Showing posts with label Gordon Brown. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gordon Brown. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Enough
There has been much ink spilt over this already and I have no desire to rehash the arguments; despite which the events of recent days were why 24 hour rolling news was developed for and my words might be out dated before I smash 'enter'.
Lets me get the key points clear as I see them.
One. Gordon Brown has not resigned. He said he had no desire to stay on any longer than needed. He is still in number 10, I am not rejoicing. Like the horror movies, dead does not actually mean dead once the film rolls on a bit. Until he is actually gone, there is no cause for celebration. Remember this is the man who fell for Blair’s offer of a later resignation only to have Blair go back on it; if Brown can pull off a rainbow coalition with himself at the helm, you can be guaranteed that the come the time he is expected to go he will find some crisis or other in which to justify a u-turn. To be honest though I do not believe any such Rainbow coalition has any legs.
Two. Thankfully some Labour stalwarts actually did care to listen to the electorate and they know that Brown, Mandelson et al are putting themselves above the Labour Party and the electorate in trying to stay on for a bit. The only explicit message the electorate delivered was that Brown had to go.
Three. The Tories put too much on the table and built up the idea of a stable long term option in the minds of the electorate and now they look like they have been done. That was for the Lib Dems to offer. They have demonstrated a degree of naivety that the Lib Dems predictable are attempting to maximise for their own advantage.
Four. If a Queens speech cannot be agreed on or if we go back to the polls again this year the Tories will get their majority. Certainly Labour appear desperate and underhanded, the Lib Dems duplicitous and opportunistic; but more than that, ask any candidate who just lost their deposits and spent a fortune on posters and campaign materials if they want to do it all over again in a few weeks or months and it will soon become clear that there will be lot of areas where there will be much shorter ballot papers.
Elections are like balance sheets and MOT’s, they are a snap shot of a particular moment. If there is another election to follow with uncertainty over who would lead Labour (for which there may not be time this side of an election to get sorted) and with the events of recent days and with a reduced field and a nearly bankrupted Labour Party, there will only be one winner.
So, come on Cameron, this is the time to show your mettle. Call Clegg, remind him he came third and lost seats tell him that time’s up; dare him to try a rainbow coalition – he and Brown can share a Pickford’s van when moving out of their London homes for the journey north. The rainbow coalition will fall short of votes because there are a good few Labour MPs that have and will openly not back it.
Lets me get the key points clear as I see them.
One. Gordon Brown has not resigned. He said he had no desire to stay on any longer than needed. He is still in number 10, I am not rejoicing. Like the horror movies, dead does not actually mean dead once the film rolls on a bit. Until he is actually gone, there is no cause for celebration. Remember this is the man who fell for Blair’s offer of a later resignation only to have Blair go back on it; if Brown can pull off a rainbow coalition with himself at the helm, you can be guaranteed that the come the time he is expected to go he will find some crisis or other in which to justify a u-turn. To be honest though I do not believe any such Rainbow coalition has any legs.
Two. Thankfully some Labour stalwarts actually did care to listen to the electorate and they know that Brown, Mandelson et al are putting themselves above the Labour Party and the electorate in trying to stay on for a bit. The only explicit message the electorate delivered was that Brown had to go.
Three. The Tories put too much on the table and built up the idea of a stable long term option in the minds of the electorate and now they look like they have been done. That was for the Lib Dems to offer. They have demonstrated a degree of naivety that the Lib Dems predictable are attempting to maximise for their own advantage.
Four. If a Queens speech cannot be agreed on or if we go back to the polls again this year the Tories will get their majority. Certainly Labour appear desperate and underhanded, the Lib Dems duplicitous and opportunistic; but more than that, ask any candidate who just lost their deposits and spent a fortune on posters and campaign materials if they want to do it all over again in a few weeks or months and it will soon become clear that there will be lot of areas where there will be much shorter ballot papers.
Elections are like balance sheets and MOT’s, they are a snap shot of a particular moment. If there is another election to follow with uncertainty over who would lead Labour (for which there may not be time this side of an election to get sorted) and with the events of recent days and with a reduced field and a nearly bankrupted Labour Party, there will only be one winner.
So, come on Cameron, this is the time to show your mettle. Call Clegg, remind him he came third and lost seats tell him that time’s up; dare him to try a rainbow coalition – he and Brown can share a Pickford’s van when moving out of their London homes for the journey north. The rainbow coalition will fall short of votes because there are a good few Labour MPs that have and will openly not back it.
Saturday, May 08, 2010
Where To Go Now?
Well it’s all over and done with and we are stuck with a hung Parliament. It seems the only way to break the deadlock is to win the Lib Dems over with a promise to change the voting system to one that will almost always ensure a coalition is needed. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are similar enough that they could probably find enough common ground to govern for a time.
I hope that FPTP can be preserved for the Commons, but there needs to be an urgent review of the constituency sizes and perhaps even boundaries which have benefitted Labour so greatly. This is not this first election in recent history where Labour has benefitted from the status quo. Cameron has got about the same share of the vote as Blair in 2005 and has fallen short in term seats; all parties and candidates should be on a level playing field; the electoral commission has some questions to answer on why it has not moved to take more corrective action. We only need to look to this election where the third party is now dictating to the winner about what they want for there to be a functioning government to get a sense of how all future governments under PR would be formed.
For Cameron perhaps a wholly elected Lords using PR will allow him to seal the deal with the Lib Dems?
I am left wondering where I personally should go now? As regulars will know I am one of those disgruntled Tories who no longer wishes to support them because of the direction Mr Cameron is taking them. My objection is mostly on the Conservative position on continued membership of the EU. I do not believe the UK is benefitting from membership, in my heart I loathe the fact that 85% of our laws are made in a fashion I believe to be undemocratic. Furthermore I am tired of more and more powers being handed over.
I describe the EU as undemocratic but the truth is it is more anti-democratic in nature. One only has to look at how the EU is set up to be undemocratic despite the presence of a “parliament” which is unable to propose or initiate laws; it is a facade conceived so as to give the appearance of a democratic centre. The ruthless pursuit of it’s agenda and it’s willingness to break it’s own laws when it suits the Euro project makes the EU project a dangerous one for freedom loving democrats like myself. It is a totalitarian construct. It has achieved, or is still working to achieve every single aim it has set out for; you cannot defeat the will of the EU ruling classes; rare defeats in the past has been temporary as the EU ALWAYS eventually gets it way.
So which party does somebody of a right wing political agenda but it dead set in the idea that we must no longer participate in the EU but leave amicably but with great expedience? Well realistically the Conservatives are not an option. David Cameron will never give us a referendum on the EU, and he will likely re-ratify the Lisbon Treaty this year; he see’s Britain’s future in the EU but like all the others will not give that direction the democratic legitimacy and extend to us the voters a referendum. Had David Cameron not gone back on his Lisbon Referendum pledge last year he would likely have a majority today. A commenter on the DT Site has helpfully compiled this list showing what Dr North would describe as the UKIP effect. That is, these are the seats the Conservatives lost, where the UKIP vote is greater than the Tory losing margin.
Telford
Somerton and Frome
Plymouth Moor View
Morley & Outward
Newcastle-Under-Lyme
Bolton West
Great Grimsby
Walsall North
Walsall South
Southampton Itchen
Dorset Mid & Poole North
Wirral South
Solihull
Wells (LD gain from Con)
St Austell & Newquay
Derby North
Middlesbrough South & Cleveland East
St Ives
Dudley North
( Note: Most of this post was written yesterday, Dr North today lists 41 seats where the anti-EU vote cost the Tories )
I was one of those voices on the internet that warned that that the UKIP vote would in some seats cost the Conservatives; and it has done more it has denied them an Parliamentary majority. UKIP stood down in seats where the incumbent candidates were sufficiently vocal about the need for an EU referendum; I believe that with a commitment to a referendum on EU membership UKIP would have stood down in many more seats. When most Conservatives when polled tend to agree to either a referendum on membership or a degree of return of powers (unclear how that would happen) why have Cameron, Clarke and Osborne denied us this option?
So, I voted UKIP, but it would seem that I am one of only 3% or so that did. I have no regrets as I voted with my conscience and on the issues that I most care about; UKIP was the only option for me; in this election at least.
However, it is a little disappointing that UKIP were fairly disorganised in some areas; it seems there is little central help and candidates were left to fend for themselves – or at least that would be my assessment. Financially this is a big commitment to take on for UKIP candidates, if it were me I simply could not afford to stand. Despite some good policies and a compelling line that the three big parties are conspiring not to discuss openly how bad our debt crisis really is, it was clear that UKIP are really still a single issue party and that if only the blue team would accept that UKIP are right about EU membership they and the Tories could go back down the pub and get along together again. UKIP would probably disband if the EU membership question was finally settled. The entire UKIP campaign really came down to Buckingham with Nigel Farage being their star performer on TV not really coming close in the end to unseating the Speaker.
In my opinion, I hope UKIP do a little bit of soul searching and maybe take a look at a few things. There is a very real vacuum now on the right of the modern Conservative Party. And though the formula has clearly worked for them in terms of the EU elections, the UKIP formula does not work for UK elections; and a bigger presence in Westminster is exactly what they need to achieve their ultimate aim. I must also declare that I think their £ sign logo makes their literature and sites look dated, and reinforces the idea that they are a single issue party.
I want a party to fill this vacuum and I want that party to be able to win seats in Westminster. If UKIP in their hearts only see themselves as existing until the Conservatives change their point of view then I say we need another party in that void to cater for disenchanted Tories. If UKIP can recognise that for some they now represent more than they initially set themselves up to deliver and recognise that some minor tweaks would help sell them as an alternative to the conservatives on so much more than just Europe then I really truly believe that there is success to be had, and many, many more votes to be won.
Where exactly is my party of the right? In the next five years which party is going to raise the debate and fight for an end to the BBC tax? How about cutting welfare and socialist payments which create dependency and arguing that work should always be more rewarding than welfare? Who will speak out against the encroachment upon our civil liberties? Who on the right is advocating personal tax cuts for the coping classes? Who is going to cut through the bureaucracy and health and safety regulations which are stiffling small business start ups? Who is advocating Parliamentary oversight of judges? Where is the opposition to the new Supreme Court for the UK which cannot rule on devolved matters? Where on the right is advocating more Private Schools and Grammar schools which would allow more kids to get a better standard of education? Who is pointing out how illiberal it is to be a member of the CAP or to tell people how many hours they may work in a week? Who on the right dare question if we should continue as the United Kingdom or separate back to the component nations? Who is going to cut the cost and reach of the state? Who is arguing to an end to QUANGO’s and a minister in Parliament responsible for every penny that is spent of taxpayer’s money? I want a party who agree that life in prison means life in prison for people who commit the most vicious and serious of crimes.
The next few days it will be interesting and I will cheer from the very moment Gordon Brown is finally dragged out of Downing Street. However I am completely disenfranchised now by the major parties and struggling to find a political home and I don’t think I am alone. So what are we going to do?
I hope that FPTP can be preserved for the Commons, but there needs to be an urgent review of the constituency sizes and perhaps even boundaries which have benefitted Labour so greatly. This is not this first election in recent history where Labour has benefitted from the status quo. Cameron has got about the same share of the vote as Blair in 2005 and has fallen short in term seats; all parties and candidates should be on a level playing field; the electoral commission has some questions to answer on why it has not moved to take more corrective action. We only need to look to this election where the third party is now dictating to the winner about what they want for there to be a functioning government to get a sense of how all future governments under PR would be formed.
For Cameron perhaps a wholly elected Lords using PR will allow him to seal the deal with the Lib Dems?
I am left wondering where I personally should go now? As regulars will know I am one of those disgruntled Tories who no longer wishes to support them because of the direction Mr Cameron is taking them. My objection is mostly on the Conservative position on continued membership of the EU. I do not believe the UK is benefitting from membership, in my heart I loathe the fact that 85% of our laws are made in a fashion I believe to be undemocratic. Furthermore I am tired of more and more powers being handed over.
I describe the EU as undemocratic but the truth is it is more anti-democratic in nature. One only has to look at how the EU is set up to be undemocratic despite the presence of a “parliament” which is unable to propose or initiate laws; it is a facade conceived so as to give the appearance of a democratic centre. The ruthless pursuit of it’s agenda and it’s willingness to break it’s own laws when it suits the Euro project makes the EU project a dangerous one for freedom loving democrats like myself. It is a totalitarian construct. It has achieved, or is still working to achieve every single aim it has set out for; you cannot defeat the will of the EU ruling classes; rare defeats in the past has been temporary as the EU ALWAYS eventually gets it way.
So which party does somebody of a right wing political agenda but it dead set in the idea that we must no longer participate in the EU but leave amicably but with great expedience? Well realistically the Conservatives are not an option. David Cameron will never give us a referendum on the EU, and he will likely re-ratify the Lisbon Treaty this year; he see’s Britain’s future in the EU but like all the others will not give that direction the democratic legitimacy and extend to us the voters a referendum. Had David Cameron not gone back on his Lisbon Referendum pledge last year he would likely have a majority today. A commenter on the DT Site has helpfully compiled this list showing what Dr North would describe as the UKIP effect. That is, these are the seats the Conservatives lost, where the UKIP vote is greater than the Tory losing margin.
Telford
Somerton and Frome
Plymouth Moor View
Morley & Outward
Newcastle-Under-Lyme
Bolton West
Great Grimsby
Walsall North
Walsall South
Southampton Itchen
Dorset Mid & Poole North
Wirral South
Solihull
Wells (LD gain from Con)
St Austell & Newquay
Derby North
Middlesbrough South & Cleveland East
St Ives
Dudley North
( Note: Most of this post was written yesterday, Dr North today lists 41 seats where the anti-EU vote cost the Tories )
I was one of those voices on the internet that warned that that the UKIP vote would in some seats cost the Conservatives; and it has done more it has denied them an Parliamentary majority. UKIP stood down in seats where the incumbent candidates were sufficiently vocal about the need for an EU referendum; I believe that with a commitment to a referendum on EU membership UKIP would have stood down in many more seats. When most Conservatives when polled tend to agree to either a referendum on membership or a degree of return of powers (unclear how that would happen) why have Cameron, Clarke and Osborne denied us this option?
So, I voted UKIP, but it would seem that I am one of only 3% or so that did. I have no regrets as I voted with my conscience and on the issues that I most care about; UKIP was the only option for me; in this election at least.
However, it is a little disappointing that UKIP were fairly disorganised in some areas; it seems there is little central help and candidates were left to fend for themselves – or at least that would be my assessment. Financially this is a big commitment to take on for UKIP candidates, if it were me I simply could not afford to stand. Despite some good policies and a compelling line that the three big parties are conspiring not to discuss openly how bad our debt crisis really is, it was clear that UKIP are really still a single issue party and that if only the blue team would accept that UKIP are right about EU membership they and the Tories could go back down the pub and get along together again. UKIP would probably disband if the EU membership question was finally settled. The entire UKIP campaign really came down to Buckingham with Nigel Farage being their star performer on TV not really coming close in the end to unseating the Speaker.
In my opinion, I hope UKIP do a little bit of soul searching and maybe take a look at a few things. There is a very real vacuum now on the right of the modern Conservative Party. And though the formula has clearly worked for them in terms of the EU elections, the UKIP formula does not work for UK elections; and a bigger presence in Westminster is exactly what they need to achieve their ultimate aim. I must also declare that I think their £ sign logo makes their literature and sites look dated, and reinforces the idea that they are a single issue party.
I want a party to fill this vacuum and I want that party to be able to win seats in Westminster. If UKIP in their hearts only see themselves as existing until the Conservatives change their point of view then I say we need another party in that void to cater for disenchanted Tories. If UKIP can recognise that for some they now represent more than they initially set themselves up to deliver and recognise that some minor tweaks would help sell them as an alternative to the conservatives on so much more than just Europe then I really truly believe that there is success to be had, and many, many more votes to be won.
Where exactly is my party of the right? In the next five years which party is going to raise the debate and fight for an end to the BBC tax? How about cutting welfare and socialist payments which create dependency and arguing that work should always be more rewarding than welfare? Who will speak out against the encroachment upon our civil liberties? Who on the right is advocating personal tax cuts for the coping classes? Who is going to cut through the bureaucracy and health and safety regulations which are stiffling small business start ups? Who is advocating Parliamentary oversight of judges? Where is the opposition to the new Supreme Court for the UK which cannot rule on devolved matters? Where on the right is advocating more Private Schools and Grammar schools which would allow more kids to get a better standard of education? Who is pointing out how illiberal it is to be a member of the CAP or to tell people how many hours they may work in a week? Who on the right dare question if we should continue as the United Kingdom or separate back to the component nations? Who is going to cut the cost and reach of the state? Who is arguing to an end to QUANGO’s and a minister in Parliament responsible for every penny that is spent of taxpayer’s money? I want a party who agree that life in prison means life in prison for people who commit the most vicious and serious of crimes.
The next few days it will be interesting and I will cheer from the very moment Gordon Brown is finally dragged out of Downing Street. However I am completely disenfranchised now by the major parties and struggling to find a political home and I don’t think I am alone. So what are we going to do?
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
DON'T. VOTE. LABOUR.
After 13 years the mood of the nation I think is clear, and I believe that tomorrow we will all have the opportunity to go cast that ballot and finally kick Labour into the long grass. This blog came about for two reasons, firstly as my voice of opposition to the EU and secondly to voice my opposition to this Labour Government.
I have pleaded for voters to look to the Albion Alliance for a list of candidates who can be trusted to work in our best interests on the question of EU membership, but I will add a new plea today. Please, don't vote Labour. I will personally be voting with my conscience tomorrow; I am voting on my issues and I will not regret doing so for it will be a vote which most closely aligns to my politics and beliefs. I am also proud that I will be upholding my own Albion Alliance Voters Pledge and voting for a candidate who has said that he will put country before party.
William Hague sent me the below email and no doubt the blogs run by Conservative voters and party members will be carrying this today.
I say again. Don't. Vote. Labour.
I posted the below in February - there was too much to bring it up-to-date, but here was Feb's output.
I have pleaded for voters to look to the Albion Alliance for a list of candidates who can be trusted to work in our best interests on the question of EU membership, but I will add a new plea today. Please, don't vote Labour. I will personally be voting with my conscience tomorrow; I am voting on my issues and I will not regret doing so for it will be a vote which most closely aligns to my politics and beliefs. I am also proud that I will be upholding my own Albion Alliance Voters Pledge and voting for a candidate who has said that he will put country before party.
William Hague sent me the below email and no doubt the blogs run by Conservative voters and party members will be carrying this today.
I say again. Don't. Vote. Labour.
I posted the below in February - there was too much to bring it up-to-date, but here was Feb's output.
Jaw Smacking, Holiday Scrounging, Election Bribing, Access Selling, Passport Flogging, Tax Avoiding, Twitter Abusing, Enron Loving, Bad News Burying, Granny Bashing, Rent Boy Hiring, Doctor Killing, Jew Hating, Fire Starting, Badger Watching,
Dodgy Financing, Naked Picture Taking, Company Destroying, Monarchy Hating, Embarrassing, Hairdressing, Hospital Closing, Frequently Resigning, Lobby Bribing, Visa Scamming, Secretary Throwing, Paternity Testing, Expenses Shredding,
Iffy Trading, Completely Bungling, Over Eating, Peerage Selling, Mortgage Faking, Air Miles Scamming, Consequence Dodging, Slime Dripping Allowance Fiddling, War Mongering, Charity Charging Legislation Selling, Double Dipping, Triple Dipping
Window Licking, Emotionally Blackmailing, Truth Hiding, Bile Inducing, Coup Messing, Principle Abandoning, Eugenics Considering, Ghurkha Oppressing, Secretly Thieving, History Making, Porn Claiming, Economy Destroying, Procrastinating, Terrorist Appeasing, Tax Hiking, Slush Fund Building, Disappointing,
Voucher Totting, Law Dodging, Social Engineering, Criminalising, Gnome Humping, Border Seeping Future Stealing, Election Dodging, Lip Trembling Gerrymandering, Back Handed Ball Juggling, Book Cooking, Pension Raiding, Frequently Offending, Carpet bagging, Vote Rigging, Addicted To Smearing, Non-Declaring, Dictating, Wall Papering, Luvvie Exempting, Spouse Cheating Defrauding, Troop Failing, Camera Chasing, Sexually Harassing, Unreined Spending, Back Stabbing, Capitulating Secretary Shagging, Dossier Enhancing...
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Worst PM Ever
So says Manish Sood, a Labour PPC to an article in Lynn News.
Here's the highlights:
He later declared to Sky News that he thinks he would be interested in leading the Labour Party.
To Mr Sood I would agree with his sentiments and in my opinion also Gordon Brown has been the worst PM ever. Is Mr Sood alone in the Labour Party?
The Labour Party elevated Gordon Brown to the highest office of the land, and people will never forgive the Labour Party for that mistake.
Here's the highlights:
"Immigration has gone up which is creating friction within communities. The country is getting bigger and messier.
"The role of ministers has gone bureaucratic and the action of ministers has gone downhill – it is corrupt.
"The loss of social values is the basic problem and this is not what the Labour Party is about.
"I believe Gordon Brown has been the worst Prime Minister we have had in this country.
"It is a disgrace and he owes an apology to the people and the Queen.
"We have to get back to basics where people can leave their money outside for the milkman without it being stolen."
He later declared to Sky News that he thinks he would be interested in leading the Labour Party.
To Mr Sood I would agree with his sentiments and in my opinion also Gordon Brown has been the worst PM ever. Is Mr Sood alone in the Labour Party?
The Labour Party elevated Gordon Brown to the highest office of the land, and people will never forgive the Labour Party for that mistake.
Promise Versus Reality
Some election humour:
While walking down the street one day a Member of Parliament is tragically hit by a truck and dies.
His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.
'Welcome to heaven,' says St. Peter.
'Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you.'
'No problem, just let me in,' says the man.
'Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity.'
'Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven,' says the MP.
'I'm sorry, but we have our rules.'
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.
Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.
They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.
Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly & nice guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.
Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises....
The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.
'Now it's time to visit heaven.'
So, 24 hours pass with the MP joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.
'Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity.'
The MP reflects for a minute, then he answers: 'Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell.'
So St. Peter escorts him to the lift and he goes down, down, down to hell.
Now the doors of the lift open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and rubbish.
He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.
The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. ' I don't understand,' stammers the MP.
'Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of rubbish and my friends look miserable.
What happened? '
The devil looks at him, smiles and says, ' Yesterday we were campaigning.. ...
Today you voted.
--
For a look quick look at how far Gordon's metaphorical golf course is from the pretty real rubbish tip he is leaving behind, might I recommend this excellent guide from Anna Raccoon.
While walking down the street one day a Member of Parliament is tragically hit by a truck and dies.
His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.
'Welcome to heaven,' says St. Peter.
'Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you.'
'No problem, just let me in,' says the man.
'Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity.'
'Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven,' says the MP.
'I'm sorry, but we have our rules.'
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.
Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.
They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.
Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly & nice guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.
Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises....
The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.
'Now it's time to visit heaven.'
So, 24 hours pass with the MP joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.
'Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity.'
The MP reflects for a minute, then he answers: 'Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell.'
So St. Peter escorts him to the lift and he goes down, down, down to hell.
Now the doors of the lift open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and rubbish.
He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.
The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. ' I don't understand,' stammers the MP.
'Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of rubbish and my friends look miserable.
What happened? '
The devil looks at him, smiles and says, ' Yesterday we were campaigning.. ...
Today you voted.
--
For a look quick look at how far Gordon's metaphorical golf course is from the pretty real rubbish tip he is leaving behind, might I recommend this excellent guide from Anna Raccoon.
Saturday, May 01, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
The End Of Gordon Brown
Today was a very busy day at work, but it was impossible after having seen the news breaking at lunchtime not to keep the headphones in and Sky News quietly keeping me up to date with the goings on of a rather eventful day in politics.
This video needs to be watched again over and over. It is a bit of a David Brent moment, where the flawed 'on camera' persona slips and the even more flawed 'off camera' persona shows through.
Labour have been trying to spin this all afternoon and as the day goes on their rebuttal gets weaker and more tired.
There is a claim, (blatant spin really) that Gordon Brown was somehow involved in a "difficult conversation" but watch the video back and there is nothing troubling about it at all. This is a bread and butter conversation in the street with a Labour supporter, who was identified by Gordon's own advisors in the crowd who had briefly vetted Mrs Duffy to ensure that she was somebody who would raise a concern, yet not really cause any real problems. The Prime Minister's own reporting lobby have been critical that he is not engaging anyone without a red rosette on the campaign trail, to which Gordon's staff replied by ensuring the rosettes were left at home, so the journo's could not complain. None-the-less, this women was vetted and deemed a useful pawn for the cameras.
That however was most definately not a difficult conversation.
Dear God man, if that was difficult for you it is clear you would barely qualify for checkout work, let alone qualify as Prime Minister.
There is a spin that Gordon Brown like other people will say things that they don't really mean. So, Labour spinners are actively saying that the Prime Minister is disingenuous as a defence to a worse perception. It is truly so very disappointing that this is the man who already leads us, and that Labour supporters are paying their subs for an army of spin masters who must go on television to make excuses for Brown. If the Prime Minister was lacking in frankness and sincerity in that interview, and his cheer-leaders are shouting this fact from the rooftops; then why should we ever believe a single word he ever has to say?
There is another spin, from Gordon himself this time, that he misheard Gillian Duffy. Well, that really raises two more questions.
1. What do you think you heard?
2. If your reaction was that she was a bigot, why did you not challenge her on that assertion, and show yourself on live TV as someone who is prepared to stand up to bigots?
The answer of course is that he did not mishear or misunderstand at all. Again, watch the video back and see how dismissive he is of avoter lifelong Labour voter for simply having concerns, and how he brands her ridiculous. Why? Because she says she is no longer sure that she will vote Labour.
It brings us screamingly back to the BIG question of the election. It is not the economy and it is not the EU. It is, is Gordon Brown mentally and psychologically capable of the job to which the Labour party have already anointed him?
Well, if shooting the breeze with a supporter is "difficult" for him and if his private thoughts consist of branding pensioners as bigots, I would say he needs a very, very, very long holiday.
Brown talks a big game on morals and personal character yet he is frequently shown up on these very characteristics. He, his staff and his government have been caught out countless times for lying and it is an ingrained characteristic of this Labour Government that they will only speak to their version of events, and their version of the truth. This is of course never an accurate reflection of real life, of the real situation, of the real statistics or experiences of people. In the conversation with Mrs Duffy today he was untruthful to her. When she asked what he was going to do about the debt he replied he would cut in in half in four years. The Labour policy as I have written about before is in fact not to cut debt in four years, but to cut the deficit in four years. A liar to the very end.
Gordon Brown thinks that if a person does not agree with him, or holds a different point of view that they are somehow evil, they are twisted. They are certainly of a lower standing in his mind. There is only one acceptable viewpoint and it is the one that he sets out. When Gillian Duffy spoke of her pension, on immigration, on university places and did so in a tone that did not recognise that she finds him to be as great as he thinks himself to be, then he immediately dismissed her in his own head and to his inner-circle as "ridiculous" and as a "just a sort of bigoted woman". Does he think anyone who simply mentions immigration and the virtue of handing away border control as a cost of EU membership to be bigotted? If so, then according to Gordon Brown's litmus test I too am a bigot. My friends and family are bigots. Many of you are bigots. Certainly all of UKIP and many Conservatives must then be bigots. I am a bigot could be on a million t-shirts by the end of next week carrying the slogan, "Gordon Brown thinks I am a Bigot!"
Today, thanks to a Sky microphone and to the incompetence of Gordon's own staff in not turning off that mic as he got into the car; the truth was revealed about what has been widely speculated on how Gordon's mind functions. The man has no mental capacity to accept anything other than his own point of view; he got into the car and in his own head HE was some kind of victim, and in thinking this threw a horrible and exceptionally inappropriate label at someone who may well have knocked on more doors on behalf of the Labour party in her lifetime than he himself ever has. How dare someone speak to him like that!
Today, may well be the very day that the Labour Party finally was killed off as an electoral force in the UK. The Liberals I think in the national psyche will now leapfrog Labour and will set themselves out as the party of the left after the election. No longer being one of the big two will see their post election support waiver further with the Lib Dems, Greens and BNP the likely benefactors.
The Labour Party it must be remembered chose to move on their own leader when they removed Tony Blair, a man for all his faults had won three elections. In removing him, they elevated via coronation rather than election the man they all saw as closer to their own ideology. They did so with full conscience that the UK people would not be happy at having a Prime Minsiter who had not been elected by them directly - they did not care, they wanted Gordon and you and I were to have no say. The man who knew he could never win an election, and never did became our leader. He shafted us on an election on him, he denied us our promised vote on Lisbon, he mortgaged our childrens futures for the benefit of his mates in the city without a vote in Parliament. Elections demand scrutiny that's one of many reasons why they safeguard people; Labour ignored all of us for the benefit of Gordon. They themselves could have chucked him out, but chose instead to maximise their own salaries, pensions and expenses wand ran down the clock. They must be made to pay the price for this now when we vote.
Gordon Browns career effectively ended today and there is only one person who can be blamed, and that is Gordon Brown. I wonder if this reality has caught up with him yet and he truly realises how significant his captured words are?
I always imagined the day the Labour Party died would be a joyous one, but instead I just feel sad for the poor pensioner from Rochdale who went out for a loaf of bread and came home branded by the Prime Minsiter of The United Kingdom to be a Bigot. Come tomorrow, I suspect she will be glad she delayed posting that ballot paper.
This video needs to be watched again over and over. It is a bit of a David Brent moment, where the flawed 'on camera' persona slips and the even more flawed 'off camera' persona shows through.
Labour have been trying to spin this all afternoon and as the day goes on their rebuttal gets weaker and more tired.
There is a claim, (blatant spin really) that Gordon Brown was somehow involved in a "difficult conversation" but watch the video back and there is nothing troubling about it at all. This is a bread and butter conversation in the street with a Labour supporter, who was identified by Gordon's own advisors in the crowd who had briefly vetted Mrs Duffy to ensure that she was somebody who would raise a concern, yet not really cause any real problems. The Prime Minister's own reporting lobby have been critical that he is not engaging anyone without a red rosette on the campaign trail, to which Gordon's staff replied by ensuring the rosettes were left at home, so the journo's could not complain. None-the-less, this women was vetted and deemed a useful pawn for the cameras.
That however was most definately not a difficult conversation.
Dear God man, if that was difficult for you it is clear you would barely qualify for checkout work, let alone qualify as Prime Minister.
There is a spin that Gordon Brown like other people will say things that they don't really mean. So, Labour spinners are actively saying that the Prime Minister is disingenuous as a defence to a worse perception. It is truly so very disappointing that this is the man who already leads us, and that Labour supporters are paying their subs for an army of spin masters who must go on television to make excuses for Brown. If the Prime Minister was lacking in frankness and sincerity in that interview, and his cheer-leaders are shouting this fact from the rooftops; then why should we ever believe a single word he ever has to say?
There is another spin, from Gordon himself this time, that he misheard Gillian Duffy. Well, that really raises two more questions.
1. What do you think you heard?
2. If your reaction was that she was a bigot, why did you not challenge her on that assertion, and show yourself on live TV as someone who is prepared to stand up to bigots?
The answer of course is that he did not mishear or misunderstand at all. Again, watch the video back and see how dismissive he is of a
It brings us screamingly back to the BIG question of the election. It is not the economy and it is not the EU. It is, is Gordon Brown mentally and psychologically capable of the job to which the Labour party have already anointed him?
Well, if shooting the breeze with a supporter is "difficult" for him and if his private thoughts consist of branding pensioners as bigots, I would say he needs a very, very, very long holiday.
Brown talks a big game on morals and personal character yet he is frequently shown up on these very characteristics. He, his staff and his government have been caught out countless times for lying and it is an ingrained characteristic of this Labour Government that they will only speak to their version of events, and their version of the truth. This is of course never an accurate reflection of real life, of the real situation, of the real statistics or experiences of people. In the conversation with Mrs Duffy today he was untruthful to her. When she asked what he was going to do about the debt he replied he would cut in in half in four years. The Labour policy as I have written about before is in fact not to cut debt in four years, but to cut the deficit in four years. A liar to the very end.
Gordon Brown thinks that if a person does not agree with him, or holds a different point of view that they are somehow evil, they are twisted. They are certainly of a lower standing in his mind. There is only one acceptable viewpoint and it is the one that he sets out. When Gillian Duffy spoke of her pension, on immigration, on university places and did so in a tone that did not recognise that she finds him to be as great as he thinks himself to be, then he immediately dismissed her in his own head and to his inner-circle as "ridiculous" and as a "just a sort of bigoted woman". Does he think anyone who simply mentions immigration and the virtue of handing away border control as a cost of EU membership to be bigotted? If so, then according to Gordon Brown's litmus test I too am a bigot. My friends and family are bigots. Many of you are bigots. Certainly all of UKIP and many Conservatives must then be bigots. I am a bigot could be on a million t-shirts by the end of next week carrying the slogan, "Gordon Brown thinks I am a Bigot!"
Today, thanks to a Sky microphone and to the incompetence of Gordon's own staff in not turning off that mic as he got into the car; the truth was revealed about what has been widely speculated on how Gordon's mind functions. The man has no mental capacity to accept anything other than his own point of view; he got into the car and in his own head HE was some kind of victim, and in thinking this threw a horrible and exceptionally inappropriate label at someone who may well have knocked on more doors on behalf of the Labour party in her lifetime than he himself ever has. How dare someone speak to him like that!
Today, may well be the very day that the Labour Party finally was killed off as an electoral force in the UK. The Liberals I think in the national psyche will now leapfrog Labour and will set themselves out as the party of the left after the election. No longer being one of the big two will see their post election support waiver further with the Lib Dems, Greens and BNP the likely benefactors.
The Labour Party it must be remembered chose to move on their own leader when they removed Tony Blair, a man for all his faults had won three elections. In removing him, they elevated via coronation rather than election the man they all saw as closer to their own ideology. They did so with full conscience that the UK people would not be happy at having a Prime Minsiter who had not been elected by them directly - they did not care, they wanted Gordon and you and I were to have no say. The man who knew he could never win an election, and never did became our leader. He shafted us on an election on him, he denied us our promised vote on Lisbon, he mortgaged our childrens futures for the benefit of his mates in the city without a vote in Parliament. Elections demand scrutiny that's one of many reasons why they safeguard people; Labour ignored all of us for the benefit of Gordon. They themselves could have chucked him out, but chose instead to maximise their own salaries, pensions and expenses wand ran down the clock. They must be made to pay the price for this now when we vote.
Gordon Browns career effectively ended today and there is only one person who can be blamed, and that is Gordon Brown. I wonder if this reality has caught up with him yet and he truly realises how significant his captured words are?
I always imagined the day the Labour Party died would be a joyous one, but instead I just feel sad for the poor pensioner from Rochdale who went out for a loaf of bread and came home branded by the Prime Minsiter of The United Kingdom to be a Bigot. Come tomorrow, I suspect she will be glad she delayed posting that ballot paper.
The World According To Labour
This, at the time of posting is Breaking News.
The world according to Labour - If you even mention the word "Immigration" you are a bigot or a racist.
As per Sky News, from Gordon Brown this morning:
Brown will claim that he has been going around 'listening to people', but he is the same old closed-minded, two-faced Labourman he always was. If you want to talk about Labour failures, and about what you see are issues - they, Labour, will smear you and they will ignore you. How nasty and ignorant of the Prime Minister; but also so very revealling to his true character.
How did this idiot ever get to be Prime Minister?
Update: here is the video -
The world according to Labour - If you even mention the word "Immigration" you are a bigot or a racist.
As per Sky News, from Gordon Brown this morning:
Gordon Brown has been caught out on microphone in an unguarded moment - calling a pensioner "bigoted".The Prime Minister was confronted by the 66-year-old woman while visiting Rochdale.
He spent nearly five minutes answering her questions and told her: "It's been very good to meet you."
However, a microphone picked up his words to an aide as he drove away in a car.
He said: "That was a disaster.
"You should never have put me with that woman.
"Whose idea was that?"
Mr Brown went on: "It's just ridiculous."
His aide then asked: "What did she say?"
Mr Brown replied: "Oh, everything, she's just a sort of bigoted woman who said she used to vote Labour."
The Prime Minister had been chatting to the woman about her pension credit, crime, education, as well as immigration, before the gaffe.
Brown will claim that he has been going around 'listening to people', but he is the same old closed-minded, two-faced Labourman he always was. If you want to talk about Labour failures, and about what you see are issues - they, Labour, will smear you and they will ignore you. How nasty and ignorant of the Prime Minister; but also so very revealling to his true character.
How did this idiot ever get to be Prime Minister?
Update: here is the video -
Monday, April 26, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
DD
I have not been alone on the blogosphere in pointing out how the current electoral set up is almost criminally unfairly balanced towards Labour. Very soon (May 7th to be precise) I think the full effect of just how unfair the electoral boundaries have become is about to come slamming home and it could be the wider electorate who are being courted like never before that will be demanding some answers when the results are being digested after the election.
With the Lib Dems polling above Labour today it would seem Labour's Plan B is working. If the Lib Dems do well, it is the Tories that suffer more; Labour get in via the back door.
For example, if all three parties get exactly 30% of the popular vote, as a voter it would be fair for me to expect a roughly equal number of seats to be allocated to each give or take a reasonable margin of error.
Have a look at the UK Polling Report seat calculator, which is calculating seats based on a uniform swing which is admittedly is a little flawed, but paints a compelling picture none-the-less. At 30% each, which is not beyond the realms of possibility looking at the current polls we would get the following outcome:
Labour 305 seats (-51)
Conservative 208 seats (+10)
Liberal Democrats 106 seats (+44)
Others 13 Seats (+1)
Northern Ireland 18 Seats (NC)
Do you see what I am seeing? Not only do Labour come out massively on top despite attaining the same share of the vote as Conservatives and the Lib Dems, but even if we combined the Tory and Lib Dem vote, they could not form a minority government between them even if they wanted one with their combined tally. Net result, Gordon clings on.
What about another scenario. Let's give The Tories and the Lib Dems 32% each, and leave Labour on 26%. Here's what comes out of the seat calculator:
Labour 252 seats (-104)
Conservative 243 seats (+45)
Liberal Democrats 124 seats (+62)
Others 13 Seats (+1)
Northern Ireland 18 Seats (NC)
Despite Labour potentially polling 6% less than the Tories and 6% less than the Lib Dems, they could end up with the most seats in the new Parliament. Net result, Gordon clings on.
It is the Electoral Commission who has held the responsibility for Electoral Boundary reviews can by no measure claim success for this distortion. Such happenings are not chance occurances or accidents.
Here's the thing, don't go knocking on their door on May 7th because they've just handed over responsibility for the boundaries to a brand new QUANGO called the Local Government Boundary Commission on 1st April 2010. The body responsible for the stitch up will insist it is no longer anything to do with them, and this new body will rightly claim they had nothing to do with it. We will be afforded No Questions, No Answers, No Accountability. One body set up to provide a stitch up quietly melts away where its actions can no longer be called to account and a new QUANGO takes its place at great cost to us both financially and electorally.
Boundaries aside there is another point. Postal Votes will be going out soon and I believe they can arrive between one to two weeks before the actual election day; so the "others" and the Conservatives had better get their arguments sharpened real quick if they are serious about kicking Brown out. Postal voting is becoming more popular so there are some serious votes to be won and lost at this next debate because those ballots could be in the post before the last debate comes around.
If the Tory plan is to give Nick Clegg more rope in the hope he hangs himself then they are going to lose because time is just about up and I am not convinced they understand this. If Lib Dem support is a novelty, if it is a whim then the Tories need to know that they do not have the luxury of time.
Cameron's term can be characterised because of his seemingly hubristic belief that when Labour fail, people will move to the Conservatives; so he moved the Tories left, in an attempt to seize the centre ground. In the last week however, that centre ground went Orange. Since last Thursday Brown seems to have retreated into the bunker and the Conservatives appear to have lost that little bit of momentum and confidence they had just started to get in the lead up to that first debate. Fraser Nelson seems to be making a better case for the Conservatives and is more visible in the last few days than David Cameron.
There are plenty more twists and turns left in this campaign yet.
With the Lib Dems polling above Labour today it would seem Labour's Plan B is working. If the Lib Dems do well, it is the Tories that suffer more; Labour get in via the back door.
For example, if all three parties get exactly 30% of the popular vote, as a voter it would be fair for me to expect a roughly equal number of seats to be allocated to each give or take a reasonable margin of error.
Have a look at the UK Polling Report seat calculator, which is calculating seats based on a uniform swing which is admittedly is a little flawed, but paints a compelling picture none-the-less. At 30% each, which is not beyond the realms of possibility looking at the current polls we would get the following outcome:
Labour 305 seats (-51)
Conservative 208 seats (+10)
Liberal Democrats 106 seats (+44)
Others 13 Seats (+1)
Northern Ireland 18 Seats (NC)
Do you see what I am seeing? Not only do Labour come out massively on top despite attaining the same share of the vote as Conservatives and the Lib Dems, but even if we combined the Tory and Lib Dem vote, they could not form a minority government between them even if they wanted one with their combined tally. Net result, Gordon clings on.
What about another scenario. Let's give The Tories and the Lib Dems 32% each, and leave Labour on 26%. Here's what comes out of the seat calculator:
Labour 252 seats (-104)
Conservative 243 seats (+45)
Liberal Democrats 124 seats (+62)
Others 13 Seats (+1)
Northern Ireland 18 Seats (NC)
Despite Labour potentially polling 6% less than the Tories and 6% less than the Lib Dems, they could end up with the most seats in the new Parliament. Net result, Gordon clings on.
It is the Electoral Commission who has held the responsibility for Electoral Boundary reviews can by no measure claim success for this distortion. Such happenings are not chance occurances or accidents.
Here's the thing, don't go knocking on their door on May 7th because they've just handed over responsibility for the boundaries to a brand new QUANGO called the Local Government Boundary Commission on 1st April 2010. The body responsible for the stitch up will insist it is no longer anything to do with them, and this new body will rightly claim they had nothing to do with it. We will be afforded No Questions, No Answers, No Accountability. One body set up to provide a stitch up quietly melts away where its actions can no longer be called to account and a new QUANGO takes its place at great cost to us both financially and electorally.
Boundaries aside there is another point. Postal Votes will be going out soon and I believe they can arrive between one to two weeks before the actual election day; so the "others" and the Conservatives had better get their arguments sharpened real quick if they are serious about kicking Brown out. Postal voting is becoming more popular so there are some serious votes to be won and lost at this next debate because those ballots could be in the post before the last debate comes around.
If the Tory plan is to give Nick Clegg more rope in the hope he hangs himself then they are going to lose because time is just about up and I am not convinced they understand this. If Lib Dem support is a novelty, if it is a whim then the Tories need to know that they do not have the luxury of time.
Cameron's term can be characterised because of his seemingly hubristic belief that when Labour fail, people will move to the Conservatives; so he moved the Tories left, in an attempt to seize the centre ground. In the last week however, that centre ground went Orange. Since last Thursday Brown seems to have retreated into the bunker and the Conservatives appear to have lost that little bit of momentum and confidence they had just started to get in the lead up to that first debate. Fraser Nelson seems to be making a better case for the Conservatives and is more visible in the last few days than David Cameron.
There are plenty more twists and turns left in this campaign yet.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Monday Musing
Apologies for not posting for a few days, I have been away enjoying Conference League Football, celebrating my sisters impending birthday, recovering from some genetically modified super-virus and last night watching 24 and House all of which kept me away from the computer, and work will no doubt be competing for my attentions this week.
Along my travels there has been some conversations along the way from people regarding the election and regarding in particular the debates. Despite what the polls are saying, I have yet to encounter anyone who is swinging their vote to the Lib Dems. Now, that might say more about my circle of friends and family, and the encounters of the weekend, but none the less with a 14% swing in the polls, it is not matching the reality out there in Daniel World.
Which is good because I would genuinely be concerned if all of this fantasy talk of Nick Clegg becoming Prime Minister were to come true. Mostly because of the Lib Dems fanatical support of all things EU - they would sell us down the river in a heartbeat; but also for Cleggs refusal to back the Lisbon vote despite the Lib Dem Manifesto commitment, and his intent to rid us of Trident (despite declaring publically he would not in his own leadership election, and at the cost of leaving our defence in the hands of the French). I am actually getting annoyed hearing him refer to his opposition as the "older" parties when his party was born before Labour back in the 1800's. (And back then the Liberal Party were for personal liberty, free markets, free trade and smaller government none of which can be charactered to Cleggy's party of today.)
What is a little alarming is that there are still people about supporting Gordon Brown, including people in my own family that really should know better. It seems that whilst most of us are at work, Brown has done some good work in the last year on the sofa's of daytime television and at least one person I love dearly is at the moment still planning to vote for him, though she freely admits it is out of pity. That really does not make it any better.
And with absolutely nothing to back up this or any of my claims I will move onto David Cameron who it seems has actually alienated people back home. Whereas I thought he had just edged the debate over Clegg (despite clearly not having picked up some basic lessons from the US debates) it seems back home Cameron came across as remote and as somebody who could never understand the problems facing the coping classes and working poor. A comment I would find difficult to make an argument against. So I won't.
And is it just me in thinking that if there really is a Clegg-bounce from a debate appearance, does that not make the case stronger for all of the parties to be involved in a TV debate at some point? If seeing and hearing Nick Clegg talk Lib Dem for his part of the 90 minute debate did him good because he was perhaps seen as new or different by some, then maybe UKIP, SNP, the Greens...et al, should be included also in future prime time debates.
So, with three weeks to go dare I make another prediction? No, I am gonna stick with my original prediction of a wafer thin Tory majority and I think the Great British public in their infinite wisdom are collectively and subconsciously keeping the numbers in hung parliament territory because quite frankly we all have a shopping list of what we want from a perspective government, and few of us thanks to Browns busting of the bank balance are getting to hear much of what we want. Consensus politics and record debt means there is little anyone feels able to promise. The closer we get to polling day the more some of our shopping lists will get second and third looks from the main players.
If I were up there, as a crazy right-winger, I would be offering to sell off the BBC, and a referendum on EU membership which would save us money. But I am not, so you can't have it.
Along my travels there has been some conversations along the way from people regarding the election and regarding in particular the debates. Despite what the polls are saying, I have yet to encounter anyone who is swinging their vote to the Lib Dems. Now, that might say more about my circle of friends and family, and the encounters of the weekend, but none the less with a 14% swing in the polls, it is not matching the reality out there in Daniel World.
What is a little alarming is that there are still people about supporting Gordon Brown, including people in my own family that really should know better. It seems that whilst most of us are at work, Brown has done some good work in the last year on the sofa's of daytime television and at least one person I love dearly is at the moment still planning to vote for him, though she freely admits it is out of pity. That really does not make it any better.
And with absolutely nothing to back up this or any of my claims I will move onto David Cameron who it seems has actually alienated people back home. Whereas I thought he had just edged the debate over Clegg (despite clearly not having picked up some basic lessons from the US debates) it seems back home Cameron came across as remote and as somebody who could never understand the problems facing the coping classes and working poor. A comment I would find difficult to make an argument against. So I won't.
And is it just me in thinking that if there really is a Clegg-bounce from a debate appearance, does that not make the case stronger for all of the parties to be involved in a TV debate at some point? If seeing and hearing Nick Clegg talk Lib Dem for his part of the 90 minute debate did him good because he was perhaps seen as new or different by some, then maybe UKIP, SNP, the Greens...et al, should be included also in future prime time debates.
So, with three weeks to go dare I make another prediction? No, I am gonna stick with my original prediction of a wafer thin Tory majority and I think the Great British public in their infinite wisdom are collectively and subconsciously keeping the numbers in hung parliament territory because quite frankly we all have a shopping list of what we want from a perspective government, and few of us thanks to Browns busting of the bank balance are getting to hear much of what we want. Consensus politics and record debt means there is little anyone feels able to promise. The closer we get to polling day the more some of our shopping lists will get second and third looks from the main players.
If I were up there, as a crazy right-winger, I would be offering to sell off the BBC, and a referendum on EU membership which would save us money. But I am not, so you can't have it.
Friday, April 16, 2010
ITV / Comres Poll
The first poll after the debates is out and there is a big twist
Conservative - 36%
Lib Dem - 35%
Labour - 24%
Others - 5%
The two big questions are, how solid is this for the Lib Dems and how would a General Election affect Parliament in terms of seats?
I think it is still hung parliament territory, but with the Lib Dems and Labour much closer together with the Conservatives way out in front. Tellingly, Labour face a massive electoral advantage, so an 11% advantage for the Lib Dems and 12% to the Conservatives may still not be enough to relegate them to third in terms of seats.
The good news, perhaps now for as many as 76% of us is that the Socialists and Gordon Brown are now on the fast train to oblivion.
Update: Oh Dear, the above is the "unweighted polling" and Adam Boulton on Sky says it leaked via Twitter when an ITV Journalist tweeted the raw data.
Update 2: A lesson for us all. Comres have rushed out the "real" results.
Conservatives - 35%
Labour - 28%
Lib Dem - 24%
Others - 13%
The weighting is done to ensure that voting weight for things like age and race samples from raw data are taken to match (or massaged) national samples... all in all, weighted polls are much more reliable than raw data (which is why the media pay for professional sampling to be done)
Overall, still in hung Parliament territory, with the Conservatives in the high 200's, Labour in Mid 200's and the Lib Dems's gaining to about the 70's.
There are more twists and turns to come, but the story could be (with more polling) that the Lib Dems are starting to take Labour voters; it is the Conservatives that need to do this for an overall win.
Conservative - 36%
Lib Dem - 35%
Labour - 24%
Others - 5%
The two big questions are, how solid is this for the Lib Dems and how would a General Election affect Parliament in terms of seats?
I think it is still hung parliament territory, but with the Lib Dems and Labour much closer together with the Conservatives way out in front. Tellingly, Labour face a massive electoral advantage, so an 11% advantage for the Lib Dems and 12% to the Conservatives may still not be enough to relegate them to third in terms of seats.
The good news, perhaps now for as many as 76% of us is that the Socialists and Gordon Brown are now on the fast train to oblivion.
Update: Oh Dear, the above is the "unweighted polling" and Adam Boulton on Sky says it leaked via Twitter when an ITV Journalist tweeted the raw data.
Update 2: A lesson for us all. Comres have rushed out the "real" results.
Conservatives - 35%
Labour - 28%
Lib Dem - 24%
Others - 13%
The weighting is done to ensure that voting weight for things like age and race samples from raw data are taken to match (or massaged) national samples... all in all, weighted polls are much more reliable than raw data (which is why the media pay for professional sampling to be done)
Overall, still in hung Parliament territory, with the Conservatives in the high 200's, Labour in Mid 200's and the Lib Dems's gaining to about the 70's.
There are more twists and turns to come, but the story could be (with more polling) that the Lib Dems are starting to take Labour voters; it is the Conservatives that need to do this for an overall win.
Debate Poll Results
The poll was open for just under an hour.
Q. Who Won Tonights Debate?
A.
David Cameron - 71%
Nick Clegg - 29%
Gordon Brown - 0%
Total Responses - 18
Comments from the poll:
1. No-one they are all as bad as each other falling over themselves to tell us how they'll spend our cash without asking us whether we agree or not.
2. But God help us if that is the best of it. Cameron "won" it for me, but Clegg, allowed by Cameron to get away with some ridiculous assertions, will do so in the eyes of most people who now are not interested in politics. Tonight will not have helped
3. Cameron too careful.
Clegg was anti-tory.
Brown looked foolish.
My personal feeling was that Cameron just edged it; he was out in front for a bit then Brown turned on the Tory Cuts line and dragged Cameron into a bit of a slog which let Nick Clegg do well in the late questions. Brown came over pretty bad, but I have never been a fan. The big winner on the night was Clegg purely for getting the airtime and the big loser was Brown.
It was not as sterile as I had anticipated, and it might actually shift the polls - it definitely will if Brown is this bad in either or both of the future debates.
Cross-Posted
Q. Who Won Tonights Debate?
A.
David Cameron - 71%
Nick Clegg - 29%
Gordon Brown - 0%
Total Responses - 18
Comments from the poll:
1. No-one they are all as bad as each other falling over themselves to tell us how they'll spend our cash without asking us whether we agree or not.
2. But God help us if that is the best of it. Cameron "won" it for me, but Clegg, allowed by Cameron to get away with some ridiculous assertions, will do so in the eyes of most people who now are not interested in politics. Tonight will not have helped
3. Cameron too careful.
Clegg was anti-tory.
Brown looked foolish.
My personal feeling was that Cameron just edged it; he was out in front for a bit then Brown turned on the Tory Cuts line and dragged Cameron into a bit of a slog which let Nick Clegg do well in the late questions. Brown came over pretty bad, but I have never been a fan. The big winner on the night was Clegg purely for getting the airtime and the big loser was Brown.
It was not as sterile as I had anticipated, and it might actually shift the polls - it definitely will if Brown is this bad in either or both of the future debates.
Cross-Posted
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
The State Of Our Union
As I suspected I arrived at work today and there is quite a bit of talk going on regarding the election campaign. What does not seem to have penetrated the hard skin of those who only "do" politics when an election looms is the scale of the crisis in the economy, and that is probably fair enough because I don’t think the campaign has really directly addressed these problems or highlighted exactly how severe things are.
So, here is my attempt to set it out in layman’s terms, both why the main parties are being shall we say economical with the truth and to set out where things are, or at least and more accurately how I think things are. My humble aim is to reach beyond my normal readers and offer something that can help people understand some of what is being talked about. I am not generally comfortable on the economics when it comes to the nitty gritty, so I will reference back where I am able, but feel free to put me right in the comments if I have drifted astray.
I believe it was in the 2009 Budget that Labour set out their spending plans for the 2010/11 year and this was not amended in the recent 2010 budget. In it, Labour has basically said that they will spend around about £706bn in this financial year (2010/11). Now, this covers everything from doctors and nurses, through to teachers, maintaining the roads, buying paperclips, servicing our debts and of course, funding MP's expenses.
That number again is:
£ 706,000,000,000
Now, the Conservatives did say quite some time back in 2007 that they will match Labour overall spending totals were they to win the election. This was emulating Labours 1997 pledge to mirror the Tory economic plans, which won favour with the voters and reduced uncertainty in the minds of the voters about changing the regime. The plan in 2007 was to try and take away any accusations from Labour that the Conservatives would “cut services”. The debate at that time was that Spending was equal to Service, thus a cut in spending would result in a proportional cut in service; this is an argument I would reject, (but you may not.)
That was pretty much how things stood until recently.
However, the Labour government recently announced that they have identified £11bn of annual spending which they could classify, today, as “waste” and they declared that they intend to cut this waste from their 2012-13 spending plans onwards. In return, the Conservatives amended their 2007 pledge stating that they had in fact identified £12bn in “waste” and that if elected they would cut that “12bn waste starting right away; using £6bn of it to tinker with the National Insurance Bands (the “Tax on Jobs”) and cut spending annual spending by £6bn with the rest.
That's:
£ 12,000,000,000 in annual wasteful spending the conservatives will begin to halt in the over the 2010/11 year if elected in a few weeks.
£ 11,000,000,000 that Labour say they know is being wasted or inefficiently used that they want to keep spending until the 2012/13 year, (though we should keep in mind that by 2012 whoever wins the election will have to have at least one spending review before this date so all numbers at that point are likely to change.)
£ 6,000,000,000 that the Conservatives will spend less per year than the Labour Government. (A less than 1% reduction.)
So to repeat, the £6bn currently in discussion in the media and on the TV and what will be mentioned in the leader’s debates is £6bn of money already being spent which has been identified as wasteful with a further £6bn being used to not make employing people into work more expensive.
So, based on the above, the Conservatives are effectively now saying that for 2010/11 their spending projection is the Labour pledge of £706bn, less the £6bn just mentioned, or:
£700,000,000,000
Now, if you like me get a bit bamboozled over these numbers you are not alone and it is because the numbers are truly huge.
To pay for Public Sector Spending as set out by each party a Government can basically do two things, it can collects tax and it can borrow money. Borrowed money needs to be repaid at some point along with interest along the way and is obviously a more costly way of keeping the Government running.
There is no way I, you or Alistair Darling can be certain of the amount of tax that will be collected in the 2010/11 period, but what we can look at is how much was collected last year and see how much tax is coming in versus how much is needed to go out. Looking at the HMRC numbers for total tax collected in the past year and in recent years there is a very large gap between what can be afforded via tax revenues and via what either a Labour or a Conservative Government is committed to spend. By the chart linked, the Government has collected £397bn in taxation to go towards the amount needed.
Let’s keep our numbers simple hope that the tax rises coming will not stifle tax revenue collection and assume that if collection remained flat the money coming in will be:
£ 397,000,000,000
So in our exercise, with a fair assumption on tax income for this year there is a shortfall or to use the Economic term a Budget Deficit in the Labour plan between the amount of money needed to keep the government going and the amount of money coming in via tax of:
£ 309,000,000,000
And it is fair to say that there is a deficit in tax revenues to the Conservative plan of:
£ 303,000,000,000
And that crucially for this next year alone!
This deficit however is not the same as debt.
So when The Chancellor and George Osborne talk about tackling national debt and tackling the deficit these are not the same thing. Sometimes watching debates on TV about the state of the economy I have heard questions asked about our debt and the answer has come about cutting our deficit – this is usually a rouse to lead away from the truth that by all projections our national debt is soaring and will continue to soar no matter who wins the election because the best the parties are offereing is to halve the deficit.
The national debt can be defined quite simply as what the UK owes, and every penny of it needs to be repaid, usually with interest. The current national debt for the UK is about £849bn and as (I hope) you can see from what I have written above, this is rising all the time as the deficit between the money coming into Government and the money going out are vastly different and the deficit needs to be plugged with new loans.
That number again that every taxpayer in this country is now indebted to is:
£ 849,000,000,000
Now, unfortunately this is the "official" number. However, the official number because it is defined by the Government does not take everthing into account that you and me might include in a more traditional definition. So, to illustrate this more clearly I need to go back just a few months. At the end of 2009 the National Debt number stood at £829.7bn. At that point I wrote about how that £829.7 does not even include Private Finance Initiatives and Pension Obligations that the Government is obliged to pay and at that point a more truer interpretation might put the true debt at £1.35 Trillion, or:
£ 1,350,000,000,000
But, this £1.3 Trillion also does/did not include the potential and worst case outlay based on pledges to buy back mortgage securities. When those are factored in the number rises again to £2 trillion.
Yep, that’s:
£2,000,000,000,000
As the debt goes up in terms of what we can afford to pay so too will the interest rate in which we can borrow future debt, as it becomes more and more risky to lend to us the more we already owe. This is not just true of the UK, but also true of all countries, all households and all businesses. As our deficits continue our total debt rises.
If the deficit is the difference between income and outgoing, and debt is the total that we owe; it is therefore the case that the deficit can be cut, whilst debt continues to rise.
So, you can see that by focusing the debate on the £6bn issue of whether to cut wasteful spending now or later is kind of a false issue which serves to distract from the fact that to actually implement either plan would require loans that are just not realistic in the medium or long term. To meet spending plans as presently set would require loans that would cripple us. If the deficit is growing by about £12bn every month, perhaps £6bn annual reversal is not enough of a plan for now(?)
When the Chancellor and George Osborne talk about halving the deficit in the next Parliament we should remain aware that they are not talking about cutting the debt that is being accrued for which we must continue to pay interest on, the gap will remain and the amount we owe and the amounts we pay each year in interest are set to go up and up and up and up and up and up.
You can look back across recent years and see, there is no way tax revenue would ever cover the levels needed. Simply raising tax rates will not guarantee that more money will come in at the end of the day.
So, in my humble view the current economic debate is something of a sham, because none of the parties are facing up to the real tough questions that should be posed this side of an election. They all know that there is absolutely no way we can afford to take on and service that level of debt. The extent, size, reach and cost of the State has been inflated to a dangerous size, one in which the people of the UK could never have afforded to support over a great period of time. This has been done by our present Labour Government and it is being propped up already by high amounts of borrowing. We will spend more this year on debt repayments than we will for the entire Armed Forces on the United Kingdom and the figure is creeping up.
Labour has had 13 years to re-build the country in the Social Democratic or Socialist model it so desired, but they built their house on foundations of sand and there is a storm approaching. It will need to be rebuilt all over again.
The State framework that Labour built is going to crumble in the next year or so no matter who wins this election. There is going to have to be massive, massive cuts to get by. But let’s be clear, the size and cost of this predicament has been caused by, set up by, with sole responsibility belonging to, this Labour government.
Please frame this in the context of your home or in terms of circumstances that are close to you in terms of what we must do. If your household income fell, you would not increase your level of spending you would cut it to match your income. There may be loans, credit cards and even a mortgage to factor in, but you would manage these based on your ability to make repayments. We probably all know someone who over borrowed or maxed out their credit cards a few years back who is struggling today. It is not really so dissimilar, we all know that in the end to balance ANY budget spending and outgoings need to be balanced against ability to pay, furthermore we all know that by delaying this ends up being more costly in the long run.
By keeping the argument about the circumstances, and merits of the Conservative application of a potential £6bn distracts from the very real arguments that are not being aired, and that people will be afraid to air. The cost, and thus the size of Government needs to be cut by my guess at least by a third and maybe more.
The Institute for Economic Affairs is more optimistic than me, and they think that without any new tax rises that Labour’s spending plans need to be scaled back by at least £167bn annually.
Sorry, but to continue the theme that’s a cut of:
£ 167,000,000,000
Taking £167bn or two times the NHS budget out of the public sector will lead to unrest, it will lead to strikes. Tragic though the consequences are for the people losing those jobs are, the truth is many of them should not have been hired in the first place, their fate is a result of Government mismanagement of our economy.
So when the layoffs do happen and the strikes and civil unrest does come, be it under Labour, the Conservatives or under a Coalition partnership we should be talking today about what lies in store in the road ahead; because ultimately every single person in our land is going to feel the effect of this, every single one of us. And that is what the leaders in this election campaign should be addressing, and as a result that is the debate that we should be having in our schools, workplaces and pubs. By not discussing the size and extent of the inevitable cuts, I believe will fuel even more unrest and protest, because yet again decisions will be made in Whitehall and by the time the election is over and the cuts are being made, the dialogue will be about the tough decisions that need to be made.
After this election the only thing we will be talking about is cuts, cuts and more cuts. That is why we should all be talking about it this side of the election if we want an input on how those cuts may land.
So, here is my attempt to set it out in layman’s terms, both why the main parties are being shall we say economical with the truth and to set out where things are, or at least and more accurately how I think things are. My humble aim is to reach beyond my normal readers and offer something that can help people understand some of what is being talked about. I am not generally comfortable on the economics when it comes to the nitty gritty, so I will reference back where I am able, but feel free to put me right in the comments if I have drifted astray.
I believe it was in the 2009 Budget that Labour set out their spending plans for the 2010/11 year and this was not amended in the recent 2010 budget. In it, Labour has basically said that they will spend around about £706bn in this financial year (2010/11). Now, this covers everything from doctors and nurses, through to teachers, maintaining the roads, buying paperclips, servicing our debts and of course, funding MP's expenses.
That number again is:
£ 706,000,000,000
Now, the Conservatives did say quite some time back in 2007 that they will match Labour overall spending totals were they to win the election. This was emulating Labours 1997 pledge to mirror the Tory economic plans, which won favour with the voters and reduced uncertainty in the minds of the voters about changing the regime. The plan in 2007 was to try and take away any accusations from Labour that the Conservatives would “cut services”. The debate at that time was that Spending was equal to Service, thus a cut in spending would result in a proportional cut in service; this is an argument I would reject, (but you may not.)
That was pretty much how things stood until recently.
However, the Labour government recently announced that they have identified £11bn of annual spending which they could classify, today, as “waste” and they declared that they intend to cut this waste from their 2012-13 spending plans onwards. In return, the Conservatives amended their 2007 pledge stating that they had in fact identified £12bn in “waste” and that if elected they would cut that “12bn waste starting right away; using £6bn of it to tinker with the National Insurance Bands (the “Tax on Jobs”) and cut spending annual spending by £6bn with the rest.
That's:
£ 12,000,000,000 in annual wasteful spending the conservatives will begin to halt in the over the 2010/11 year if elected in a few weeks.
£ 11,000,000,000 that Labour say they know is being wasted or inefficiently used that they want to keep spending until the 2012/13 year, (though we should keep in mind that by 2012 whoever wins the election will have to have at least one spending review before this date so all numbers at that point are likely to change.)
£ 6,000,000,000 that the Conservatives will spend less per year than the Labour Government. (A less than 1% reduction.)
So to repeat, the £6bn currently in discussion in the media and on the TV and what will be mentioned in the leader’s debates is £6bn of money already being spent which has been identified as wasteful with a further £6bn being used to not make employing people into work more expensive.
So, based on the above, the Conservatives are effectively now saying that for 2010/11 their spending projection is the Labour pledge of £706bn, less the £6bn just mentioned, or:
£700,000,000,000
Now, if you like me get a bit bamboozled over these numbers you are not alone and it is because the numbers are truly huge.
To pay for Public Sector Spending as set out by each party a Government can basically do two things, it can collects tax and it can borrow money. Borrowed money needs to be repaid at some point along with interest along the way and is obviously a more costly way of keeping the Government running.
There is no way I, you or Alistair Darling can be certain of the amount of tax that will be collected in the 2010/11 period, but what we can look at is how much was collected last year and see how much tax is coming in versus how much is needed to go out. Looking at the HMRC numbers for total tax collected in the past year and in recent years there is a very large gap between what can be afforded via tax revenues and via what either a Labour or a Conservative Government is committed to spend. By the chart linked, the Government has collected £397bn in taxation to go towards the amount needed.
Let’s keep our numbers simple hope that the tax rises coming will not stifle tax revenue collection and assume that if collection remained flat the money coming in will be:
£ 397,000,000,000
So in our exercise, with a fair assumption on tax income for this year there is a shortfall or to use the Economic term a Budget Deficit in the Labour plan between the amount of money needed to keep the government going and the amount of money coming in via tax of:
£ 309,000,000,000
And it is fair to say that there is a deficit in tax revenues to the Conservative plan of:
£ 303,000,000,000
And that crucially for this next year alone!
This deficit however is not the same as debt.
So when The Chancellor and George Osborne talk about tackling national debt and tackling the deficit these are not the same thing. Sometimes watching debates on TV about the state of the economy I have heard questions asked about our debt and the answer has come about cutting our deficit – this is usually a rouse to lead away from the truth that by all projections our national debt is soaring and will continue to soar no matter who wins the election because the best the parties are offereing is to halve the deficit.
The national debt can be defined quite simply as what the UK owes, and every penny of it needs to be repaid, usually with interest. The current national debt for the UK is about £849bn and as (I hope) you can see from what I have written above, this is rising all the time as the deficit between the money coming into Government and the money going out are vastly different and the deficit needs to be plugged with new loans.
That number again that every taxpayer in this country is now indebted to is:
£ 849,000,000,000
Now, unfortunately this is the "official" number. However, the official number because it is defined by the Government does not take everthing into account that you and me might include in a more traditional definition. So, to illustrate this more clearly I need to go back just a few months. At the end of 2009 the National Debt number stood at £829.7bn. At that point I wrote about how that £829.7 does not even include Private Finance Initiatives and Pension Obligations that the Government is obliged to pay and at that point a more truer interpretation might put the true debt at £1.35 Trillion, or:
£ 1,350,000,000,000
But, this £1.3 Trillion also does/did not include the potential and worst case outlay based on pledges to buy back mortgage securities. When those are factored in the number rises again to £2 trillion.
Yep, that’s:
£2,000,000,000,000
As the debt goes up in terms of what we can afford to pay so too will the interest rate in which we can borrow future debt, as it becomes more and more risky to lend to us the more we already owe. This is not just true of the UK, but also true of all countries, all households and all businesses. As our deficits continue our total debt rises.
If the deficit is the difference between income and outgoing, and debt is the total that we owe; it is therefore the case that the deficit can be cut, whilst debt continues to rise.
So, you can see that by focusing the debate on the £6bn issue of whether to cut wasteful spending now or later is kind of a false issue which serves to distract from the fact that to actually implement either plan would require loans that are just not realistic in the medium or long term. To meet spending plans as presently set would require loans that would cripple us. If the deficit is growing by about £12bn every month, perhaps £6bn annual reversal is not enough of a plan for now(?)
When the Chancellor and George Osborne talk about halving the deficit in the next Parliament we should remain aware that they are not talking about cutting the debt that is being accrued for which we must continue to pay interest on, the gap will remain and the amount we owe and the amounts we pay each year in interest are set to go up and up and up and up and up and up.
You can look back across recent years and see, there is no way tax revenue would ever cover the levels needed. Simply raising tax rates will not guarantee that more money will come in at the end of the day.
So, in my humble view the current economic debate is something of a sham, because none of the parties are facing up to the real tough questions that should be posed this side of an election. They all know that there is absolutely no way we can afford to take on and service that level of debt. The extent, size, reach and cost of the State has been inflated to a dangerous size, one in which the people of the UK could never have afforded to support over a great period of time. This has been done by our present Labour Government and it is being propped up already by high amounts of borrowing. We will spend more this year on debt repayments than we will for the entire Armed Forces on the United Kingdom and the figure is creeping up.
Labour has had 13 years to re-build the country in the Social Democratic or Socialist model it so desired, but they built their house on foundations of sand and there is a storm approaching. It will need to be rebuilt all over again.
The State framework that Labour built is going to crumble in the next year or so no matter who wins this election. There is going to have to be massive, massive cuts to get by. But let’s be clear, the size and cost of this predicament has been caused by, set up by, with sole responsibility belonging to, this Labour government.
Please frame this in the context of your home or in terms of circumstances that are close to you in terms of what we must do. If your household income fell, you would not increase your level of spending you would cut it to match your income. There may be loans, credit cards and even a mortgage to factor in, but you would manage these based on your ability to make repayments. We probably all know someone who over borrowed or maxed out their credit cards a few years back who is struggling today. It is not really so dissimilar, we all know that in the end to balance ANY budget spending and outgoings need to be balanced against ability to pay, furthermore we all know that by delaying this ends up being more costly in the long run.
By keeping the argument about the circumstances, and merits of the Conservative application of a potential £6bn distracts from the very real arguments that are not being aired, and that people will be afraid to air. The cost, and thus the size of Government needs to be cut by my guess at least by a third and maybe more.
The Institute for Economic Affairs is more optimistic than me, and they think that without any new tax rises that Labour’s spending plans need to be scaled back by at least £167bn annually.
Sorry, but to continue the theme that’s a cut of:
£ 167,000,000,000
Taking £167bn or two times the NHS budget out of the public sector will lead to unrest, it will lead to strikes. Tragic though the consequences are for the people losing those jobs are, the truth is many of them should not have been hired in the first place, their fate is a result of Government mismanagement of our economy.
So when the layoffs do happen and the strikes and civil unrest does come, be it under Labour, the Conservatives or under a Coalition partnership we should be talking today about what lies in store in the road ahead; because ultimately every single person in our land is going to feel the effect of this, every single one of us. And that is what the leaders in this election campaign should be addressing, and as a result that is the debate that we should be having in our schools, workplaces and pubs. By not discussing the size and extent of the inevitable cuts, I believe will fuel even more unrest and protest, because yet again decisions will be made in Whitehall and by the time the election is over and the cuts are being made, the dialogue will be about the tough decisions that need to be made.
After this election the only thing we will be talking about is cuts, cuts and more cuts. That is why we should all be talking about it this side of the election if we want an input on how those cuts may land.
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
Gordon Brown Calls Election Video
This will probably be all over the evening news, but in case people were at work and haven't seen it yet, here is Gordon Brown standing outside 10 Downing Street announcing the election.
And here is one of about a million reasons why you should seriously consider not voting Gordon...
And here is one of about a million reasons why you should seriously consider not voting Gordon...
Least Worst Option
I have been looking forward to this election for a long, long time. I have been yearning for the simple pleasure of watching Gordon Brown issue a concession speech on the early hours of 7th May when it becomes clear that his beloved Labour Party has been completely wiped out in the polls with the Great British People having issued a stinging and lasting rebuke to kick the Socialists into the long grass for a decade or so.
But as time has rolled on by and as the election has drawn closer the reality of the situation and that of our politics has become more and more clear. The three "main" Parties have all set themselves out on a course over the past year that in many ways is spectacularly similar. Elections are no longer about people voting for what they want their MPs to do, and elections no longer provide for a democratically charged change of direction. Elections are now used, here in this country of ours as a mandate for Governing in a way that the overwhelming majority of people do not agree with. Manifestos are no longer adhered to, the policies are largely the same; our function as voters is reduced to changing a few of the main characters every five years or so and even then we are not exactly torn by the selection on offer, we seldom regret not electing certain individuals do we? We are continuously picking and actively screening for the least worst candidate. Those who are eventually deselected via ballot go on to lucrative and unelected positions either in the House of Lords or in Europe.
Why are the political parties in the UK all offering much the same? The answer is simple, they all must operate within the guidelines of what the EU lets them govern. In other words, the EU makes the laws for us in the areas in which it chooses, then our Parliament and our political parties operate in the waste land that the EU does not deem important enough to already legislate on. This election is worse, because post-Lisbon the EU controls so much more and is building the framework to seize control of our markets and our diplomatic service. Do not kid yourselves that this decreasing sphere of legislative freedom will not get smaller and smaller as the EU expandes again in the coming years.
Look at what according to the House of Lords the EU has sole control over.
And lastly, the these are things the EU likes to control some funding and will be seizing overall control over at a later date.
So with so much hanging in the control of the EU, and with the people we put in Westminster the only ones who can both speak up for us, and maybe, just maybe work to bring control and decision making back to our shores and place it back into the hands of voters it really does matter who we vote for - but don't let any candidate or any party tell you that this election is not about Europe or the EU because it really is. There are Euro ID Cards, Policing, Harmonised and Centrally Collected Taxes (probably VAT), all to come from the EU before the next UK Election on top of the surrendered competencies.
The only mechanism available to us in the Post Lisbon world is a referendum of the people of the United Kingdom asking for consent to remain in the EU with our present relationship. There is no other mandate now for withdrawal - even repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act probably won't do now we have signed into Lisbon as it formalises a drawn out and difficult divorce scenario, one which is designed to deter exit - in keeping with the "progressive" style legislation enacted by the EU which always points in one direction.
If you, like me are completely sick of this scenario, we have one month to make our voices heard. There are options. Firstly, there is UKIP who are preparing to fight this election with a promise to provide a referendum on EU Membership. UKIP are not everybodies cup of tea, but if you are voting with the EU in mind, then UKIP must be considered. They are clearly a compatible vote for disgruntled Tories.
There is Jury Team who are a Party of Independents, who have an over-reaching set of shared aims, and at the top of that list is a referendum on continued EU Membership.
A lot of people though will want to still consider the main parties, and for them I would recommend they take a look at the Albion Alliance Pledge Pages, and see just which candidates are prepared to undertake this very simple pledge:
I simply can't imagine voting for anybody who would not address this most pressing of issues. If your preferred candidate has no and will not sign up to this, can you trust them to act in your best interests in Parliament?
You can help, even though there is still time for candidates to declare there are 1,004 candidates that have yet to be contacted to see if they will pledge and a further 2,156 who have been contacted but have as yet not stated if they will or will not pledge. The Albion Alliance is not a political party, it is a cross-party initiative that is open to all candidates - and all they have to do is sign their name up to the above pledge which is hardly asking much of them given how important and how widely popular such action would be.
There is also another option, as I mentioned there is still time to become a candidate. Most of the seats targeted by the main parties are done and as good as closed. This country is almost singularly brilliant in its inclusion of independent candidates in our elections, and they are often the most colourful and interesting candidates. Independents essentially say to the main candidates that you cannot run in my constituency if you will not speak to my issues and I hope that Independent Candidates up and down the country take the fight to the LIB/LAB/CON Alliance of government only so far as the EU prescribes.
Lastly I hope what I am hearing that the new batch of Conservative Candidates being more EU Sceptic than the present bunch is true, but I hope they if elected to a majority government are prepared to act on those instincts. [They can obviously start by signing the Albion Alliance Pledge!] The Conservatives are driving people into the hands of UKIP and despite the threat of a Hung Parliament; they seem instead to prefer a hung parliament with a greatly reduced anti-EU vote, than an outright victory with an anti-EU membership vote. Why is this? I am one of those people who used to think the Conservatives were right about "being in Europe, but not run by Europe" and that "we can reform from within" but I was a sucker and more importantly I was wrong. I want the Conservative Party to speak to Conservative issues, and at present it is not really doing that; I hope that this is a short term development and it will soon mend its ways. But if David Cameron is to issue his "referendum lock" and if he is to renegotiate some powers back to the UK, perhaps he would be so good as to publish the legislation he intends to introduce for this referendum lock, and perhaps he will tell us how he intends to do the impossible and get certain controls back, because until he does I don't believe the Conservatives can make any claims to represent in any way the EU Sceptic and democracy loving millions of voters who still do not know for sure who they are going to vote for.
But as time has rolled on by and as the election has drawn closer the reality of the situation and that of our politics has become more and more clear. The three "main" Parties have all set themselves out on a course over the past year that in many ways is spectacularly similar. Elections are no longer about people voting for what they want their MPs to do, and elections no longer provide for a democratically charged change of direction. Elections are now used, here in this country of ours as a mandate for Governing in a way that the overwhelming majority of people do not agree with. Manifestos are no longer adhered to, the policies are largely the same; our function as voters is reduced to changing a few of the main characters every five years or so and even then we are not exactly torn by the selection on offer, we seldom regret not electing certain individuals do we? We are continuously picking and actively screening for the least worst candidate. Those who are eventually deselected via ballot go on to lucrative and unelected positions either in the House of Lords or in Europe.
Why are the political parties in the UK all offering much the same? The answer is simple, they all must operate within the guidelines of what the EU lets them govern. In other words, the EU makes the laws for us in the areas in which it chooses, then our Parliament and our political parties operate in the waste land that the EU does not deem important enough to already legislate on. This election is worse, because post-Lisbon the EU controls so much more and is building the framework to seize control of our markets and our diplomatic service. Do not kid yourselves that this decreasing sphere of legislative freedom will not get smaller and smaller as the EU expandes again in the coming years.
Look at what according to the House of Lords the EU has sole control over.
Look also at some more seized EU broad controls:
And, they were good enough to share these, though don't forget that EU law has primacy in the UK, so by "share" they mean that they are prepared to and empowered to over rule with anything they disagree with. You will hear our home grown parties talking about these policies, but run down the list and you will understand that their similarities are based upon the extent in which they think they can manoeuvre without being over ruled by the EU.
And lastly, the these are things the EU likes to control some funding and will be seizing overall control over at a later date.
So with so much hanging in the control of the EU, and with the people we put in Westminster the only ones who can both speak up for us, and maybe, just maybe work to bring control and decision making back to our shores and place it back into the hands of voters it really does matter who we vote for - but don't let any candidate or any party tell you that this election is not about Europe or the EU because it really is. There are Euro ID Cards, Policing, Harmonised and Centrally Collected Taxes (probably VAT), all to come from the EU before the next UK Election on top of the surrendered competencies.
The only mechanism available to us in the Post Lisbon world is a referendum of the people of the United Kingdom asking for consent to remain in the EU with our present relationship. There is no other mandate now for withdrawal - even repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act probably won't do now we have signed into Lisbon as it formalises a drawn out and difficult divorce scenario, one which is designed to deter exit - in keeping with the "progressive" style legislation enacted by the EU which always points in one direction.
If you, like me are completely sick of this scenario, we have one month to make our voices heard. There are options. Firstly, there is UKIP who are preparing to fight this election with a promise to provide a referendum on EU Membership. UKIP are not everybodies cup of tea, but if you are voting with the EU in mind, then UKIP must be considered. They are clearly a compatible vote for disgruntled Tories.
There is Jury Team who are a Party of Independents, who have an over-reaching set of shared aims, and at the top of that list is a referendum on continued EU Membership.
A lot of people though will want to still consider the main parties, and for them I would recommend they take a look at the Albion Alliance Pledge Pages, and see just which candidates are prepared to undertake this very simple pledge:
I pledge to work tirelessly to give the voters of my constituency a democratic and direct voice in the United Kingdom’s continued relationship with the EU.
I pledge that I will sponsor a Private Members Bill, written in clear concise terms, calling for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union – and/or support any motion for such a referendum – and to vote positively for any Bill that may call for such a referendum, irrespective of Party Whip, with a view to the successful outcome of this pledge within 1 year of a new Parliament or sooner.
I simply can't imagine voting for anybody who would not address this most pressing of issues. If your preferred candidate has no and will not sign up to this, can you trust them to act in your best interests in Parliament?
You can help, even though there is still time for candidates to declare there are 1,004 candidates that have yet to be contacted to see if they will pledge and a further 2,156 who have been contacted but have as yet not stated if they will or will not pledge. The Albion Alliance is not a political party, it is a cross-party initiative that is open to all candidates - and all they have to do is sign their name up to the above pledge which is hardly asking much of them given how important and how widely popular such action would be.
There is also another option, as I mentioned there is still time to become a candidate. Most of the seats targeted by the main parties are done and as good as closed. This country is almost singularly brilliant in its inclusion of independent candidates in our elections, and they are often the most colourful and interesting candidates. Independents essentially say to the main candidates that you cannot run in my constituency if you will not speak to my issues and I hope that Independent Candidates up and down the country take the fight to the LIB/LAB/CON Alliance of government only so far as the EU prescribes.
Lastly I hope what I am hearing that the new batch of Conservative Candidates being more EU Sceptic than the present bunch is true, but I hope they if elected to a majority government are prepared to act on those instincts. [They can obviously start by signing the Albion Alliance Pledge!] The Conservatives are driving people into the hands of UKIP and despite the threat of a Hung Parliament; they seem instead to prefer a hung parliament with a greatly reduced anti-EU vote, than an outright victory with an anti-EU membership vote. Why is this? I am one of those people who used to think the Conservatives were right about "being in Europe, but not run by Europe" and that "we can reform from within" but I was a sucker and more importantly I was wrong. I want the Conservative Party to speak to Conservative issues, and at present it is not really doing that; I hope that this is a short term development and it will soon mend its ways. But if David Cameron is to issue his "referendum lock" and if he is to renegotiate some powers back to the UK, perhaps he would be so good as to publish the legislation he intends to introduce for this referendum lock, and perhaps he will tell us how he intends to do the impossible and get certain controls back, because until he does I don't believe the Conservatives can make any claims to represent in any way the EU Sceptic and democracy loving millions of voters who still do not know for sure who they are going to vote for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)