Friday, 31 December 2010

New Year - Previous Predictions and Prophecies for 2011

Happy New Year everyone.

It seems to be a media custom at New Year to look back to the previous year and make predictions for the future. I did the same last year, so let's first have a look at how I did predicting 2010.

My first prediction last year was further financial collapse, which didn't come to pass. There was no double-dip recession, but I do think that it may just be taking time for the flaws in the system to work their way to a conclusion.

However, its interesting if you took my first prediction and applied it to Ireland: its virtually what happened there: financial collapse, the EU and IMF bully-boys going in and taking over. The government blaming everyone but themselves. Its long been posited that the UK is not that far from Ireland's situation, so you never know, I might have been a bit premature.

Anyway,  for my first prediction, I think that unemployment will become an issue in 2011, possibly linked to another dip in growth, but the financial stats managers may be crafty enough to hide any drop in growth, or at the very least, gloss over it. The reason for unemployment to get worse is that as we lose public sector jobs, the government have failed to liberate conditions for the private sector enough to encourage growth in that area. Private companies are still hamstrung by red tape and a reluctance by the banks to provide credit. In those circumstances, growth in employment seems very unlikely in the near future.

My first prediction of last year bang on the money was that the financial problem was so massive that it would take a long time to sort out and that any moves to make things better would have to be limited in order to keep the greater public on-side. The fragile coalition government we have at the moment means that the word "radical" has been consigned to the bin. Instead we have mediocre measures intended to make slight changes in order to keep everyone happy. Its like steering a supertanker with a canoe paddle: you can turn it any way you like, but it's too small to change the direction of travel. Right now our national debt is worse than before the election and the only possible way we can sort out the mess now is inflation.

Yep, another prediction for 2011 is rising inflation: everything is going to get dearer. The VAT rise might have a slight impact, but the main increase in costs for 2011 is the weakness of the pound. Fuel (which we import the majority of these days) will therefore become much dearer and push up transport costs, thereby pushing up the costs of UK goods as well.

Another prediction then is we may see a change in the supply chain: having vast central warehouses shipping stock to stores nationwide has been shown to be a system vulnerable to the weather and will suffer due to increased fuel costs. We may see more local warehousing in order to buffer against these effects but sadly increased rental costs mean this is a more expensive option: another upward push on retail prices.

One part of my second prediction of last year although not a prediction, seems uncannily familiar: a terrorist threat just weeks after a move to slacken travel security. Yes, we had the salf-same thing happen in 2010 as well. in the middle of the year there started to be dissenting voices asking for reductions in travel security, but within weeks we had a new threat in the form of the Inkjet Printer Bomb. Anyone want to call that a pattern or is it just a coincidence?
As it is, my prediction for increased security and a further reduction in liberties hasn't as yet happened, but unfortunately my prophesy that the Conservatives would continue with the status quo was spot on.

Another prediction was a full-frontal attack on drinking. Certainly there have been a number of missives from on high about the dangers of drinking this year and it does seem to be that drinking is being promoted as a new demon, to the ludicrously extreme statement that alcohol is more harmful than heroin.Nanny state knows best...?

My final prediction was quite easy: that there would be riots. I did say that I didn't understand why there weren't more riots and that still stands. I just don't understand that some people I talk too can't understand the injustices being done in the name of the government and others. I can't understand why they're happy to let it pass and carry on. I can't understand why they're not out on the streets screaming for justice, equality, fairness and a reduction in state powers over us. I can't understand why they don't care.

One thing is for sure: we will see more civil unrest: we have too, because the status quo cannot continue. Sooner or later the majority of the people in this country will see their leaders for the liars and cheats and conmen they really are. Then it'll get interesting.

I have said previously that 2010 is a pivotal year and I still maintain that fact. We've had a change of government with little change of policy. We have a coalition in government, a group of self-serving sicophants that will do anything to stay in power, except stick to their principles and previous promises. The wider public are opening their eyes to the shabby reality in Parliament and I've heard more dissenting voices among the general public than ever before. All it needs is a catalyst: a spark that will ignite public opinion and cause them to take to the streets.

Hopefully 2011 will continue is the same vein, with the government being exposed more and more for the liars and cheats they are and public opinion increasingly turning against them.

Anyway, thats enough from me.  I'm off for a hearty drink and a drunken present wrapping session, which will make for some interesting presents in the sober light of morning. Our Christmas is tomorrow, delayed a week as I've mentioned before.

So Merry Christmas to anyone planning the same and Happy New Year.

Tuesday, 28 December 2010

Met Office Now a National Joke.

Long ago I stopped using the weather forecasts issued by the Met Office. Up until a few years ago I had a powerboat and had to drag it from Oxford to the Solent: obviously a major exercise, so I planned trips to the coast around the Met Office's long-term forecasts. The majority were well far of the mark, more often than not entailing us sitting at the quayside looking out to sea watching the pitching and heaving of yachts out at sea.
Long-term forecasts seemed inaccurate and short-term forecasts seemed to be based on a mate phoning them up and telling them what the weather was actually doing. Several times I noticed forecasts changing during the day to fit what was actually happening in real-time.

To me weather forecasts have become very much like watching on of those psychic shows on TV, where a presenter purports to contact a deceased family member: lots of vague ideas that can mean anything and bent to eventually fit someone's real-life experiences.

I started to look at weather maps myself and made my own forecasts and eventually got better than the Met Office over 48-72 hour periods. It amazed me a rank amateur like me could predict the weather with better accuracy than the Met, especially in the 48-72 hour period, although I didn't have any interest in predicting further out. It seemed to me that the Met's weather models were flawed or flew in the face of what was established metological wisdom when I was a kid learning in school back in the 60s and 70s. Between then and now it seems to me there has been a radical change in Met Office forecasting.

Now it seems, the Met Office have become a laughing stock across the country for the (in)accuracy of their medium/long-term forecasts. In fact tales abound on the internet about how the Met Have changed their tune, changed their forecasts on their website and then denied that they ever got it wrong.

It seems to me that the computer models used at the Met are broken. If a computer model is so flawed that it fails so spectacularly to predict the weather, you think it'd be dumped or modified. But what seems to be happening is a denial of inaccuracy, a denial of reality.

To me this isn't about the global warming debate: I don't know if the Met is infatuated with MMGW and has incorporated it into their climate model.

All I know is they seem to be consistently inaccurate, to such a degree that were I to venture to sea again, or climb a mountain, I wouldn't bet my life on them.

Saturday, 25 December 2010

UK Aid goes up in Smoke

Seems an Indian rocket carrying a communications satellite exploded not long after launch.

India, a country we give over 500 million dollars in aid to every year (615 million in 2010).

Why the hell are we giving money to a country with a space capability? Why are we giving aid to the 11th largest global economy? If there's poverty in India thats their lookout, they obviously have the money to reduce it should they chose to do so.

Merry Christmas and Bah Humbug

Merry Christmas to those of you reading this blog that can afford to enjoy it.

Do spare a thought for those less fortunate at this time of year though, won't you?

And Bah Humbug to the bailiffs, and other agents of the state that deliver misery to thousands across the nation, the people who think its right and proper to demand money by menaces, to bleed us dry to prop up the state's profligate spending. Bah Humbug to those in Parliament of all persuasions: those that continue with the staus quo. You don't have long to change your ways. There is a mood change in the country as I predicted two years ago. This is a pivotal year in  the politics of the country. Many more people I talk to are advocating dissent and more.

We shall be celebrating Christmas a Week later than normal thanks it being the weekend the missus works. So next week we get Christmas and New Year all rolled into one festive weekend (and dare I say it, cheaper presents in the January sales....)!

Right now I have the house to myself, and I intend to revel in the absolute luxury of having to do absolutely nothing at all. Fluffy slippers and bathrobe will be worn until lunchtime, whereupon it will be time to imbibe in a bit of festive spirit.

Those of you that have lunches to prepare, you have my sympathy. I shall toast you as the local church bells strike noon.

Whatever you are up to today, I hope above all you have fun.


Thursday, 23 December 2010

Dissappearing Blogs

Over the past few weeks, I've seen a number of popular bloggers turn their back on blogging and quit.

I've seen on other blogs speculation as to the reasons, but I think I've nailed it.

You see, before the election, there were lots of us gunning for change: a change of government and governance, a chance to rewind this post-democratic despotism we find our Parliament has been reduced to.

We got our change of government and for a short while we were hopeful, but realised that in reality, nothing was going to change. Big corporations and big financiers own our government and us, the little people get nothing in return for scrawling that X at the ballot box.

So, a number of bloggers have realised virtual vitreol won't change a thing and said "bollocks" and bowed out. However, there are bloggers, like myself that long ago realised that the political elite cannot be changed by high-mindedness. What's needed is real-life action.

Now, the one thing I'm good at is picking out trends: and the increasing trend is a realisation of this very idea, that bloggers need to evolve away from just sitting at a keyboard, but to actually start doing things in real life.

There are those already advocating activism, from lawful rebellion, all the way to the riotous activity of the student demos.

Things needn't be as risky and extreme: you can make a start by emailing your MP: make him or her aware of your thoughts directly. Use the They Work for You website, where its ludicrously easy to get a message direct to your MP. Give them some stick, get your friends to do the same, activism with a small 'a'. Get your friends to get their friends to do the same. They needn't share your views either: just as long as you burst that protective bubble around Westminster and let them know what you think of them and their actions.

Monday, 20 December 2010

Just Think:

 If a fraction of the 9 billion pounds a year we spend on overseas aid was actually spent here at home in the UK, we'd be able to pay pensioner's heating bills and have all the snowploughs, salt and grit we'd ever need ready to roll.

Oi, Cameron and Clegg! Stop pissing money abroad to corrupt foreign cronies you fucking tossers! I've had enough, SORT IT OUT NOW!

Sunday, 12 December 2010

Search and Rescue Fleet to be Sold off

I commend every reader of this blog to write to their MP and oppose any moves to make this proposal a reality.

I for one would not like to be out at sea, or in the wild areas of this country and know that if some mishap befalls me, I'll be subject to the whims of a private company's balance sheet. Would it be profitable to rescue me or would it make more financial sense to the company to leave me be, or suffer a more tortuous and protracted rescue?

Lack of Strateigic Thinking

I was pondering last night over the storm that has been whippd up over student fees and the subsidisation of further education in general. After all, EMA is being abolished next year.

On the one hand, there's the argument that why should the majority of us pay for the education of a minority? Why shouldn't graduates bear the cost of their own further education? Why should we pay kids to attend college through EMA?

Well, lets take EMA first. Granted, my generation never got paid to go to college, but then the hard up families got scholarships, or alternatively there were enough ONC/HND/BTEC technical courses tied to apprenticeships that were provided on day release from work, effectively paying the attendee a days pay to attend college. So, in a way, EMA is only filling the gap that employers have vacated. Someone has to keep the numbers of kids going to college up, unfortunately its fallen to the government to step into the breach. Why should the government fill this hole? I'll get onto that later.

Lets now have a look at university courses and fees. Again, my generation benefitted from subsidised university courses paid for out of general taxation. The argument for fees says why should the whole of the population pay a small minority to attend university. Why shouldn't those that go to university who then benefit from higher wages pay something back? Well, because they were already paying something back in the form of higher taxation. If they're going to pay their fees back, in effect paying for that "privileged" education, why then should they be asked to pay a higher rate of income tax than someone that hasn't gone to university? Tit for Tat: you don't want to pay for my education, ok, I'll pay for it, but I'll just pay the same income tax as you.
But no, the unfairness in the system is that those degree students that go on to better jobs who earn higher wages have to pay back their tuition fees and pay higher income tax.

A final point is why should the state subsidise higher education at all? After all, its a minority of people that attend isn't it? If we didn't have these courses, then we wouldn't have trained doctors, nurses, engineers, scientists, etc. Exactly the people we need to take this country forward and grow it. Higher education is a strateigic resource and is just as important as any other. Just as food supply, energy supply and water supply are essential now and in the future, its also essential that we have a constant supply of bright young graduates of a consistent calibre in order to keep up with our competitors. What we certainly cannot afford is that those bright young things leave the country or fail to get educated. If that happens, we are at a strateigic disadvantage compared to other countries, we slip back and lose the ability to compete.

In the past I've bemoaned the lack of long-term thinking in this country, where politics can only think in terms of short-term tactical thinking and student fees, along with the gaping hole in our energy supply strategy are prime examples of this. No-one in government seems to be able to think any further than the next election. Nothing is done for the benefit of the country any more, its done in the name of the party, in the name of being re-elected and continuing in power.

Has our government become so irellevant in the EU matrix that it has lost the ability to work in the interests of the UK any more? Is this an indication of the EU policy of "no more countries"? Is it a corporate ploy to create a set of homogenised global drones, only fit to serve the political elite? Is this lack of credible strategy an honest error, or a product of decades of party politics?

I can't identify the cause: it may be any one of those factors, or a combination of all of them.

All I know it that it absolutely fails to serve the interests of the United Kingdom, it fails to ensure our status in Europe and the wider world. In essence, it is treason.

Thursday, 9 December 2010

The Rebellion Counter Attacks.

It seems a number of big corporations that have sided with the establishment and recently withdrawn support for Wikileaks were targeted by hackers today.

This has to be the first time I can remember an online battle of such ferocity between what we regard as the establishment and those who stand against it. But this goes further as the battle occupies real as well as cyber space: not only is Julian Assange in jail, but his assets have been seized and the wikileaks site has had its domain name pulled (although its still available via its raw IP address of PayPal terminated its connection with Wikileaks and so prevented online donations to the site. These are just some of the moves made by the establishment to silence what is an embarrassing site.

However, Julian Assange isn't wikileaks. He's on the board, but there are a number of less public people on the board, all dedicated to continue the open principles of wikileaks and the internet as a whole. Even now as the establishment tries to silence it, wikileaks stays steadfastly available thanks to it's many mirror sites.

I'm sure this battle isn't over.

Wednesday, 8 December 2010

The Establishment Strikes Back.

After stirring up a hornets nest over the past few months, It seems the establishment dogs have been let loose on the Wikileaks owner Julian Assange.

Yesterday a warant for his arrest was handed in to New Scotland Yard and his assets were frozen in Switzerland.

I assume the first is to curtail his movements so the establishment know where he is and the second is to limit his access to sufficient funds to mount a credible defence.

I had hoped he wouldn't hand himself in, as once he's in the grip of the establishment, its all to easy for things to worsen for him. Most likely a new, worse charge brought against him, probably in relation to the US leaks or conspiracy to allow those leaks. I expect an extradition to the US will be asked for.

The bad news is he did indeed go to the Police who had to fulfil the arrest warrant and arrested him. Of course being obedient servants of the establishment they curtailled his movement by refusing to allow bail
despite promises from a number of famous, trustworthy individuals. I'm actually disappointed in his actions, because I thought a former member of the hacking community would understand that the knives were out for him and that he was at serious risk of incarceration. He may see himself as some sort of martyr, but in the end he'll be portrayed as some American-hating nutter with an anti-establishment leaning thrown in. Probably as a result we'll see tighter legislation regarding the internet in the US and eventually here as well.

He now remains in custody, primarily to serve the Swedish arrest warrent, but you just know the Americans, already baying for blood, will not be satisfied by him being convicted in a foreign court. He will have to be tried in a US court in order to see that partcularly US version of justice to be served.

Monday, 6 December 2010

An Autistics Place in Society?

If you haven't already, please follow this link to Anna Raccoon's place.

I have a grown-up autistic son and understand really well how someone can misunderstand the actions of someone with higher functioning autism or aspergers syndrome. After all, you can talk to them as a normal person, they can converse quite well, but its only once you get to know them you notice the holes in their personality, the things that are lacking that make a whole person.

It may be the lack of social graces, or the liking for repetitive tasks or clinging to familiar patterns or places, it may be the fantastical goals they set themselves, it may be their wish to withdraw, or their irrational anger at being unable to express their emotions. But if you spend time with them, you will eventually understand what makes a higher functioning autistic different.

I have experienced first hand the grey area that such people fall into, the same one the authorities are using to incarcerate Stephen Neary and the same one the authorities use to wriggle out of providing support. Its a win-win situation for the local authority busy-bodies: on the one hand they can deny support until something bad happens and then use that grey area to remove the same person from society.

Having not been born "Normal", means the higher functioning autistic is denied the support a a normal person who later on in life develops a recognisable medical mental illness receives. Not being "sub-normal" means the higher functioning autistic, who has an IQ above the arbitrary limit defining learning disabilities is also denied the support a person with a learning disability gets.

Of course if those local authorities become engaged at the start and provide minimal but essential light-handed support (all that most HFAs need), then it would vastly improve the lives of higher functioning autistics allowing them to live decent lives and avoid the high-cost option of locking them up.

I know there are many HFAs either homeless or in prison. Homeless because they can't see the importance of paying bills or in prison because their behaviour doesn't conform to "normal" social behaviour.

In an age where inclusion is a supposed hot topic, the mandatory legal inclusion of many racial, disability, sexuality and social groups still refuses to include higher functioning autistics. They still have to step onto the first rung of the ladder to full inclusion in society and their exclusion is our loss and shame.

Sunday, 5 December 2010

In Europe, but not run by Europe.

Remember that phrase? Its been chanted as a mantra by the Conservatives for decades. The concept being to fool the public into thinking we're still only loosely connected to the EU.

Of course the reality is different, with thousnads of directives spewing forth from Brussels an d Strasbourg, all of which directly affect our lives and none of which our government can oppose. Of course if you start do rail against the great United Europe project, you're met with the phrase above. If you look closely and provide proof that we are in fact run by Europe, the secondary line of we're better off in the EU than out of it gets trotted out. Immediately you get tales of dire consequences: of barriers to trade being put up, of increased costs due to dissimilar currencies, etc, etc.

But lookm at Switzerland: they are in Europe, but are not in the European Union. Yet, even surrounded on all sides by members of the EU, they continue to survive and thrive economically. They have no need to hand over their governmental powers to the EU, as they're doing alright thank you very much.

In fact just a few days ago, US based firm Kraft announced that a number of key jobs would be moved to Switzerland, effectively moving the head office offshore in order to gain a tax advantage. How can this be? How can a company with its manufacturing base in an EU country save money by moving outside the EU? Isn't this exactly what we've been told would increase costs? Isn't this the sort of thing we are constantly warned against every time a vote comes around to increase or tighten EU powers in this country?

So, given that one company at least thinks its better off trading across EU borders rather than trading within them, would we really be worse off outside the EU?

Would we increase costs by extracting ourselves from the EU? I seriously doubt it as we can save the cost of EU membership immediately. Subsequent to our extraction we can repeal some of the stupid directives from the EU that indirectly add costs to our lives. Would trading with EU countries be more difficult? I doubt it, as China continues to trade huge volumes with the EU from outside EU borders.

I really can't see a downside. All I need is a chance to vote on it. Fat chance of that while Parliament is filled with EU yes-men. Where's the democracy in that? Its about time an anti-EU voice was heard there.

Friday, 3 December 2010

What a week this has been.

England misses out on hosting the 2018 World Cup, which is a great result for the taxpayer, who'd probably end up paying for it. If the Panorama allegations are true or have some truth in them, and the tone of the press conference and media reporting afterwards have any bearing, then it looks like the winners are the countries most likely to offer a bung. 

Also this week we finally got to see a troughing piggy get his comeuppance. Hopefully we'll see more get theirs and our politicians might for once get the message that they work for us, not the other way round.

It finally snowed here in Pompey and timed itself to fall on my day off from work. Cue lots of driving around to check out the sights. I visited the legend that is Mick's burger van and it was still open (it never seems to close) on top of Portsdown Hill for breakfast, peered through the blizzard but couldn't see much of the City below, then drove to Hayling Island to check out the eerie sight of a Seaside town blanketed in deep snow.

This weekend I've Christmas lights to put up, so probably a trip to A&E is in my near future....

Monday, 29 November 2010

Wikileaks: The Beginning of Internet Censorship?

Maybe the intent of the Wikileaks organisation is noble, maybe it's not. There are plenty of people on the internet alleging collusion with various anti-American organisations. I can't comment on that much except to say they sound like the usual unproven underground conspiratorial rantings.

What I can say is that this could be the start of serious internet censorship. As benign as Wikileaks seems, the effect of dumping masses of sensitive American documents into the public domain can have only one result: the tightening of restrictions on the internet. I'm sure the highly embarrassed political elite in the US is right now drawing up plans to stop something similar happening in the future.

Saturday, 27 November 2010

Whats Really going on at the Cancun Climate Summit.

As our politicians jet off to Cancun in their fuel-guzzling, CO2 spewing jets, arrive at the airport and get ferried to the hotel in their fuel-guzzling, CO2 spewing chaffeur-driven limosines, then enjoy wasting even more fuel and creating even more CO2 unneccessarily by having hot tubs in their hotel rooms, it shouldn't go unremarked what our hypocritical elite are really up to.

What they're really discussing is the redistribution of wealth: that is, the redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. Not exactly something you'd associate with climate change: after all, if the problem is too much CO2, you'd think the thing to do would be to stop producing the stuff. But no, our political elite don't think like that. Instead, they cook up a scam called carbon trading, whereby CO2 is traded as a commodity, just like petrol, minerals, etc. Supposedly the countries that are bigger producers of CO2 can offset the CO2 they produce by buying carbon credits. The bad news is that CO2 is traded just like any other commodity, bringing with it artificially inflated prices, allowing the traders to make huge profits at our expense.

So, not only does the price of fuel go up, the price of CO2 to supposedly offset our fuel use also goes up, the end result is higher bills for us, the consumer.

So what the elite is really discussing at Cancun is how to kill off huge numbers of poor people because they can't afford to pay inflated fuel bills while simultaneously milking those still alive for as much money as possible in higher taxes..

Tuesday, 23 November 2010

You're Not a Celebrity, Now Fuck Off!

Yes, its the Gillian McWhatsit saga on ITV.

Look closely at her and her actions. She's a prejudicial woman that hates everything, has every phobia going, gives the impression of having never lived and clings to to trendy ideas like veganism. This woman thinks she has the right to tell you what to do. I strongly suggest that she gets a fucking life before ever daring to show up on TV again bossing people about.

She really belongs in a local council office, probably most suited to social services, where the most loopy decisions are made often based on the personal prejudices of the case social worker, which tear families apart or deny support to those who need it. She'd fit right in.

Of course none of us understand what a woman who seems ill at ease outside a sterile plastic bubble is doing on the show and why she freaks out so much in what is essentially a highly managed bit of undergrowth in the grounds of a five-star hotel. Quite why she agreed to go on the show and what she'd do if she was really dropped into proper wild jungle is anyone's guess.

The consensus of people I've talked to is that although it's great fun watching an aparrently neurotic woman descend deeper into neurosis, she's probably better off out of it so we can get to see the proper celebrities get on with it. A lot like Wagner on the X-Factor.

Are we seeing the death throes of reality TV? My heart hopes so, but my head says in reality all we're seeing is Television descending to the level of the colliseum, its bear-baiting using humans, a rather public inquisition, where the victim's suffering is just a phone call away.

Thursday, 18 November 2010


Looking with interest and awe at the Irish financial crisis.

First off, awestruck that our government would agree to just hand over 7 billion pounds to prop up Ireland, just like that. Thats a similar figure that the cuts we're having to endure here have supposedly saved. So in effect, we're suffering for nothing: we won't save that money, instead our government have handed it over the EU central bank in order to bail out a country in the Euro zone: a project we're not part of.

Second, the fact that up until today the Irish government was adamant it didn't need help, until IMF and EU officials arrived in the country. Were Ireland forced into accepting a bailout? What is the bailout for? To help Ireland, or alternatively as I suspect to avoid panic in Germany and France?

This is just like black Wednesday: an artificial collection of countries using a single currency, on different economic cycles will inevitably provide opportunities for speculators. Just as there were runs on individual currencies during the ERM years, so there will continue to be attacks on vulnerable countries with the Euro.

After Ireland, there is the question of what will happen to Portugal and Spain. Its a never-ending cycle and these days we don't have bottomless pockets.

I said a couple of years ago that the problems associated with this recession would continue until price inflated markets like housing collapsed to a more realistic level.

Instead our government's plan is to throw our children's and grandchildren's money away trying to prop up inflated prices until inflation kicks off and normalises those prices again. It'll take decades to achieve, decades where the likes of you and me have to suffer the consequences of two decades of uncontrolled capitalism. Don't think that growth in the economy on its own can resolve the problem: thanks to all of the debt and uncertainty growth will be extremely weak for deacdes too. Not until the banking sector have expunged their toxic assets can we be really confident again. Given the usual term for a mortgage is 25 years ( you remember the original reason for the crash was dodgy mortgages), then you can expect the problem to last for at least 20 years , by which time most current mortgages will have matured.

Some days I feel like the best plan for the future is buying a boat, sailing off into the distance and not coming back. Maybe find a country with a more stable economy.


I'm reminded that on black Wednesday, none of the EU countries came to our aid. So where's reasoning behind our obligation to  the Euro Zone?

Sod 'em I say. I'm fed up to the back teeth of "our" government dipping into its pockets to help everyone else except the bloody taxpayers that fund all this madness.

Fuck me, I'm Speechless.

He got off on appeal.

One rule for them, another for us it seems.

Will a member of the Police ever be judged by the same standards that we're supposed to live by? Looks as if our public servants have a lower set of standards just for themselves.

Tuesday, 16 November 2010

EU Collapse Imminent?

I wish.

Herman Rumpey-Pumpey is full of it today, issuing edicts and threats to EU countries in order to get them in line and back an Irish bailout, saying if the Euro collapses, so too does the EU.

All I can say is: bring it on!

In reality, I'm sure that eventually all EU states will be forced by the EU commission to pump money into the Euro Zone and prop up a fatally flawed economic idea. The idea that countries like Greece, Spain and Ireland could share a currency with the likes of Germany and France was fine as long as the little countries didn't burden the big ones too much. Now the weaker Euro countries are holding the bigger ones back, its suddenly everyone's problem. Its so predicatable that at some point there would be problems and so predictable that the bigger countries aren't willing to foot the bill for the folly.

To be honest, let the whole thong fail. I don't see why we should spend any money propping up a currency we aren't part of, or being a member of a Union that appears to be a net drain on our economy.

But of course the EU heirarcy can't allow failure to happen. Instead countries will coerced, cajoled and threatened in order to extort money to prop up the whole corrupt, artificial edifice.

Monday, 15 November 2010


I have experienced the most surreal moment. Listening to "Pienars Politics", I hear James Blunt saying he helped avert world war 3 by not attacking Russian soldiers holding Pristina airport. Not only that, but General Sir Mike Jackson is on the same programme confirming this and giving his side of the story too. Not only that, but James Blunt confirms that Boris Johnson was there with the troops as a journalist.

I almost thought I'd been transported into an alternate reality until James Blunt noted that even though the Russians had there big guns pointing in their general direction and an American general was urging the Brits to "destroy" them, all Boris wanted to know was the cricket score.

Sunday, 14 November 2010

Government: A Broken System

When I used to work in hi-tech manufacturing, one of the main elements was quality control: measuring how well each piece of kit that exited the factory performed upon installation. After all, its no good shipping equipment to customers that doesn't work: you lose orders and therefore your job very swiftly if that happens.

One of the key tools in measuring performance against targets was feedback: measuring how successful each installation was and feeding that back to the production process in order to affect immediate change if any negative trends in reliability happened. Effectively a closed loop where deviations from predetermined targets effects changes in the process to bring the process back towards those targets.

Now, this is an area where I think government at all levels, national and local is broken. There is no immediate feedback. Sure we get to tell the government how well we think it is doing every five years, but its hardly an immediate system. Engine management systems in cars check the loop several times a second, manufacturing processes should work within days, but our system of government works on a glacial timescale by comparison: huge amounts of damage can and have been done while the country waits to provide its feedback.

This is the nub of where things are going wrong in government: we have a free-running open system, with very little feedback and none of the supposed checks and balances working. For instance the huge majority that Labour had in the last few terms ensured that virtually any policy, no matter how damaging to the country could be effected without any commensurate corrective action to curb it. Today we have a weak opposition and a coalition in government that consists of a major partner able to dictate to a minor one who are so desperate to stay in power they'd sell their granny, children, spouse and a few of their own organs if necessary.

Our system of government is so broken, that the house of commons makes policy and puts forward legislation, but little time is given to debate these measures, so the first part of the feedback loop is nullified.

 The second line of defence, actually voting on a proposal is nullified by party whipping: an MP may think a policy idea is ludicrous, but will be forced to vote by the whips, under verious methods of duress.

The third possibility to effect feedback is the House of Lords, but again, the system rigs the house with patsies of the political elite who will vote any way the government likes, either because they're getting favours, its their party's policy being invoked, or maybe the majority of them couldn't be arsed to turn up and vote against. By far the most damaging factor in this part of the feedback loop is the Parliament Act, whereby the house of commons can push through legislation anyway without the consent of the upper house.

Every piece of legislation requires Royal Assent. But again, we miss a trick here because our Monarch sees herself very much as a ceremonial one, keeping well out of anything political. No matter how damaging to the country she reigns over, she rubber-stamps whatever crap comes out of Parliament.

So, all of the relatively immediate feedback loops are broken, which allows the system to runaway. This is dangerous, because a runaway system allows any outcome, no matter how extreme.And we've seen what would be considered extreme policies in a moderate democracy become law: you name it; climate change legislation, billion pound bank bailouts, detention without trial, illegal wars, RIPA, the list goes on.

The system is broken and it may end up that the 60 million human beings that live here in the UK become the final feedback loop if and when we say no more and put an end to the current system of government. Maybe it'll have to come to that.

Saturday, 13 November 2010

Scottish Prisons in Green Nonsense

The Scottish Prison Service are swapping inmate's old CRT tellys for new LCD ones in order to meet green targets.

If prisoners are getting free LCD TVs, then why not pensioners, who are more deserving and haven't a hope in hell of affording one themselves? If ever there was an example of getting priorities fucked up beyond comprehension, this is a classic.

As for the Scottish Prison Service quote "the TV sets would not cost the taxpayer any money as prisoners were charged for television access", don't even get me started on that one except to say who pays the prison service to pay the prisoners to pay for the TVs? Unless the SPS have some way of magicking money out of thin air at no cost, then of course its the bloody taxpayer.

Monday, 8 November 2010

ReBoot Government

When a computer goes wrong, we all know more or less instinctively what to do: we reboot the thing by switching off and then switching it on again. It wipes away any of the previous nastiness that caused the crash and brings forth a new, revived computer.

Maybe its about time we did something similar with government: Just stop and start from scratch.

After all, things have become so complex, that really now andy policy changes can only tinker at the sides and add even more complexity. Like adding ever more drivers onto your computer for an increasing list of devices slows down a computer, government is now costing vast sums of money and delivering poor performance.

Its time for a reboot: Lets just stop for a short while and review just whats important. Then bring those basic functions back online one at a time.

Just think, we could have a streamlined, simple tax system, a lower cost NHS, a more beneficial benefits system, rethink our relationship with the wider world.

Its a mantra we all need to adopt. All we need is to elect people with the courage and conviction to do such a thing.

Saturday, 6 November 2010

Time is Short.

Right, here's the bottom line: this country is doomed if it continues on its current course.

Right now, if we don't split from the E.U. within the next 5-10 years, we will never be able to. Even now it may be difficult, as we don't have resources and armed forces with which to fight.

Fight, I hear you ask?

Yes, fight. Because to split from the EU would mean war. We've already seen Ireland refuse to toe the EU line by voting no the Lisbon treaty first time round, only to be effectively forced to vote the "correct" way a second time. Democracy died that day, as the first vote should have been honoured, not have a whole country forced to vote again "until they get it right".

Now imagine that anti-EU feeling rises so far in the UK that a party gains power with a mandate to split from the EU immediately.

Would the EU allow that party to gain power? I'm sceptical. I assume there would be huge amounts of negative press and briefings against any anti-EU party. I would imagine there would be several assaults, both political and personal against the senior members. It would be a huge task to fight through the negativity, given that the EU has several national budgets with which to fight.

If such a party got into power, Would the EU stand idly by as the UK splits from the EU? Its hard to say, but given the Irish experience, one has to assume the EU has no regard for the democratic process and would resort to forcibly ensuring the UK stays a member of the EU.

Would the UK be able to resist? Would British forces be able to win against an invasion by the combined forces of the EU? If it happened today there may be a chance, after all we're nuclear-capable, so have the ability to use the ultimate deterrent. But then so are the French. Worse still, as our forces are whittled away by our pro-EU governments, the chances get slimmer. With closer collaboration with other EU forces, comes an intimate knowledge of our capabilities and weaknesses. With more dependance on shared resources as opposed to an independant force, the chances get slimmer.

Make no doubt, this is a very slippery slope we're on.

The American War of Independance was started because of increasing legislation and taxation by a British Parliament where the American colonists weren't represented. The same applies to the EU commission: why the fuck should we accept legislation imposed upon us by a body we have no direct electoral control over?

We either accept the end of the UK as an independant, sovreign entity, or we say enough is enough and start to do something about it. I for one, plan to become more active in "doing something about it" in the new year.

Thursday, 4 November 2010

Student Fees.

I see that the government is letting Universities charge up to £9000 a year in fees. Thats my daughter buggered for going to Oxford then.

I just don't understand a regime where we charge kids huge sums for education, but pay other kids to sit on their arses doing nothing.

Do I really tell my daughter its okay to run up 30k or more in debt and then spend a lifetime paying it off (Thats if she can find a graduate level job by that time)? Or do I say just forget it and tell her to get pregnant, join the raft of teenage single mothers and let the state pay?

Wednesday, 3 November 2010

Hang on a Minute.... Isn't this French Defence Agreement a Treaty?

And weren't we promised by David Cameron a referendum on any further EU treaties.

Ah, I get it: this is a treaty with the French and not the EU and therefore doesn't count, in the weasel-wordy world of the politician.

Whats the betting that before long we'll see more defence treaties with individual governments in order to get round DC's promise to the people that put him in power.

He's just the same traitorous bastard as all the other one-world government types. Happy to sell their granny into slavery if it kept them in the elite and troughing at the top table.

Tuesday, 2 November 2010

A Step too Far

Today, David Cameron announced closer military co-operation with the French.

Today, David Cameron effectively signed away the future ability of our armed forces to act independantly of any other country. The armed forces are not sovreign if they depend on the assests of another country to conduct operations.

This is a very dark day for the independance of the UK, as it slides into becoming a state or county within a European Super State.

This is no joke now: what was initially a trading bloc of sovreign countries is, under marxist ideological leadership rapidly becoming a union very much like the USSR. Within the past week alone, we have todays announcement with the French, we also had last week's decision to pay the E.U. more money despite the biggest ever recession alongside their ability to scrutinise our budget, and the E.U. comission is promoting E.U.-wide VAT.

There are mutterings about how the agreement with the French will affect our relationship with the U.S. I can tell you now, it won't affect it one jot, as Barack Obama is cast from the same global governance die.

Those of us who value freedom, or who have fought to preserve it, need to look very closely at our consciences and decide if the path we are on is right for this country.

Saturday, 30 October 2010

Words Fail Me - "The Gun Thumball"

I really am lost for words.

Whatever happened to letting kids play with toy guns as a way of them understanding the actions and consequences of using guns? After all, when you've pretend killed killed your best mate for the umpteenth time, it sort of gets boring and you move onto something else.

This thumball just seems to me to be counter-productive. It glorifies the names of guns, without there being an outlet to satisfy the curiosity of those involved. I suspect this is an American invention, which is fine over there as if you want to see what a MAC-10 looks like, even to test one out and see its potential for causing death, once you are old enough you can readily go into a gun store. Over here, it remains as an alluring, unobtainable name, as taboo and cool as illegal drugs, imprinted on the young at an impressionable age.

Anything that is designed from the outset to challenge kids to discuss guns "in a safe and fun way"  is to me totally misguided. Guns are neither safe nor fun.

Thursday, 28 October 2010

Yet Another Eco-Bandwagon

Within a week of the climategate scandal and the failure of the Copenhagen Climate Summit, the Eco-loon plan-B was brought into play: "Bio-Diversity".

"Man-Made Global Warming", that had been proven to be a fallacy, had become "Climate Change" and when that had convincingly been shot to pieces as a theory, the eco-nutters jumped on the bio-diversity bandwagon and steered it down the same rocky road as all the other bandwagons.

So we see in Japan the UN bio-diversity conference spouting out the same old shit about man being responsible for the extinction of thousands of species, despite billions and trillions of species having lived and died out long before man progressed to the industrial revolution.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Man Is Not God; we can't preserve the world in aspic: whether its keeping gasses in the air constant, or keeping all the current species alive. The planet contains trillions of living, breathing life-forms. Some are successful, some are not. Some survive on the planet for billions of years, others die out in a geological nanosecond.

It is beyond our power as humans to even attempt to do any of the things the U.N, the climatologists, bio-diversity nutters and assorted eco-loons would like to have us do. Its cloud cuckoo land, a fantasy world. In reality its a mechanism to scare us into thinking we're killing cute things in order to create legislation to control ever-more aspects of our lives, for no end whatsoever. I've yet to see mention of one single study that has shown the direct benefits to the Amazonian rainforest of the E.U.'s directives on how much of a new car has to be recyclable.

Of course the fact is that it'd be better in every single way if that car hadn't consumed vast amounts of energy and raw materials in its production and its owner had simply carried on using their old car. But we live in a consumerist society, run by huge corporations who cause vast amounts of damage to the environment. However, we must continue to consume in order for them to make a profit and for their huge corporate financial shareholders to keep getting paid a dividend. They need us to foot the bill in higher taxes and more punative levies , demonising us the consumer rather than the corporation, for if they were to pay the price and profits were reduced, their corporate shareholders would squeak most loudly to our governments that this was most unfair and that they may not be able to find the funds to support election campaigns. Mock charities are set up and funded both by corporations and governments in order to reinforce so-called "independant" views that we the consumer are evil and should mend our wicked ways. New forms of profit making are created, making trillions of dollars literally our of thin air in the form of carbon trading: making firms pay compensation for producing goods, with the costs passed onto us, the consumer. Carbon trading or "offsetting" is supposed to offset the production of CO2, but in reality only offsets the loss of profits the huge corporations suffer as we consume less of their trinkets.

And so us, the little guy at the bottom of the pile, gets punished for the sins of the rich elite. We endure higher taxes, higher energy costs, all because we are told it will save some fluffy thing (it always has to be a fluffy thing as no-one would mourn the extinction of killer bees, for example) in a forest so far away we are unable to verify the fact ourselves. Instead we gullibly rely on the fake charities set up by the elite to tell us how endangered the fluffy things are and preach to us how we should mend our ways.

Let the poor benighted fluffy thing pass on with dignity, let something else in the local ecology take up its niche instead. Thats how evolution works and will continue to work long after humanity, the not-quite-so-fluffy animal has also encountered its extinction.

Sunday, 24 October 2010

The Sick Joke That is MultiCulturalism

Angela Merkel announced the other week that multiculturalism has failed. I and many others have known this for a number of decades, but only now are politicians seeing the folly of the foolhardy project that is multiculturalism.

Now before I get tarred as a racist, I don't have a problem with immigration. I lived in a multicultural area back in the sixties. I had friends of all creeds and races.

I grew up surrounded by Eastern European immigrant families who stayed here after World War Two. They integrated into society and when they wanted a cultural centre, they all chipped in together and set up their own community centre: no government money was asked or extorted.

I saw the first wave of asian immigrants arrive, who also integrated, being successful acedemically and becoming doctors and lawyers.

The second wave came and I saw the rise of the cliched asian corner shop: it was truly open all hours and thrived because of the ingenuity of its owners in exploiting their religion to provide a more convenient service for its local community.

I saw the influx of Chinese and Vietnamese and the conversion of the local chippy from one selling pies and chips to one selling something more exotic (and what became a vice of mine at an early age: plain beansprouts in soy sauce).

But then came the idea of "multiculturalism": a culture where people never integrated, where they never attempted to learn English, where they cajoled the state into providing community centres and language translation, which brought with it forced arranged marriages, honour killings, ghettos, human trafficking, gangs, racism, imposition of sharia law over UK law, radicalism, bhurkas, positive discrimination and all the other negative aspects of immigration.

Multiculturalism to me is a sick joke, mainly because I know how good things can be if it was left to happen organically and government doesn't stick its oar in. It has truly failed, and to help immigrants drag themselves from  the ghettos, to promote education, to really make a difference and benefit their adopted country and also their own communities, we need to start thinking in terms of integration. To aspire to become the best that UK culture allows, not to allow the baggage of their previous generations to hold them back.


The more I think about it, the more I research, the more I find that "multiculturalism" is counter-productive. I mean, why would you deliberately set out to emphasise the differences between cultures, it can only cause trouble? Why would you impoverish certain ethnic groups enough so that they fight each other, as in the gang culture? Why would you promote such isolationist policies that people would live in the UK for decades, yet still wouldn't be able to communicate directly with various agencies: who has the vested interest in being the go-between? Why would you allow a mysogenistic legal framework to stand in the UK after decades of fighting for women's rights?

The more I look at the the whole mess, I can only think its a deliberate ploy to keep minorities subsumed, an isolated minority group under the control of a handful of people that attain power by posing as go-betweens. The gang culture is allowed to happen in order for black youth to concentrate on killing each other, rather than attaining a decent level of education and integration.

I can only wonder if this strategy of non-integration is promoted so that one day sometime in the future, someone from the political elite can use minorities as scapegoats. The more they are different, the more they stand out. The more isolated they are, the easier is is for the larger population to dehumanise them.

The more integrated they are in society, the harder it is to single minorities out. Just think about that.

Thursday, 21 October 2010

Government "Cuts" Smokescreen.

The ever-enlightening Burning Our Money has lots on the so-called cuts detailled in the government spending review Also EU Referendum has details on why the cuts aren't actually cuts at all.

I really do dispair at this country. The public is an ever weakening kitten, being bled dry by an army of bloodsucking fleas. It has to stop.

We can't go on handing over increasing amounts of tax for the government to fritter away on ever-unproductive projects. It has to stop.

Also, can someone tell me why the fuck international aid is ringfenced? If we can't balance the books internally why the fuck are we handing over wads of cash to foreign countries? The Department for International Development's budget is £9.1 billion. To me, thats 9.1 billion pounds, or as near as damn it we can save overnight. Just cut it. We can't afford it, its a luxury. Kids on shitty council estates in the UK are as badly off as some Bangladeshi ones. Why aren't we spending a few billion quid sorting their lives out and making them productive members of the UK public rather than condemning them to a life of welfare payments, drink and/or drugs? Sorry, I just can't get my head around that one, unless the government intends to keep UK kids on shitty council estates and condemn them to a life on welfare.and drugs. It has to stop.

MOD procurement has been proven to be fucked completely. Projects are years in gestation, benefitting only the large arms production companies as costs soar. During World War Two it took mere months for new projects to hit the front line. Okay, todays weapons systems are vastly more complex, but should still have clear requirements and project plans. The huge overspend, mid-project spec changes and delays to service readiness cannot be tolerated any more. It has to stop.

Our contribution to the EU continues to grow, with very little in return for our money. We aren't in the Euro Zone, so we don't benefit from a unified currency, we have free trade and open borders, but all that means is the dross of Europe ends up here to tap our so far unlimited welfare system. All of this cold hard taxpayers cash is handed to the EU commission without any representation. In America when we did it to our colonists, it sparked the war of independance. We have no input to the laws the EU commission hands down to us and all we seem to do is hand over larger bundles of cash. It has to stop.

Right now, George Osborne's so-called cuts have not addressed any of the major problems afflicting this country. Non of the hands-on micro management I said was necessary to accurately steer our country back to prosperity has been implemented. Instead we have some reductions in spending, but government spending as a whole is set to continue increasing. Who fits the bill? We do. It has to stop.

 Right now, all I can say is policicians of all creeds, colours and ideologies can go fuck themselves. I get the message loud and clear. It isn't going to stop.

Wednesday, 20 October 2010

A Right Bloody Mess

Well, from what I can see, the coalition government's "spending review" is already in chaos. Just one example is the fact we'll have aircraft carriers but no aircraft to fly from them. My opinion on that score is already known, but it does underly the panic in whitehall and the hurried thinking thats going on.

The independant nature of our armed forces is effectively to end, with large holes in our future capability.

The next furore is the number of jobs that the government acknowledges may be lost as a result of spending cuts. The photo of Danny Alexander reading the draft copy of the spending review (whether deliberately or by accident) leaks the figure of 490,000 public sector jobs to be lost, with associated private sector jobs to go of a similar magnitude: some million jobs could be lost as a direct result of the spending cuts.

However, here's the dillemma: David Cameron doesn't have the luxury Margaret Thatcher had of North Sea Oil revenue and the sale of public owned assets to pay for this huge increase in unemployment. So just where is the money coming from to pay for this huge increase in unproductive labour?

Growth is set to be flat for the foreseeable future, so the only other way of funding the increased welfare bill is increased taxation. One might hope that all the recent immigrants from the East European EU countries bugger off back home to help reduce welfare costs.

All in all, so far all I've seen of the so-called "Spending Review" is a dogs breakfast of hurried policies and cuts, with very little aparrent thought going into where the axe falls.

Considering the Cameron/Osborne double act had many years to plan various scenarios for reducing the debt legacy left by Labour, I'm not at all impressed by the aparrent ad-hoc nature of government spending policy.

Saturday, 16 October 2010

Defence Cuts: The Death Knell of a Nation?

So, the news is full of it, we're being softened up for big cuts in the defence budget.

The defence review will be interesting, not for what it contains, but for the future direction it takes our forces.

This really is the end of Britain as an independant sovereign state. Its already widely known that at least one of "our" new aircraft carriers will actually be shared with the French. Its widely rumoured that we'll drasticlally reduce, or cut altogether our options for the Joint Strike Fighter, a primarily U.S. project.

So, where does that leave us? Well, right towards being an echelon of an E.U. armed service.

If our carriers are shared with the French, and we're pulling out of our biggest non-EU defence projects, one can only assume that our conventional forces at least, will begin to be equipped with E.U. standard equipment and be merged into an E.U. force.

Currently our nuclear deterrent is another joint U.S. project. I've long said that Trident's replacement needs to be something cheaper, but whats the betting that any future review opens the way to a joint E.U. nuclear capability? What of our "special relationship" with the U.S. then, I wonder?

I'm sure the spin will say it's all in the interests of saving costs, but for me, alarm bells are already ringing. This is another part of the slippery slope to a European super-state.

It won't be long before we are unable to commit British troops in defence of British interests.

Of course the Falklands will be safe from the Argentinians: I'm sure the huge Spanish fishing fleets are looking at those teeming waters with delight. After all, the Falklands aren't "British" anyway. All our sovereignty has been passed to the E.U. The Falklands are, for all intents and purposes, owned by the E.U. If they tell us we have to share the waters and let E.U. trawlers fish them, our government can't refuse.

Thursday, 14 October 2010

Well Done Chile

A hearty congratulations to everyone involved in the rescue of the 33 miners at the San Jose mine.

Its been a marvellous example of engineering and team spirit.

I've also been impressed by the sense of community in Chile, the shouts of "Chi-Chi-Chi-Le-Le-Le" in Chile demonstrating their national pride, unity and support.

I'm not sure we'd see the same over here. We have very little in the engineering sector to shout about any more, I doubt if we could attempt the same rescue without someone doing several risk assessments, making sure the capsule was several times more complex than necesary, making the hole to be drilled larger, taking more time and money and eventually ending up with the bean counters who would probably say it was more cost-effective to pay compensation to relatives rather than rescue the trapped miners. Not to mention shouting En-Ga-Land over here marks you as a racist thug rather than someone exhibiting pride in their country.

Wednesday, 13 October 2010

Anna Raccoon, Where art Thou?

Anna Raccoon's blog has dissappearred for some reason, just days after she posted how she beat Sandwell Council and thwarted the efforts of the Mainstream Media to find Sheila Martin and get the story for themselves.

I just wonder if the mainstream media bit back, or there is something else afoot.

Hope everything is ok Anna and you'll be back blogging soon.

Upshift Strikeracer RIP.

An online game I have played for a number of years was finally terminated on Sunday.

Upshift Strikeracer was a game racing cars fitted with weapons in which you raced people around the globe online whilst also machine-gunning and rocketing the bejesus out of each other.

No fancy graphics, but very fast, very playable and lots of fun.

I'll miss it.

Sunday, 10 October 2010

A good Day to Have a Baby?

Well, if you have a boy maybe..

You can call it Ben.

Then it'd be Ben 10/10/10.

Friday, 8 October 2010

Labour Does Irony

Just look at the new shadow cabinet.

'nuff said.

Tuesday, 5 October 2010

I Just Wonder...

If shipping UK jobs abroad really saved any money?

I mean the total cost to the country as a whole of losing all that tax revenue, of all of that money bleeding abroad rather than staying here in the UK, of paying those millions to stay idle.

I just wonder if, when you work it all out, the cost isn't that much different: that flat screen TV might be cheaper now, but just look how much tax you're having to pay; how much North Sea Oil revenue was frittered away on paying dole money rather than invested to support future generations; how big a debt mountain has been created trying to keep that previous standard of living?

Three decades or more of decline will take a long time to repair. Before we can even begin to repair the damage, we need to recognise what caused it. We can mediate its effects in the short term by making the cuts we're seeing proposed now, but we also have to recognise that as a country, we can't return to the largesse of the eighties.

We simply don't have the economy to support it. North Sea Oil is declining, we are cut off from preferrential rates from our colonies by EU legislation, our manufacturing base has gone abroad and financial services, the vaunted engine of capitalism is so nomadic that if we started to demand it pay its fair share of supporting the country, it would simply flit abroad overnight.

I've said for years now that the course our country charted for the past 30 years has been straight towards the rocks. No amount of tinkering in the form of expenditure reductions will change that fact. To use a popular management-speak phrase, we have reached a new paradigm: one where we simply cannot afford to live as we did back in the sixties.

We cannot be the world's Policeman, we cannot afford the expensive nuclear deterrent we currently have, we cannot afford to import increasingly costly energy from abroad to bolster up our dwindling North Sea supplies.

What would I do? I would be radical. I would force a change of pace for the whole country. I would start to look at what is good for the country as a whole and not what is good for corporations or the political elite.

Charity begins at home so the very first thing I'd do is cut foreign aid completely. Until we have money to spare, we can't afford it. Let China use their cash reserves to buy influence around the globe. Global glory is an extravagance we cannot afford.

Review the cost to the UK of the EU. How much is it really costing us to be in it? I bet its costing us more in revenue than we ever get back from it.

Scrap Trident and look at cheaper alternatives, preferrably designed and manufactured in the UK.

The list goes on, but the future policy must start to address the failings of past decades, review our role in the world and start to govern on that basis.

Britain is Worst Place to live. Its official.

According to a survey by uSwitch, Britain is the worst place to live.

Don't I know it.

Decades of shambolic political flip-flopping have destroyed this nation.

Sunday, 3 October 2010

Welfare Reform

The big noise today is about welfare reform.

However, if there is to be reform of the benefits system, it has to be done carefully and with the precision lacking in every other endeavour government gets involved in, so its likely to be the usual shambles.

For instance, there are imbalances in the syatem: the well-off get universal benefits they don't need, the feckless are paid to manufacture babies, those that have no link to the country and therefore no right to benefit are handed it on a plate, those that just need a small helping hand to escape endless benefits are denied help, and those really, truly in need are refused help.

We need to be establish what the benefits system is really for. One thing its absolutely not for is to house families in million pound mansions, or hand out 95k lifestyles. Its a safety net, its there to keep people from starving. To be humane you could take it slightly further and say its there to keep people out of poverty. But there it ends. Anyone wanting more must get it by helping themselves.

At the point people decide they want to help themselves, the system should provide that help, be it training in order to get qualified, paid work experience, a change in the taxation system that rewards those switching from welfare to work and most importantly, a change in the system itself to keep up with the flexibility required by todays employers.

Certainly scrapping the delay between claiming and actually receiving benefits is an imperative: its a risk deterring claimants from stepping from claiming to earning. Changing the over-complicated system that requires claiming benefits from 3 or more seperate agencies with some benefits dependant on others is another important step towards streamlining the system to make it fit for the modern environment.

But its a big ask for government to micro-manage all of this as they should. Instead our ministers will issue edicts to useless middle-managers who will monumentally fuck things up. This is the public sector after all, which in my past experience has a higher proportion of fuckwits, freewheelers and deadwood than the private sector.

Its guaranteed to be a monumental fuck-up. Again.

Saturday, 2 October 2010

On edge.

I've been on edge all day for no aparrent reason. You know, one of those restless days where its your only day to relax, but your body isn't able to de-stress.

It's possibly caused by the biblical rainfall we're having today and being very close to the sea and therefore sea level. Lots of standing water everywhere because its so near to the sea and therefore can't drain so quick.

I must check the time of high tide.... Luckily not until 8am tomorrow, so at least I can get some kip.

Update: The local storm drains have been very, very full all day even hours after high tide, so there's a lot of water flowing out to sea. 

Tuesday, 28 September 2010

Year Zero.

Ed Milliband says don't blame him or his generation for past Labour mistakes, as if thats enough.

Tough shit Ed, I'm not falling for your sales bullshit any more.

You can't wipe the slate clean: you, your friends, relations, colleagues, leaders, cohorts, party members and aquaintances all stood idly by and let it happen.

You can't announce year zero, wind the clock back and start again.


This two-word phrase seems to sum up UK politics at the moment.

The Labour party is so self-absorbed it elects one of the worst people to lead. it: not that there are many viable candidates to chose from. Nowhere in the Labour party do I see anyone with the charisma or leadership qualities to pull the Brown, Blairite and assorted other camps together to make a coheisive whole.

The con-Dem coalition, so self-absorbed, whose primary objective is to maintain the coalition at all costs, to maintain the slimmest of majorities and cling to power, without the strength to push forward with conviction and do what is necessary. Hamstrung by ideological differences, a coalition of compromise, they tweak and twiddle, unable to make take the real tough decisions, to make real foundations for a prosperous future. swallowed up by inertia, the juggernaut of debt left by Labour rolls on increasing day by day. We've waited months and the brakes have yet to be tested, instead our burden now is even greater than before the election.

Neither of the above has really made that leap of faith and asked the question: what do you want. Instead we have speech upon speech, rhetoric piled upon dogma, espousing a limited point of view.

Not one part has really pulled out the stops and engaged with the voters, neither have they really done what is necessary to pull this country out of the mire.

In fact the contrary. Non have promoted action for the good of the country as a whole. Instead we get vaccuous self-promotion, meaningless diatribes, limited beneficial action. We get preferrence for specific interest groups, the super-rich, the corporations, those with bank balances big enough to employ rafts of lobbyists working to skew UK politics away from the needs of the population and corrupt it in favour of those who would strip us of everything we hold dear and sell us into slavery. Westminster has become a whorehouse, with everything on offer and available for cash, no questions asked. Sinister sponsors pull barely visible strings, playing the puppet theatre that is Parliament. Strateigic policy is abandoned in favour of tactical, short-term self-interested quick-fixes. This once-great union has been fragmented by its foes, power is portioned, costly parochial parliaments set up at the expense of the English, with rights, freedoms and benefits given unfairly to some and denied others within the kingdom.

I have one thought on this.

It has to go.

The whole corrupt cadaver that is our polluted UK politics, the punch-and-judy sideline to Strasburg and Brussels needs to be torn down, burnt, consumed, torched, scorched, salted and consigned to history.

We need re-learn the meaning of expectation and to hold our politicians to account if they fall short. We need to flex the combined muscle that 60 million people can. We need to organise, to direct and inform those that are unaware, reacquaint the population with their responsibilities and rights as citizens and start to reclaim what is ours: our country, our political system, our freedom and our rights.

Sunday, 26 September 2010

Ed Milliband Doesn't get it.

How can such a privileged, protected, professional politician get anything that ordinary people "get"?

He hasn't lived a normal life, suffered hardship, worried about bills, worried whether his job is safe, worried whether he can pay his mortgage or rent this month.

How dare he say to the population he "gets it". Until he's experienced any of the real-life pressure and strains we all have to deal with it, how fucking dare he say such a patrionsing statement?

Its something he and others of his ilk will never "get". Neither will his advisors, nor will his friends, nor his hugely paid union friends.

The Labour elite soldiers on, clueless about what it'll really take to prove to the population that they have changed, are contrite, have learned the error of their ways and are genuinely sorry for fucking the country up.

In effect they continue to prove they really don't "get it" at all.

Friday, 24 September 2010

Bloggers Ground Down?

I see that we've lost or about to lose or at the very least suffer long bouts of inactivity from yet another blogger: Obo is wiping off the pancake and saying goodbye for a while. It wasn't long ago the Rantin' Rab did a dissappearing act too.

I can understand. There has been a change of government and very little of anything has changed. Why carry on, why bother blathering about the state of the world when words don't get the job done. Its just different idiots in suits asking the taxpayer to be bent over and fucked. As a blogger its very hard to carry on given that you can't see any reason to continue. I've been there, taking a short hiatus when I couldnt be arsed.

I think the time has come for the blogosphere to recognise that mere words alone won't do. There needs to be action: whatever form this action takes is irrelevant, but there needs to be something tangible in the real world to go along with the virtual blogging. Otherwise what are we all doing this for?

At the very least, there needs to be some sort of organisation, to collate and promote blogs and blogging. Organisation also strengthens our resistance against attack, which will inevitably come. Better to be organised now than have to react in an emergency.

So, maybe 2011 is the year that blogging needs to come of age: to broaden the reach, to increase the effectiveness of what us as bloggers do.

Without that, then all of us are sat at our computers typing away for nothing.

Thursday, 23 September 2010

Anti-Social Government.

There have been lots of noise today about anti-social behaviour and the Police's response to it. Aparrently (so the news tells us) the Police rate it very low on their priority list.

To be honest, I think the Police are right and those clamouring for the state to do something are wrong.

There was a time when ordinary citizens dealt with anti-social behaviour by clipping the offender round the ear. It cost the taxpayer nothing, it didn't involve the state. In fact it was our civic duty to punish minor infractions in this way.

Now, no-one dares to intervene in case they themselves get charged with breaching any one of a number of laws brought in by do-gooder, righteous knobheads. We are hamstrung by petty rules that prevent us from doing what should be our civic duty. Instead, we cede responsibility to the Police because they're the only people able to safely negotiate the minefield of rules and regulations. This comes at huge cost to the taxpayer.

Additionally, the day after the righteous finish pissing our money up the wall and the hangover kicks in, the money runs out and cuts start to bite, one of the first things the Police do is downgrade anti-social behaviour to a low priority as it wasn't their job in the first place.

So, we are hamstrung by petty rules and the Police don't have the resources to deal with the problem. WHat do you think is going to happen? I for one hope the righteous get a close encounter with a young thug, as he kicks the living shit out of them. Because thats what they deserve for ruining this country.

Wednesday, 22 September 2010

Today in Politics.

Several blokes said several soundbites that will be reported in tomorrows papers.

But not one fucking solid, concrete thing has changed in politics since the change of government.

None of the heinous laws passed by Labour has been repealed.

We still have troops in Afghanistan despite it being an unwinnable campaign.

The banks are pissing too much of our money away in bonuses instead of lending it out to customers.

The government is still borrowing at a phenomenal rate, actually up on the earth-scorching spanding levels of this time last year if you can believe it.

Several people will make several speeches over the coming weeks during conference season. However words aren't enough. Where are the deeds to go along with them? Where are the actions, the changes, the concrete chnages that will change this country for the better?

Sadly, they are lacking, like they've been lacking for decades now.

Just who will sweep away the window dressing of the past and start to govern, rather than bluster.

Or is this an indication that we've eneterd a new era, where Westminster politics are largely irrelevant? Is the real power, the real engine of change, the real deed-doer now ensconsed in a building in Brussels or Strasburg?

I do wonder why there's a lack of actual action. Is our government so hamstrung by EU legislation that they can't even sneeze without approval from the EU.

Next time you see an MP, just ask them what have they actually, physically done (not what they've promised and failed to do) to make this country a better place for its residents?

For the life of me I can't think of any MP, anywhere in government that has for a very, very long time.

Sunday, 19 September 2010

No Free Speech in America After all (If you're a Brit that is).

A young lad has been permanently (yes, for life) banned from entering America after sending Barack Obama an email in which he called him a p**** (I assume the word is prick, but the news report censored it, so I can only guess.

I assume then that America's first amendment (the one that guarantees free spech.. yeah right) either doesn't apply to foreigners who are a bit pissed off with their head of state, or its dead in the water.

Either way, a lifetime ban is a bit excessive for some teenage high jinks. Not only that, how will they enforce it? Will America now automatically prevent anyone called Luke Angel from entering their country?

Saturday, 18 September 2010

Replace the state?

I've been musing as I do, why can't you just replace the state institutions that leech money from you with menaces?

For instance, I pay over a thousand pounds a year in council tax just to have my bins emptied. Thats the only service I've used. I've tried to access other parts of local government at times like social services or housing benefit, but have firmly been denied provision of service.

So why can't I just go to a private contractor who will supply me with a bin emptying service, probably a private security firm to cover the police and something to replace the fire service. Maybe pay a small contribution to street cleaning.

Thats all I need from my council. I don't need anything else. So why should I pay for more? Why can't I opt out of all the stupid council schemes? Why can't I end the senseless waste of council tax money I see on a day to day basis?

Why is there a monopoly on local service provision? Why don't I have a choice to go somewhere else?

The same goes for the TV licence. Why do people have to pay for a TV licence when they get all of their programmes from Sky? Why do they have to pay twice?

Why do I have to pay for some of the stupid central government initiatives that are in place?

Why do I have to pay for the Olympics when I didn't want it to come to this country?

Why do I have to pay income tax so the DfID can go and piss billions away on foreign soil?

Why is my money going to the EU? Why would I want to pay for an unelected body to issue me with new laws I have to abide by? Where is the sense in that?

In fact, why am I paying twice, thrice or even more for the same thing?* I pay to local government for services that are duplicated by central government, and to central government for services that are duplicated by the EU. Why can't I just pay once, why the duplication and waste?

Why can't I just pay once to a private contractor to replace the whole lot? Why isn't there any competition?

* I say even more because at local government level there can be three different organisations providing the same service to the same area at the same time. Take where I live, the Portsmouth area: its in Hampshire, which has its own county council, which has refuse, housing, social services departments, etc. Portsmouth the city is a unitary authority, so although its in Hampshire, it too has refuse, housing and social services departments, duplicating the Hampshire departments . It gets worse, because in Hampshire there are several town councils and... you guessed it, they all have refuse, housing and social services departments. Its a vast swathe of duplication and job-creation. Anyone that has dealt with local government will recognise the difficulty in pinning down which of these dopplegangers is actually responsible for providing a service to you. A favourite local government tactic is to pass you round each of these services so they don't get landed with actually having to spend money providing you with service and interrupting their tea breaks or endless meetings.

Friday, 17 September 2010

WTF? No, seriously, WTFF???

A school has curtailled outside breaks because of...

A paedo threat? Nope.

A psycho stalker? No, not that either.


Excessive noise.

Give me fucking strength!

Someone, buys a house next to a school and then has the gall to complain to the council about the noise the kids are making at playtime. Someone, somewhere should just tell the the whinging bastard to fuck off.

But no, the school has had to waste money erecting a fence to help quell noise (like that would help, I could hear my kid's school at playtime and I was half a mile away).

And now more money - which is actually taxpayer's money is being wasted on an inquiry and assessment that should never be taking place in the first fucking place.

I just don't understand why someone can make such an outrageously moronic complaint, let alone why the school and the local council see the need to spend money pandering to the fuckwit who complained.

Just get one (or maybe all) of the kids to write a letter to their neighbour in their bestest handwriting, in colourful crayon, saying in big, bold letters:


Targetting the Vulnerable.

Having an autistic son who now lives an independant life, I'm filled with trepidation when the government start to talk about cuts to welfare budgets. Yes, by all means get rid of the spongers and the mickey-takers who shouldn't be on benefits, but don't target the vulnerable.

My son is one of those people who, if not supported hates confrontation and says to people exactly what they want to hear in order to avoid the slightest aggro. Imagine him being put in front of a panel of professionals whose sole aim is to get as many people off benefits as possible. Without any advocacy, he'd lose all his benefits, his rent, home and be out on the streets.

I know this for a fact because every step of the way, I've had to fight for support for him. To the point of dropping him and his packed bag at social services when they had failed to provide more than two weeks of respite care in four years, despite social services themselves making the recommendation in the first place and being told by two complaints panels to honour their own obligations.

I know how fragile the support he gets from the state can be and how easily it can be removed by some over-zealous jobsworth who sees cost-cutting success as a promotion opportunity. I've screamed across tables at people like that a number of times in my career as a dad looking out for his own.

So it comes as no suprise to hear that the cuts decreed on high are starting to be targetted at the vulnerable.

I've heard of a number of cases in the past couple of weeks where day service centres are being earmarked for closeure or where social services are taking steps to rehome people with learning disability in cheaper and less appropriate accommodation in order to save costs. Families and carers are up in arms, but they are a minority that can be safely ignored because they and their loved ones aren't in sufficient numbers to be able to affect voting. So councillors can decree policy for ruthless managers to enact without any risk of losing their perk-filled job.

This is what I mean when I say that the government HAS to start rolling up its sleeves and directly manage the cost savings needed in government. Without that iron grip on finances, letting local managers decide on service reductions will only end with the worst possible outcome.

Cost reductions in the public sector need to be targetted first and foremost at the administrators: those people employed during the New Labour regime to quantify, compare and report adherence to New Labour's target-driven culture. New Labour isn't in government any more, targets and league tables are mainly a thing of the past, so lets start trimming admin staff.

However, there's a problem: trimming admin staff doesn't cut the budget enough so the Albanian Transexual Dwarf noseflute troupe will lose funding. Cutting admin staff doesn't free up a building and land that can be resold to the councillor's developer mate Bob, generating a handy kickback for the councillor.

No, instead day centres close and the buildings get sold and redeveloped. The weak, the vulnerable get displaced, losing access to activities, access to contact with people other than the dozen care workers at their home, access to benefits, access to life.

Tuesday, 14 September 2010

The ever silent majority

I do wonder what it takes these days to get the public incensed enough to take action.

New Labour came to power, destroyed centuries-old liberties, fragmented the United Kingdom, pandered to the EU's every whim, pissed taxpayer's cash away like never before, fucked up the education system with endless tweaking, politicised the Police, allowed unfettered immigration,  kept millions on long-term benefits, condemned a huge swathe of the country to poverty, jerrymandered votes by pumping vast sums of money into primarily Labour-voting areas, corrupted Parliament with cash for peerages and an unfettered gravy train of expenses and allowances, taxed our pensions condeming us to a lifetime of work or death before retirement, ruined public services by installing targets and therefore neccessitating huge numbers of administrators to administrate adherence to and measurement of those targets, entered into illegal wars with unprepared and underfunded forces, reduced financial regulation causing in part a huge global banking failure and then spent billions propping up those same reckless banks, along with countless other assaults on the body public.

Throughout all that time, the majority of people were silent, safe in some slumber, mesmerised by a manipulated media, unwilling to act to end the worst government in the history of the country. Even when it was ended, it was by a such a small majority we ended up with a hung Parliament, ushering in a coalition government.

Now we have the Tories and Liberals in power together. So far we have witnessed not a controlled reduction in Labour's money-pissing contest, but instead a percentage-fixated, across-the-board reduction, apeing Labour's fixation with targets. There has been no deep budget cuts, but merely tinkering: window-dressing policy statements announcing cuts of little or no substance compared to the depth of those neded. We've seen no increase in financial control, no repentance from the banks and little in the way of sanctions against those that brought us close to the brink. Without proper oversight, we are looking at reductions in front-line services rather than reductions in unwanted administrators, councils targetting the vulnerable like those with learning disabilities reducing their support services rather than reduce the support to those who should be supporting themselves. We are paying in the most painful way for the vices of the ruling elite, the money-men, the people with power.

Again, the public refuse to act.

Instead, the unions are using this vaccum, this lack of will, this apathy in an attempt to gain political power again. Their voice and viewpoint is as false as the voice of politicians. It is not the voice of the people.

I really do wonder what it will take for the true voice of the people to be heard, just what assault against the body public will finally get this great mass of good people to rise up and make their will be known?

I have no idea, but the longer the silent majority stays silent, the deeper this country slides into the mire, the longer and more painful it will be to extract ourselves from it.

We, the people need to wake up soon.

We need a huge repeal of unfair laws, we need reinstatement of long-fought-for freedoms; we need those who took public money to prop up their institutions to pay us back with huge interest on top in order for them to learn the lesson never to do it again; we need those that took us to the brink to pay dearly for their criminal acts; we need more oversight and a controlled, targetted  reduction in the budget, reducing non-essential services, terminating pet projects and removing the armies of administrators; we need to act soon and in significant numbers before those who fear us most hijack our dissent and use it against us.

Saturday, 11 September 2010


Over the past decade, I've noticed people try and have a go at grasping the essence of "Britishness". You know, that thing that Socialist, Communists and everyone else that wants a piece of UK PLC hates. The fact that those in charge and those that want to be in charge hate Britishness so much is the reason the country is in the fucked-up paranoid state its in at the moment. Those at the top have an identity crisis because the identity the majority of us want to project, the image that gets tourists flocking here and gets us respect around the world, is the very thing they want to snuff out and replace with their own regime.

Many would argue that iconic Britishness is stuff like cricket, pubs, quirky practices passed on from history.

But I'd argue that Britishness isn't about the visuals, its about ideology.

Its about fair play, respect, democracy and yes, sticking the boot in to teach people a lesson when we're threatened.

So, if fair play and democracy are quintissentially British, why are we in the corrupt, undemocratic European super-state?

The same question can be asked of Sharia Law: Why in some cases is it being allowed to supercede Bristish laws and conventions, to the detriment of (especially female) British citizens?

Why have we recinded age-old acts of Parliament, in favour of new rules from the EU?

Why have we swapped our age-old legal system with all its enshrined protections like "innocent until PROVEN guilty" for a flawed, unfair one?

Why haven't we, as a nation put the boot in and stopped this subsumation of Britishness by foreign ideology?

It really is time the wholesale destruction of all things British was halted. Lets be honest, I've long since argued that things can't be preserved in aspic and progress will always happen. But why replace something that has worked for centuries with something worse?

Its about time we stopped apologising for being British, stopped the Bristish-haters in their tracks and started to reverse the aparrent slide into a Muslim/Marxist super-state.

It makes you wonder why people want to destroy everything that stands for Britishness. Is it because they know, in the end its a far fairer, far better way of life than the one they have?

Our mottos should be: "We are British, we stand for freedom from tyranny, we stand proud, and we'll kick the living daylights out of anyone that denys us our Britishness".