site is to help people deal with personal debt and to avoid it if possible. Its a good thing I say. It would also be nice if there was less irresponsible lending as well as borrowing.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
The NHS's best year ever! II
I wrote this article on the NHS's best year ever here. It detailed the story of a local boy of 8, and his 20 hour ordeal to get treatment for a broken arm including being ferried by ambulance between hospitals and being kept in a cubicle next to a suicidal man.
The reason for the problem is that Accident and Emergency services are being downgraded at the local hospital, The Princess Royal. You may be interested to know that this hospital is fairly new, replacing the old Cuckfield hospital.
However it gets worse.
There is a proposed consultation on the amalgamation of maternity obstetrics and neo natal services in Eastbourne and Hastings on to one site. According to this article on the BBC's site, the consultation seems not to be on the amalgamation but where the amalgamated services will be. (Labour marginal or Conservative safeish with Liberal Democratic challenger)
Residents see that as a sham. I agree.
It does get worse still. Hospitals in Kent and West Sussex are being told to delay treatment of "routine" conditions. You can read the BBC's article on it here.
What ever the rights and wrongs of these things, there is a perception that something has gone horribly wrong.
Firstly you need to be aware of the geography of Sussex. It is a big place with large distances (in terms of time) between hospitals.
Secondly you have to wonder this. Why are hospitals losing services? All these hospitals have had these services for a long time. We are now spending huge amounts of money on the NHS so how come services are closing?
The truth is that the largest gains in throughput in the NHS were between 1990 and 1999, before the huge increase in cash came in. So where is the money going?
The reason for the problem is that Accident and Emergency services are being downgraded at the local hospital, The Princess Royal. You may be interested to know that this hospital is fairly new, replacing the old Cuckfield hospital.
However it gets worse.
There is a proposed consultation on the amalgamation of maternity obstetrics and neo natal services in Eastbourne and Hastings on to one site. According to this article on the BBC's site, the consultation seems not to be on the amalgamation but where the amalgamated services will be. (Labour marginal or Conservative safeish with Liberal Democratic challenger)
Residents see that as a sham. I agree.
It does get worse still. Hospitals in Kent and West Sussex are being told to delay treatment of "routine" conditions. You can read the BBC's article on it here.
What ever the rights and wrongs of these things, there is a perception that something has gone horribly wrong.
Firstly you need to be aware of the geography of Sussex. It is a big place with large distances (in terms of time) between hospitals.
Secondly you have to wonder this. Why are hospitals losing services? All these hospitals have had these services for a long time. We are now spending huge amounts of money on the NHS so how come services are closing?
The truth is that the largest gains in throughput in the NHS were between 1990 and 1999, before the huge increase in cash came in. So where is the money going?
Relative Poverty and the fallacy of redistribution
Much waffle has been spoken today about this document revealed to the world by Guido Fawks (Big hat tip to Guido again). The document is not a policy document but a discussion document by Greg Clark MP and Peter Franklin. Guido has it here.
It seems to me much of the the vacuous chattering classes assume we have signed up for some sort of massive tax based redistribution of wealth. We haven't.
It seems the document looks at measuring poverty in relative terms defined as those living in households with 60% of contemporary median household income.
Fine, but there is an issue. Firstly what about young single people living on their own? How much of a problem would it be if their income was less than 60% of the median household income?
The second issue is that many families now have dual incomes, out of which they pay for child care. Families with much lower overall income who have a stay at home adult look poorer, but do not have the expense of paying for childcare either. People make choices. Some want a high pressure high pay job, others don't. Some have good luck others don't. Some work hard through school and then a career and others don't. The people who don't are not bad or indolent, they may just choose to enjoy life a little more and have less ulcers or what ever. Some people do difficult high pressure jobs that don't pay very well because either they enjoy that job or they feel called to do it. It would be daft to consider any of that a problem that should concern the state.
That said we do have a hard core underclass who are either unemployed or are not in full time well paid work. This group is much harder to help.
Some seem condemned by postcode in that because of where they live, people make assumptions about them which then limit their ability to get a job, and education or socialise with some other people.
Some people have poor literacy and/or numeracy severely limiting job prospects, whilst others may have mental health issues or drug addictions.
The question is would redistribution help, and what do we mean by redistribution any way.
If we mean that we try to remove people on low incomes from the tax system altogether then the Conservative party has been in favour of that for years.
If however we mean taking tax revenue and giving it to people on low incomes then we need to look at all the implications of that. People who do poorly paid work do so because they either can't or won't get better paid work, for a variety of reasons, however employers who engage people on low incomes do so because they can. If the state then tops up those earnings, then we are all subsidising an employer who is not paying a reasonable wage for the work he is asking people to do for him. In a free market you would hope as employment rises that employers would be competing for staff.
Alas a lot of unskilled, and indeed semi and fully skilled work gets filled by immigrants who will accept lower wages because they have their household in another country where living costs are less. This makes it impossible for low wage earners to have their wages driven up by scarcity of supply.
In short I take the view that if you pay people to be poor, then as there is money in it, people will be poor.
If we want to genuinely tackle poverty we have to deal with a number of issues.
Incidentally Iain Dale links to this piece on Conservative Home by Greg Clark whilst Borris Johnson has written this for the Telegraph.
I forgot to mention Greg Clark's piece on Conservative home points out that whilst those just within the 60% of median household income has fallen, those in the bottom 40% of median household income has risen.
It seems to me much of the the vacuous chattering classes assume we have signed up for some sort of massive tax based redistribution of wealth. We haven't.
It seems the document looks at measuring poverty in relative terms defined as those living in households with 60% of contemporary median household income.
Fine, but there is an issue. Firstly what about young single people living on their own? How much of a problem would it be if their income was less than 60% of the median household income?
The second issue is that many families now have dual incomes, out of which they pay for child care. Families with much lower overall income who have a stay at home adult look poorer, but do not have the expense of paying for childcare either. People make choices. Some want a high pressure high pay job, others don't. Some have good luck others don't. Some work hard through school and then a career and others don't. The people who don't are not bad or indolent, they may just choose to enjoy life a little more and have less ulcers or what ever. Some people do difficult high pressure jobs that don't pay very well because either they enjoy that job or they feel called to do it. It would be daft to consider any of that a problem that should concern the state.
That said we do have a hard core underclass who are either unemployed or are not in full time well paid work. This group is much harder to help.
Some seem condemned by postcode in that because of where they live, people make assumptions about them which then limit their ability to get a job, and education or socialise with some other people.
Some people have poor literacy and/or numeracy severely limiting job prospects, whilst others may have mental health issues or drug addictions.
The question is would redistribution help, and what do we mean by redistribution any way.
If we mean that we try to remove people on low incomes from the tax system altogether then the Conservative party has been in favour of that for years.
If however we mean taking tax revenue and giving it to people on low incomes then we need to look at all the implications of that. People who do poorly paid work do so because they either can't or won't get better paid work, for a variety of reasons, however employers who engage people on low incomes do so because they can. If the state then tops up those earnings, then we are all subsidising an employer who is not paying a reasonable wage for the work he is asking people to do for him. In a free market you would hope as employment rises that employers would be competing for staff.
Alas a lot of unskilled, and indeed semi and fully skilled work gets filled by immigrants who will accept lower wages because they have their household in another country where living costs are less. This makes it impossible for low wage earners to have their wages driven up by scarcity of supply.
In short I take the view that if you pay people to be poor, then as there is money in it, people will be poor.
If we want to genuinely tackle poverty we have to deal with a number of issues.
- As Greg Clark's report rightly says people are becoming entangled in our welfare states safety net. We need to find better ways to assist the transition out of it.
- Many people end up with a poor education because no one thinks they can or should do better.
- We need an immigration policy to suit the whole country not just the economy. By that I mean we need to beware of the effect on wages of large numbers of unskilled immigrants.
Incidentally Iain Dale links to this piece on Conservative Home by Greg Clark whilst Borris Johnson has written this for the Telegraph.
I forgot to mention Greg Clark's piece on Conservative home points out that whilst those just within the 60% of median household income has fallen, those in the bottom 40% of median household income has risen.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Give addicts heroin?
I heard this first on Radio 4, apparently the Deputy Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire, Howard Roberts says we should prescribe drug addicts heroin. The thinking is they would then no longer need to commit crime to fund their habit. You can read the BBC's article here.
I agree. However I would go a little further. I would prescribe heroin to anyone who could show they were an addict as soon as possible. This would also have the effect of cutting drug dealers income stream as well as reducing the need for crime.
Whilst drug addicts are going for their regular fix, you also have the opportunity to try and get them off heroin and rehabilitated which is also a good thing.
In short, we could reduce crime, make life harder for drug dealers, have regular contact with addicts so enabling us to rehabilitate some and make sure doses are clean and correct (saving on drug overdoses and other problems with badly cut heroin).
Looks like a win win situation to me.
I agree. However I would go a little further. I would prescribe heroin to anyone who could show they were an addict as soon as possible. This would also have the effect of cutting drug dealers income stream as well as reducing the need for crime.
Whilst drug addicts are going for their regular fix, you also have the opportunity to try and get them off heroin and rehabilitated which is also a good thing.
In short, we could reduce crime, make life harder for drug dealers, have regular contact with addicts so enabling us to rehabilitate some and make sure doses are clean and correct (saving on drug overdoses and other problems with badly cut heroin).
Looks like a win win situation to me.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
What happens here is the future of the world's security in the 21st century
cool!
Any chance of some more kit?
Troops?
Armour?
Helicopters?
Anything?
I have just read this from the BBC on Tony Blair's visit to Afghanistan. We already know that he communicates with his commanders in the field by the press megaphone, we also know that the only way they think they can reply is also by the press megaphone. You can read my article on the subject here.
It is just a bit of a shame Tony has only just noticed.
Having said that I like this quote:
"So what do you do?" Tony Blair asked one of the snipers, lined up to represent the garrison for a 90-minute trip to Camp Bastion.
He looked down at his long-barrelled rifle, shrugged as if to say "what do you think?"
No, go on Tony, tell us what you think a sniper does with a snipers rifle?
Monday, November 20, 2006
And the 3,000th visitor was Ellee Seymour!
Just crossed over another milestone, 3,000 visitors since June 26th 2006, and not all of them me!
Ellee also comments as well. Feel free to coment your self.
You can visit Ellee's blog here.
Update 20:24
I forgot to mention that I also got No. 41 in Iain Dale's top 100 Conservative blogs!
Ellee also comments as well. Feel free to coment your self.
You can visit Ellee's blog here.
Update 20:24
I forgot to mention that I also got No. 41 in Iain Dale's top 100 Conservative blogs!
Sunday, November 19, 2006
John Reid is taking up an interesting position
Much has been made of the Attorney General, Tony's mate, Lord Goldsmiths comments on extending the detention without charge of terrorist suspects beyond 90 days. You can read the BBC's article here.
His position is clear. No, because he has seen no evidence to support an increase as yet. This is broadly the position of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats as well, though I expect those parties to be harder to convince.
However what has interested me is Dr. John "Comrade" Reid's position. You will remember him as Secretary of State for making Ghengis Khan look like a Liberal the Home Office. His words are different to Lord "Sorry I can't get you off this time Tony" Goldsmith, but mean the same.
He is reviewing the position but appears as yet not to have seen any evidence to convince him. In other words I can't see we need the extension. Meanwhile Gordon Brown has been saying he supports an extension to 90 days which Sir Ian Blair (who I wrote ought to be sacked) backed in a speech in Germany.
To be fair John Prescott seemed a bit dubious as well the other week. He indicated that parliament had decided, and if it was going to revisit the case then there would have to be evidence.
So what is the story and why is it interesting? It seems to me that Comrade Reid had been jogging off gently to the right, all the time keeping an eye over his shoulder at what Gordon "I want your pensions" Brown was doing. Gordon obviously seeing this gap open up on the right of Ghengis Khan started running desperately to catch up, and out Reid Reid. Except that as soon as Gordon started running it seems Reid stopped for breath, and now Gordon has sprinted past Reid on the right, Reid is sauntering back to more sensible ground, making Gordon look very very bad to the key electorate, that is those who will elect the next labour leader.
Fascinating game play by by John Reid. I think he has totally wrong footed Brown on this one, but both are playing politics with the war on terror which is unforgivable.
His position is clear. No, because he has seen no evidence to support an increase as yet. This is broadly the position of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats as well, though I expect those parties to be harder to convince.
However what has interested me is Dr. John "Comrade" Reid's position. You will remember him as Secretary of State for making Ghengis Khan look like a Liberal the Home Office. His words are different to Lord "Sorry I can't get you off this time Tony" Goldsmith, but mean the same.
He is reviewing the position but appears as yet not to have seen any evidence to convince him. In other words I can't see we need the extension. Meanwhile Gordon Brown has been saying he supports an extension to 90 days which Sir Ian Blair (who I wrote ought to be sacked) backed in a speech in Germany.
To be fair John Prescott seemed a bit dubious as well the other week. He indicated that parliament had decided, and if it was going to revisit the case then there would have to be evidence.
So what is the story and why is it interesting? It seems to me that Comrade Reid had been jogging off gently to the right, all the time keeping an eye over his shoulder at what Gordon "I want your pensions" Brown was doing. Gordon obviously seeing this gap open up on the right of Ghengis Khan started running desperately to catch up, and out Reid Reid. Except that as soon as Gordon started running it seems Reid stopped for breath, and now Gordon has sprinted past Reid on the right, Reid is sauntering back to more sensible ground, making Gordon look very very bad to the key electorate, that is those who will elect the next labour leader.
Fascinating game play by by John Reid. I think he has totally wrong footed Brown on this one, but both are playing politics with the war on terror which is unforgivable.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Iraq a disaster, Blair in denial
So we have this mess in Iraq, and our dear leader Tony Blair gets interviewed by David Frost on Al Jazeera's English service. You can read the Al Jazeera article here.
What struck me though was not Blair's alleged admission that the violence since the invasion has been a disaster, but what he said next. This was of corse to David Frost asking if Iraq has become a disaster.
I quote:
Sorry? What? It is not because of some accident in planning? It's all down to the bad guys who should have been what? Less bad? Is this man really such a pratt? The idea behind planning is to have a plan for a number of potential scenarios not just a single wishful thinking one. What was he expecting? Al Qaeda to just roll over and play dead?
There were massive mistakes in the planning which were foreseen by many people especially planners in the Pentagon and State Department. I have listed them in my article here. The fact that he can't see just how badly planned and resourced the mission was indicates that he is in a state of total denial. Clearly he has become a major liability. A was leader needs a brain that works.
You can read more on Iraq here.
What struck me though was not Blair's alleged admission that the violence since the invasion has been a disaster, but what he said next. This was of corse to David Frost asking if Iraq has become a disaster.
I quote:
"It has, but you see what I say to people is why is it difficult in Iraq?
"It's not difficult because of some accident in planning, it's difficult because there's a deliberate strategy - al-Qaeda with Sunni insurgents on one hand, Iranian-backed elements with Shia militias on the other - to create a situation in which the will of the majority for peace is displaced by the will of the minority for war."
Sorry? What? It is not because of some accident in planning? It's all down to the bad guys who should have been what? Less bad? Is this man really such a pratt? The idea behind planning is to have a plan for a number of potential scenarios not just a single wishful thinking one. What was he expecting? Al Qaeda to just roll over and play dead?
There were massive mistakes in the planning which were foreseen by many people especially planners in the Pentagon and State Department. I have listed them in my article here. The fact that he can't see just how badly planned and resourced the mission was indicates that he is in a state of total denial. Clearly he has become a major liability. A was leader needs a brain that works.
You can read more on Iraq here.
Nationwide Laptop Theft
Apparently in August a Nationwide employee had a laptop stolen. No problem there. Just buy another one. However according to this report from the BBC there is data on 11 million customers on there.
Here is where I have a huge issue. We have large data centers storing masses of information on customers behind carefully constructed security barriers and some pratt can simply take all the data out on their laptop where it is fundamentally insecure.
This is also not the first time this sort of thing has happened. Laptops have been lost and stolen containing all sorts of sensitive information.
This should NEVER EVER happen as the laptops need never have such information on them. If you need to work from home as well as work, fine, you can get a desktop in the company behind all the security via secure VPN's and a terminal server type session.
There is no excuse for this sort of lax security. Nationwide are not alone in being this stupid with OUR data. Government has form on this sort of stupidity as well.
Looking on the bright side the laptop may have been formated and sold for peanuts so the data may have been shredded already.
Here is where I have a huge issue. We have large data centers storing masses of information on customers behind carefully constructed security barriers and some pratt can simply take all the data out on their laptop where it is fundamentally insecure.
This is also not the first time this sort of thing has happened. Laptops have been lost and stolen containing all sorts of sensitive information.
This should NEVER EVER happen as the laptops need never have such information on them. If you need to work from home as well as work, fine, you can get a desktop in the company behind all the security via secure VPN's and a terminal server type session.
There is no excuse for this sort of lax security. Nationwide are not alone in being this stupid with OUR data. Government has form on this sort of stupidity as well.
Looking on the bright side the laptop may have been formated and sold for peanuts so the data may have been shredded already.
Lord David Owen is a Liar
I have just heard an interview with Lord David "hide in a corner" Owen on the shambles in Iraq. Apparently he supported the war but thinks its a mess.
On that point we agree.
He thinks that this is worse than Suez and as bad as Gallipoli. He also found it wrong that we can't have an inquiry. There I agree.
He then went on the allege that whilst he as a member of the SDP and behind the Falklands war he, and indeed all opposition parties wanted an inquiry into that which they got.
This is where I have a problem. I remember watching this pratt say before the fleet got to work in the liberation of the Falklands, saying that we had lost the Falklands and we might as well give up.
Well that is what you get with these people. Founding father of the Lib Dems. No surprise at his mendacity then.
On that point we agree.
He thinks that this is worse than Suez and as bad as Gallipoli. He also found it wrong that we can't have an inquiry. There I agree.
He then went on the allege that whilst he as a member of the SDP and behind the Falklands war he, and indeed all opposition parties wanted an inquiry into that which they got.
This is where I have a problem. I remember watching this pratt say before the fleet got to work in the liberation of the Falklands, saying that we had lost the Falklands and we might as well give up.
Well that is what you get with these people. Founding father of the Lib Dems. No surprise at his mendacity then.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Important: Health, Safety and Environment
Last Saturday I bought, or rather a friend who was going to Focus Do It All bought me a 7lb sledge hammer.
It had a health an safety notice on it which can be paraphrased thus:
It had a health an safety notice on it which can be paraphrased thus:
"Whilst this hammer can hit hard, don't hit anything hard with it"Strange. What it actually said was, and I quote:
"Use this hammer to drive and pull common nails only"What? Pull nails? it doesn't have a claw so how are you going to do that? Besides which what is a common nail, and why use such a large hammer to drive one in? Any way, it goes on:
"Never strike tool, hardened nails or other hard objects as chipping can occur, possibly resulting in eye damage or other injury.So don't strike your tool with a sledge hammer. You have been warned!
MUST WEAR EYE, FACE AND BODY PROTECTION WHEN THIS TOOL IS BEING USED"
Cash for peerages This weeks roundup
This has all been covered elsewhere but:
There seem to have been two interesting developments. Firstly Guido unearthed this letter from Yates of the Yard to Dr. Tony Wright of the Public Administration Select Committee. It appears to have been leaked AFTER Yates sent it. The MSM have now picked up and run with Guido's scoop, though I do not recall him being given any credit for it.
Then we have the Telegraph saying that Tony Blair is going to use the Abu Hamza Defence to get out of this mess alleging that he has been tried by media and unfair leaks. The article is here. Iain Dales says this, whilst Guido has this.
Interestingly enough in Yates letter he makes it clear that he is confident that his lot are not leaking, and those leaks are coming from elsewhere. He also says that he knows it is not his lot because there is much significant material that has not been leaked.
Guido makes much here of this reported labour NEC meeting where Ann Black says Tony Blair asked for loans because donors would not give for fear of being lambasted in the press, and wanted to stay anonymous. Guido and the Evening Standard point out that Labour donors did not want to remain anonymous, they offered donations first but were turned down in favour of loans.
Guido then quotes the relevant part of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which says that covering up donations is a very naughty thing to do.
So what do we know so far?
Well Yates of the yard is investigating possible offences under The Honours, Prevention of Abuses Act 1925 and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 but only in relation to 2005.
He appears to have uncovered significant material. He hopes to be able to pass the file to the CPS in January 2007, provided that he gets cooperation from those involved and his investigations do not end up leading elsewhere.
He has interviewed 90 people so far.
35 in the Labour Party,
29 in the Conservative party
4 in the Liberal Democrats
22 people not in a party.
He has sent letters to ministers to stop any last minute Burrell type interventions (that is where some one remembers something at the last minute that exonerates someone). See here for more info.
Whilst lots of people have said there will be nothing to find, clearly if the Abu Hamza defence story is correct then Tony Blair is becoming very worried.
We also know that Labour donors were happy to donate and publicly too. It appears it was the fund raisers who did not want donation information getting out.
You can read more articles on cash for peerages here.
There seem to have been two interesting developments. Firstly Guido unearthed this letter from Yates of the Yard to Dr. Tony Wright of the Public Administration Select Committee. It appears to have been leaked AFTER Yates sent it. The MSM have now picked up and run with Guido's scoop, though I do not recall him being given any credit for it.
Then we have the Telegraph saying that Tony Blair is going to use the Abu Hamza Defence to get out of this mess alleging that he has been tried by media and unfair leaks. The article is here. Iain Dales says this, whilst Guido has this.
Interestingly enough in Yates letter he makes it clear that he is confident that his lot are not leaking, and those leaks are coming from elsewhere. He also says that he knows it is not his lot because there is much significant material that has not been leaked.
Guido makes much here of this reported labour NEC meeting where Ann Black says Tony Blair asked for loans because donors would not give for fear of being lambasted in the press, and wanted to stay anonymous. Guido and the Evening Standard point out that Labour donors did not want to remain anonymous, they offered donations first but were turned down in favour of loans.
Guido then quotes the relevant part of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which says that covering up donations is a very naughty thing to do.
So what do we know so far?
Well Yates of the yard is investigating possible offences under The Honours, Prevention of Abuses Act 1925 and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 but only in relation to 2005.
He appears to have uncovered significant material. He hopes to be able to pass the file to the CPS in January 2007, provided that he gets cooperation from those involved and his investigations do not end up leading elsewhere.
He has interviewed 90 people so far.
35 in the Labour Party,
29 in the Conservative party
4 in the Liberal Democrats
22 people not in a party.
He has sent letters to ministers to stop any last minute Burrell type interventions (that is where some one remembers something at the last minute that exonerates someone). See here for more info.
Whilst lots of people have said there will be nothing to find, clearly if the Abu Hamza defence story is correct then Tony Blair is becoming very worried.
We also know that Labour donors were happy to donate and publicly too. It appears it was the fund raisers who did not want donation information getting out.
You can read more articles on cash for peerages here.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Question time tonight
Apparently Question Time tonight will feature:
Boris Johnson MP
Tony McNulty MP
Baroness Bonham-Carter
Shappi Khorsandi
Robert "The Tangerine Man" Kilroy Silk MEP
If you are a fan of the Tangerine Man, have a look at this song and animation. It is really rather good, and funny as well.
(Hat tip to Max on polliticalbeting.com.)
Boris Johnson MP
Tony McNulty MP
Baroness Bonham-Carter
Shappi Khorsandi
Robert "The Tangerine Man" Kilroy Silk MEP
If you are a fan of the Tangerine Man, have a look at this song and animation. It is really rather good, and funny as well.
(Hat tip to Max on polliticalbeting.com.)
Fisking the Queen's Speech
The full text of the Queen's speech can be found on the BBC's website here.
I wonder what they think is wrong with the HFEA or the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, but no doubt we will find out.
I suspect the planning system reform will be controversial in some quarters as it is already the case that a Councilor who has a published view or indeed was elected upon some position on a planning issue can't vote on it. I suspect the reform means make it easier to concrete over land and objectors.
Good luck. Give my regards to Dr. No!
Sounds 'nice'.
With this lot in charge I pray as well.
"My lords and members of the House of Commons, my government will pursue policies aimed at meeting the challenges which the United Kingdom faces at home and abroad."Fair enough.
"A stable economy is the foundation of a fair and prosperous society. My government will continue to maintain low inflation, sound public finances and high employment."You jest surely? Inflation is on the up or rather the RPI is, the governments fiddle figures are a little down but higher than target, Gordon Brown is borrowing hand over fist and ahead of projections, whilst we have had continuous growth since 1992, and whilst employment may be high, unemployment continues to rise which begs the question, who is getting all the jobs? On top of this interest rates are up, which is not going to reduce unemployment.
"At the heart of my government's programme will be further action to provide strong, secure and stable communities, and to address the threat of terrorism.Victims at the heart of the Criminal Justice system? We heard similar in the 2002 Queen's Speech, so you would hope that was job done, no? But what have ID cards got to do with public safety? Are they going to be bullet proof?
My government will put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system, support the police and all those responsible for the public's safety, and proceed with the development of ID cards."
"A bill will be brought forward for the next stage of reform of the criminal justice system, giving the police and probation services new powers to protect the public from violent offenders and anti-social behaviour."How nice. 63 Acts on the subject in 9 years and we need more? You just cannot be serious? What have you done with the rest of them? We get more legislation on this subject in 1 year with this lot than in the previous 50. Quite a lot goes unenforced, gets repealed or is unworkable. How about "My government will tidy up the laws it has already passed and enforce some of them?
"Legislation will be introduced to improve the way that offenders are managed and supervised."You need legislation to tell your civil servants what to do? Priceless.
"Measures will be brought forward to give law enforcement agencies new powers to combat serious and organised crime."The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 no good then? I have to agree that the lot that passed that bill were useless so you may be right. Oh no! Hang on a minute, that was from the 2004 Queen's speech. You can't accuse this Government for not doing it's bit for recycling.
"A bill will be introduced to provide the immigration service with further powers to police the country's borders, tackle immigration crime, and to make it easier to deport those who break the law."They don't need any more powers, they need the resource to enforce the ones they have. As for deporting criminals, the Home Secretary has the power under the 1971 Immigration Act can exclude any foreign national on the grounds of the public good. In short there are powers a plenty. It is a resource issue.
"A bill will be introduced to provide for trials without a jury in serious fraud cases."The Americans can try the Enron case, one of the most costly and complex frauds with a jury in a timely fashion, but you want to rid us of basic constitutional protection because you can't organise a court case? Brilliant!
"Legislation will be brought forward to improve the administration of justice by reforming the tribunal system, the qualifications for judicial appointment and the enforcement of judgments."Hmm.. We have seen this sort of thing before, for example in the Access to Justice Act 1999. I will have to wait to see what exactly it is that they propose.
"My government will publish a bill on climate change as part of its policy to protect the environment, consistent with the need to secure long-term energy supplies."Jolly good. Shame about the record. It is after all worse than the previous Conservative Government. Let us see how it pans out.
Don't mention the hospital closures, I did, but I think I got away with it. Or indeed the lay offs, IT fiasco's, golly gosh there is so much to say on how money has just been tipped down the drain it is not true.
"My government will continue its investment in, and reforms of, the public services in order to improve further their effectiveness and to help the most vulnerable members of society."
"My government will take forward legislation to reform the welfare system, and to reduce poverty."Any chance of getting tax credits working properly so I don't get letters like this? Or indeed two contradictory letters in the same day?
"A bill will be introduced to improve the system of child support."Yet another attempt to fix the CSA?
"A bill will be introduced providing for long-term reform of pensions."Can't argue with that level of detail.
"Legislation will provide for free off-peak local bus travel for pensioners and disabled people."Don't they already get this?
"My government's programme of educational reform will continue to raise standards in schools to help all children achieve their full potential."Will it now? University lecturers and employers remain to be convinced that school leavers can read or write properly, which is understandable, especially when you hear stories like this or this.
"A bill will be introduced to reform the further education system so that it can better equip people with the skills that they and the economy need."Is that an end to media studies then? See above. Lets start with being able to read and write like everyone else.
"My government will carry through the modernisation of healthcare based on the founding principles of the National Health Service."Principles? Tony Blair? Now that would be new. Any chance West Sussex can keep its last remaining major hospital?
"A bill will be introduced to provide a better framework for treating people with mental disorders."I see. So what happened to similar proposals in the 2004 and 2005 Queen's Speeches then?
"Draft proposals will be published to reform the regulation of human embryology.Difficult to argue with this level of detail. Of course John "two jags" Prescot did have a ten year plan on transport and congestion reduction has featured in the 1999 and 1998 Queen's speech.
A draft bill will be published to tackle road congestion and to improve public transport.
My government will publish proposals to reform the planning system."
I wonder what they think is wrong with the HFEA or the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, but no doubt we will find out.
I suspect the planning system reform will be controversial in some quarters as it is already the case that a Councilor who has a published view or indeed was elected upon some position on a planning issue can't vote on it. I suspect the reform means make it easier to concrete over land and objectors.
"Legislation will provide for improved arrangements for consumer advocacy and for the regulation of estate agents."Fair enough. We will see what they come up with. After all Home Information Packs have gone down a storm. Right Move were particularly impressed.
"My government will also continue its programme of reform to provide institutions that better serve a modern democracy. It will work to build a consensus on reform of the House of Lords and will bring forward proposals."Cash for Peerages anyone?
"Bills will provide for reform of local government and enhanced powers for the Mayor and Assembly for London.We will have to see on that.
Legislation will be introduced to create an independent board to enhance confidence in government statistics."
"Members of the House of Commons. Estimates for the public services will be laid before you."If they are as good as Gordon Brown's long term borrowing predictions don't bother. I'll get a mates telephone number, multiply it by my own double it then add a random number.
"My lords and members of the House of Commons. My government will work closely with the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales."That's going to be fun after next May's elections!
"My government will work towards the restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland, including by bringing forward legislation."
Good luck. Give my regards to Dr. No!
"The Duke of Edinburgh and I look forward to our State Visit to the United States of America in May 2007 to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the Jamestown Settlement.Can't argue with that.
We also look forward to receiving the President of Ghana and Mrs Kufuor."
"My government remains committed to peace in the Middle East. It will continueWould have been nice to have a plan for peace in Iraq. Would have stopped Iraq becoming such a mess.
to work to find a lasting settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, to support the new Iraqi government in its efforts to build an enduring constitutional settlement, and to assist the government of Afghanistan."
"My government will work with the United Nations and European Union partners to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction, including addressing international concerns over North Korea and Iran, and to promote good governance.
My government will continue to work to build an effective and globally competitive European Union and will also work to strengthen the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
My government will contribute to a modern and inclusive United Nations and will work to take forward the World Trade Organisation Doha talks.
My government will continue its focus on Africa, including by seeking a resolution to the crisis in Darfur. I look forward to visiting Kampala next year for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.
My government will work to foster a strong partnership between Europe and the United States of America in order to meet these objectives."
Sounds 'nice'.
"Other measures will be laid before you."I have no doubt.
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels."
With this lot in charge I pray as well.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Speakers Corner
I have been asked in a previous thread to revive my speakers corner semi private news server with web interface that started by ripping articles from No 10's website message board also called speakers corner.
If you were a contributor to that and would like me to start it up again, email me using the email me link or leave a comment and I will see what I can do.
If you were a contributor to that and would like me to start it up again, email me using the email me link or leave a comment and I will see what I can do.
Labour Spam
A little while before the last election I visited the Labour party website, and found a section where they promised to tell me how much public services have improved since 1997.
Keeping an eye on the local press and community I knew they were talking rubbish, but wanted to find out what they had to say.
I had to enter my postcode, (fair enough they need to know where abouts I am) and unfortunately an email address.
No where did it indicate that they were going to send emails to that email address. Yet they do. It is unsolicited. It is spam.
There is an unsubscribe link, which I would use had I actually subscribed, but as I have not, I won't.
Now, I know a bit about spam. I work in it quite a lot and also report spammers quite a lot.
If Labour continue to send me spam email, I will have them blacklisted. So if you know any one at Labour HQ, tell them to do opt in, or all their mail will end up getting blocked by RBL's and the like.
They can't say they have not been warned.
Keeping an eye on the local press and community I knew they were talking rubbish, but wanted to find out what they had to say.
I had to enter my postcode, (fair enough they need to know where abouts I am) and unfortunately an email address.
No where did it indicate that they were going to send emails to that email address. Yet they do. It is unsolicited. It is spam.
There is an unsubscribe link, which I would use had I actually subscribed, but as I have not, I won't.
Now, I know a bit about spam. I work in it quite a lot and also report spammers quite a lot.
If Labour continue to send me spam email, I will have them blacklisted. So if you know any one at Labour HQ, tell them to do opt in, or all their mail will end up getting blocked by RBL's and the like.
They can't say they have not been warned.
That Queen's speech in full
My Government will bring forth more hair brained schemes and laws which make Ghengis Khan look like a liberal.
My government will try to hood wink the population into voting for them by passing more laws on things like immigration when they clearly can't be arsed to enforce the ones we have got. Any questioning of their position will be lambasted as "soft on crime" despite the said laws being a combination of over authoritarian, unworkable, and in many case will be shortly be repealed when no one is looking.
You can read the BBC's article here, and the text here.
My government will try to hood wink the population into voting for them by passing more laws on things like immigration when they clearly can't be arsed to enforce the ones we have got. Any questioning of their position will be lambasted as "soft on crime" despite the said laws being a combination of over authoritarian, unworkable, and in many case will be shortly be repealed when no one is looking.
You can read the BBC's article here, and the text here.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Thanks be to the mercy of God
I know I am a soppy old git, but I did fear for obvious reasons for the safety of the innocent people abducted in Bagdhad this morning.
I am so pleased to hear that they have all been freed unharmed (ish) that it brings tears to my eyes.
More importantly it looks like arrests have been made.
I have written much on why Iraq is in this mess, but I do hope and pray that Iraq gets out of it. Iraqi's are good and brave people, of whom I know a few.
I read a report from the New York times once of 1948, of the bravery of Iraqi volunteers who whilst out numbered and outgunned fought to the very last man to defend the village they said they would defend during the Naqba (or Israeli war of Independence depending which way you look at it). They can be very very brave.
Iraq does not deserve or need this shit, and I hope and pray for their deliverance.
You can read the BBC report on the good news here.
I am so pleased to hear that they have all been freed unharmed (ish) that it brings tears to my eyes.
More importantly it looks like arrests have been made.
I have written much on why Iraq is in this mess, but I do hope and pray that Iraq gets out of it. Iraqi's are good and brave people, of whom I know a few.
I read a report from the New York times once of 1948, of the bravery of Iraqi volunteers who whilst out numbered and outgunned fought to the very last man to defend the village they said they would defend during the Naqba (or Israeli war of Independence depending which way you look at it). They can be very very brave.
Iraq does not deserve or need this shit, and I hope and pray for their deliverance.
You can read the BBC report on the good news here.
Iran and Syria the Axis of peace?
You just could not make this up.
When the Taliban were overthrown, Iran helped, because the Taliban were the enemy and more so than America. They got nothing for it other than the most bizarre accusations that Iran, a Shia theocracy would be hosting Sunni extremists so hard line that they executed Shia Muslims in Afghanistan.
Syria has been cold shouldered as well.
This is because Donald Rumsfeld's plan was going to impress them so much, they would be left quaking in their boots.
Umm...
Looks like utter arrogance to me.
You can read my take on why we are in this mess in Iraq here, All my articles on Iraq here, and on Afghanistan here. You can read this article from the Libdemograph Independent here.
However, one thing I would say, is this:
It need not have been this way. We could have used our brains.
Winston Churchill said "Jaw jaw is better than war war". He was right. You talk right up until the time you have to present a war ultimatum. Then you go to war. You can't sit around picking and choosing who you do and don't talk to or else you end up looking like a bunch of pratts.
When the Taliban were overthrown, Iran helped, because the Taliban were the enemy and more so than America. They got nothing for it other than the most bizarre accusations that Iran, a Shia theocracy would be hosting Sunni extremists so hard line that they executed Shia Muslims in Afghanistan.
Syria has been cold shouldered as well.
This is because Donald Rumsfeld's plan was going to impress them so much, they would be left quaking in their boots.
Umm...
Looks like utter arrogance to me.
You can read my take on why we are in this mess in Iraq here, All my articles on Iraq here, and on Afghanistan here. You can read this article from the Libdemograph Independent here.
However, one thing I would say, is this:
- If you are going to bluff, make sure they don't see you (and they have)
- If you are going to negotiate do so from strength, before they have seen your hand.
It need not have been this way. We could have used our brains.
Winston Churchill said "Jaw jaw is better than war war". He was right. You talk right up until the time you have to present a war ultimatum. Then you go to war. You can't sit around picking and choosing who you do and don't talk to or else you end up looking like a bunch of pratts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
