BBC:
The armed forces are understaffed, with rising numbers of personnel quitting early, the government has been warned.
A National Audit Office report says they are having to cope with operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans while being 5,170 below strength.
The MoD agreed operating at this level meant "additional strains" on staff, but denied forces were overstretched.
Of course the armed forces are under strength. We knew the armed forces would be under strength from the moment that New Labour New Tossers got in charge. The left hates the armed forces and yet throws them into anything it can find.
Now I’m not saying we don’t get involved in wars under the Tories, far from it. There’s cuts too.. but it’s the considered opinion that the right sees Defence as being the defence of Britain, New Labour seem to see defence as any opportunity to shoot some brown people or do what America says…
Let’s look over a few historic conflicts:
- World War 2: Britain’s interests and even British soil under threat from foreign despotic invasion. We become involved in war.
- Suez: Egypt renationalises British industry on threat of force. British interests seized. We become involved in war
- Falklands: British territory invaded by despotic foreign power. Britain responds.
- Gulf 1: Britain asked by both Kuwait and America to intervene.
See? Only one of those wars was not directly the defence of British interests, we didn’t get involved in Vietnam, Nicaragua, Grenada etc etc. Now let’s see what happens when we put Labour in charge.
- East Timor: Nothing to do with us
- Sierra Leone: Nothing to do with us
- Kosovo: Nothing to do with us
- Afghanistan: Possible retaliation for British deaths in 9/11
- Gulf II: Nothing to do with us
Are we seeing a pattern here? They’re cutting the armed forces and throwing us into more conflicts than we need to be involved in. I saw this coming, I fail to believe that they didn’t see it coming.
Either they were caught by surprise on this score in which case they are unfit for government, or they just don’t give a donkey’s arse about the armed forces and therefore the defence of the realm they are tasked with.
In which case they are unfit for government.
It is Remembrance Sunday in 9 days time. These people should think long and hard.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Labour, As Usual, Misses The Point...
Cameron’s in the firing line again for what the New Labour political opportunists and fucktards are calling the “Love a Lout” speech. I note that their creativity and wit knows no bounds.
Now I’m a broad backer of Cameron’s stance and like most of the intelligent people in this country, i.e. everyone except Labour voters, Scottish Socialists and readers of the Daily Mirror, oh and anyone in a trade union, I can see the root message.
This isn’t about the state taking offending kids and giving them a great big hug, a mug of horlicks and a bedtime story. It’s about getting parents to sort their fucking families out, and if government provides them a way to do that then all well and good.
At no point has Cameron said “we’re doing away with punishment and giving all criminals free money”, the Guardian says that not the Tories.
As per fucking usual that blit McNulty has waded in demonstrating all the understanding and insight of the offspring of an Orang-Utan and Hazel Blears.
BBC:
“But Mr McNulty claimed Mr Cameron had "a gimmick and he's looking for another vehicle to put that gimmick on, which isn't terribly mature".
"When you look in substance behind the fluffy bunny language there's not much there," he told BBC Radio 4's The World at One.“
This from the party that has given out ASBOs like they are fucking confetti, which most of them will become since the yoof are just tearing them into shreds. This from the party that gave us “tough on the causes of crime” when what it actually means is “tough on the victims of crime”. Fuck all of you.
Ratfeck twat McNulty contined:
“"He says he wants a more powerful society and then... he doesn't understand where the state fits in," Mr McNulty added.”
The state fucking created the problem you braindead cockscrote. When you destroyed the family unit with financial incentives to be single parents, when you took our police force and rammed 15 times as much paperwork up its already stretched ass. When you closed down youth groups, fucked over the voluntary sector and took the fun out of schools with your fucking Health & Safety fucking culture. What has it achieved?
“"He talks about the voluntary sector having a larger role. The voluntary sector has never had a larger role than they have over the last 10 years and are working alongside and in partnership with the state.”
He claims the voluntary sector has never had a larger role. The trouble is though that the voluntary sector is being used to do what the state tells it to do rather than what it is actually good at. This is why the localism agenda of the Tories is being received so well.
It’s not the state’s job to raise children. It’s the job of the parents. The state cannot build communities, the voluntary sector can.
If McNulty’s such a hot shot on crime then shouldn’t he really be chasing up all those illegal immigrants that he let slip into the country before he got fired? Oh sorry, you don’t get fired for shite performance in New Labour, you get promoted. After all look at Beckett.
But it’s not all Labour criticism, the LibDems had to have their say…
“Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell called Mr Cameron's comments a "trite, almost Woman's Own way of dealing with" youth crime.”
So what the fuck does that mean? Buggered if I know… and does this mean that Ming reads “Woman’s Own”?
Now I’m a broad backer of Cameron’s stance and like most of the intelligent people in this country, i.e. everyone except Labour voters, Scottish Socialists and readers of the Daily Mirror, oh and anyone in a trade union, I can see the root message.
This isn’t about the state taking offending kids and giving them a great big hug, a mug of horlicks and a bedtime story. It’s about getting parents to sort their fucking families out, and if government provides them a way to do that then all well and good.
At no point has Cameron said “we’re doing away with punishment and giving all criminals free money”, the Guardian says that not the Tories.
As per fucking usual that blit McNulty has waded in demonstrating all the understanding and insight of the offspring of an Orang-Utan and Hazel Blears.
BBC:
“But Mr McNulty claimed Mr Cameron had "a gimmick and he's looking for another vehicle to put that gimmick on, which isn't terribly mature".
"When you look in substance behind the fluffy bunny language there's not much there," he told BBC Radio 4's The World at One.“
This from the party that has given out ASBOs like they are fucking confetti, which most of them will become since the yoof are just tearing them into shreds. This from the party that gave us “tough on the causes of crime” when what it actually means is “tough on the victims of crime”. Fuck all of you.
Ratfeck twat McNulty contined:
“"He says he wants a more powerful society and then... he doesn't understand where the state fits in," Mr McNulty added.”
The state fucking created the problem you braindead cockscrote. When you destroyed the family unit with financial incentives to be single parents, when you took our police force and rammed 15 times as much paperwork up its already stretched ass. When you closed down youth groups, fucked over the voluntary sector and took the fun out of schools with your fucking Health & Safety fucking culture. What has it achieved?
“"He talks about the voluntary sector having a larger role. The voluntary sector has never had a larger role than they have over the last 10 years and are working alongside and in partnership with the state.”
He claims the voluntary sector has never had a larger role. The trouble is though that the voluntary sector is being used to do what the state tells it to do rather than what it is actually good at. This is why the localism agenda of the Tories is being received so well.
It’s not the state’s job to raise children. It’s the job of the parents. The state cannot build communities, the voluntary sector can.
If McNulty’s such a hot shot on crime then shouldn’t he really be chasing up all those illegal immigrants that he let slip into the country before he got fired? Oh sorry, you don’t get fired for shite performance in New Labour, you get promoted. After all look at Beckett.
But it’s not all Labour criticism, the LibDems had to have their say…
“Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell called Mr Cameron's comments a "trite, almost Woman's Own way of dealing with" youth crime.”
So what the fuck does that mean? Buggered if I know… and does this mean that Ming reads “Woman’s Own”?
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Go See The Snob - That's An Order!
As my good man the Snob so recently pointed out in the comments, he feels honoured to be an “Honorary Guttersnipe”. Unlike most modern honours as well, the HG is awarded on the basis of merit rather than donating a random sum (say for the sake of argument £1,000,000) to a random political organisation (shall we say for the sake of argument, the Labour Party).
Now if you’ve not been to read the fine chap’s words I suggest you do… I provide some trailers below of the quality abuse you are likely to find:
On Milliband:
“He is the sort of simpering, tee-total gusset face that could quite easily kill a reasonable man simply through his ability to bore you into submission. An unreasonable man would give him the sort of hiding normally reserved for prisoners who have had their wicked way with the kiddies.”
On Brown:
“Brown is one of the least brave, least daring, least adventurous politicians in British politics. The sort of man who would turn down a day at the Races because he might crash his car on the way there, so it's safest to stay in watch the Snooker and maybe have a quick tug about Sue Baker.”
On Reid:
“Reid, as I've said before, is a tabloid voodoo doll. A Red Top has a campaign and gung-ho Jock runs in with all sorts of higgledy-piggledy strategies which show him to be the macho, ill-thinking, logic-hating fool tha the is. A deeply worrying, illiberal eejit.”
On Blears:
"She is, indeed, The Grand High Dame of New Labour Cuntery - and she didn't even need to 'loan' me the money to receive that title. I gave it to her purely on merit."
Read and enjoy
Now if you’ve not been to read the fine chap’s words I suggest you do… I provide some trailers below of the quality abuse you are likely to find:
On Milliband:
“He is the sort of simpering, tee-total gusset face that could quite easily kill a reasonable man simply through his ability to bore you into submission. An unreasonable man would give him the sort of hiding normally reserved for prisoners who have had their wicked way with the kiddies.”
On Brown:
“Brown is one of the least brave, least daring, least adventurous politicians in British politics. The sort of man who would turn down a day at the Races because he might crash his car on the way there, so it's safest to stay in watch the Snooker and maybe have a quick tug about Sue Baker.”
On Reid:
“Reid, as I've said before, is a tabloid voodoo doll. A Red Top has a campaign and gung-ho Jock runs in with all sorts of higgledy-piggledy strategies which show him to be the macho, ill-thinking, logic-hating fool tha the is. A deeply worrying, illiberal eejit.”
On Blears:
"She is, indeed, The Grand High Dame of New Labour Cuntery - and she didn't even need to 'loan' me the money to receive that title. I gave it to her purely on merit."
Read and enjoy
Oh God... It's Worse Than Milliband
The Sun:
A friend of the Chancellor said: “Gordon will not be backing any one candidate in the race. However, we think it’s good if there is a strong female candidate. It is also true that he holds Hazel in high regard for her work in the party in recent months.”
OK you may have noticed that I am no fan of Squirrel fucking Nutkin (as my good man the Snob would call her here and here) but jesus, Deputy leader of the Labour Party and therefore a good chance of Deputy Prime Minister??? I know I have always thought of our Chancellor as a celtic swivel eyed goon but has the man finally gone over the top? Has all that Toynbee soaked praise made him go off his tax obsessed tits?
I mean Blears man…. Fecking Nora… Blears???
“Her supporters say the fact she is English will help to counter balance the strong Scottish streak that will run through a Brown government.”
Yeah… a 4’10” weasel faced moron is going to counter the balance a treat don’t you think? The Old Labour squad must be fucking decimated now. There they were desperately hoping that Brown was going to head back to the good old days.. you know.. Unions, strikes, 3 day weeks, opposition benches and now he rolls out the arch fecking Blair mouthpiece to smile, nod accordingly and generally annoy the feck out of all of us.
At least they can’t be criticised for being “all about image” as they would do the Tories if they’re fronted by Bagpuss the Cyclops and that face like a well smacked arse that is Blears.
The only other woman in the race, Harriet Harman, has failed to gain any momentum and has antagonised Mr Brown.
She has probably failed to get momentum because her entire manifesto has been “elect me because a woman should have the job” (much like her all women shortlist election to parliamentary seat I imagine). But she hasn’t yet explained to anyone why it should be a woman, and if indeed it should be a woman then why her.
The Tories must be over the moon!
A friend of the Chancellor said: “Gordon will not be backing any one candidate in the race. However, we think it’s good if there is a strong female candidate. It is also true that he holds Hazel in high regard for her work in the party in recent months.”
OK you may have noticed that I am no fan of Squirrel fucking Nutkin (as my good man the Snob would call her here and here) but jesus, Deputy leader of the Labour Party and therefore a good chance of Deputy Prime Minister??? I know I have always thought of our Chancellor as a celtic swivel eyed goon but has the man finally gone over the top? Has all that Toynbee soaked praise made him go off his tax obsessed tits?
I mean Blears man…. Fecking Nora… Blears???
“Her supporters say the fact she is English will help to counter balance the strong Scottish streak that will run through a Brown government.”
Yeah… a 4’10” weasel faced moron is going to counter the balance a treat don’t you think? The Old Labour squad must be fucking decimated now. There they were desperately hoping that Brown was going to head back to the good old days.. you know.. Unions, strikes, 3 day weeks, opposition benches and now he rolls out the arch fecking Blair mouthpiece to smile, nod accordingly and generally annoy the feck out of all of us.
At least they can’t be criticised for being “all about image” as they would do the Tories if they’re fronted by Bagpuss the Cyclops and that face like a well smacked arse that is Blears.
The only other woman in the race, Harriet Harman, has failed to gain any momentum and has antagonised Mr Brown.
She has probably failed to get momentum because her entire manifesto has been “elect me because a woman should have the job” (much like her all women shortlist election to parliamentary seat I imagine). But she hasn’t yet explained to anyone why it should be a woman, and if indeed it should be a woman then why her.
The Tories must be over the moon!
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
So Who Does The Speaker Speak For Then?
I think it is about time the Speaker of the House of Commons changed his title to “Spokesman for the Labour Party”.
Today he’s ruled against David Cameron asking about the Labour leadership since “The Prime Minister is here to talk about government policy, that is a matter for the Labour Party”. It is true that the Speaker has had the odd pop at Blair for talking about Tory policy over the past few weeks rather than government policy but he has never once berated the PM for not answering the question that was asked of him.
Here are some examples:
DC: Three years ago, the Government said that the youth justice system had been totally transformed. Yesterday, the chief inspector of prisons said that the system was approaching breaking point. Who is right?
The Prime Minister: Over the past few years, according to the National Audit Office— [Interruption.] I am trying to answer. According to the National Audit Office, in 1997 the system was a shambles; in 2004 it had made substantial improvement. The fact is, we have managed to reduce dramatically the time that it takes to get young offenders fast-tracked through the justice system. We have expanded the amount of secure accommodation. We are making sure now that those who breach antisocial behaviour orders are given a custodial sentence, although it is true that that is causing pressures in the system. We believe that that policy is right. That is why we shall continue investing in our youth justice system and continue to make improvements.
No answer there then
DC: The Home Office has explained that it is moving prisoners at risk of escaping to open prisons. The Home Secretary is apparently happy with that. [Interruption.] Is the Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister: As the Home Secretary has just pointed out, absconding is at its lowest for 10 years, so the idea that we are going to put the public at risk is absurd. No people will be put in open prisons who are a risk to the public. [Interruption.] As the Home Secretary has just pointed out, the figures on absconding are the lowest for 10 years. Let me point something else out to the right hon. Gentleman. When he was advising the Home Secretary at the Home Office under the previous Administration, many, many category A prisoners as well as other category prisoners escaped. I am pleased to say that under this Administration there have been no category A escapes.
Nor there…
DC: Let us look at something else that the Prime Minister told us. He told us in January—Labour Members will enjoy this one—
“I’m absolutely happy that Gordon will be my successor. He needs the confidence of knowing he will succeed me and that’s fair enough.”
Does the Prime Minister still think that today?
Well does he?
The Prime Minister: Let me just say— [Interruption.] I do not resile from anything that I have said, but let me just go back for a moment to the NHS. The right hon. Gentleman has just proposed a campaign, saying that he would reverse all those decisions that are being taken by local decision makers on the NHS. Let me read to him from his campaign document—
Err…. Does he?
The Prime Minister: I am simply explaining why I will not accept the policy on the NHS proposed by the Conservative party. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is launching this policy proposal because he wants us to accept it, and the reason I will not accept it is that his proposal is for an independent board to take all commissioning decisions and to allocate resources. That would mean no accountability for politicians in this House about the decisions that are taken, and it would mean that, since there are no limits to the private sector involvement, none of these services that he will protest about at the end of the week will be guaranteed under his proposals made at the beginning of the week.
So does he or not?
Mr. Cameron: It was a pretty straight sort of question, and the Prime Minister has told us that he is a pretty straight sort of a guy. Does he back the Chancellor as his successor? Yes or no? I do, does he?
The Prime Minister: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is a lot happier talking about that than he is about policy, but I will talk about policy. I will talk about the policy on the NHS, our policy and his policy, because in the end the issue for the country is who has the right policies for the future, and it is the Labour party that has made record investment in the NHS, which he voted against. It is this party that has delivered better waiting times, improved cardiac and cancer care, better accident and emergency departments, and his policies would put all of that at risk, and that is why we will stick with our policies,not his.
Yet I still don’t know whether he supports Brown. Do you?
The Speaker might claim, as might that toadying fuckwit Khan, appearing on News 24 straight after, that it isn’t a matter of national government. Well it fucking well is boyo. Unless you’re going to call an election when Ol Tone finally fucks off you’re talking about a Prime Minister being installed. I think we have a right to know who it is.
So.. Mr. Speaker, if you’re going to chair debates you could start by not closing them down, and if you’re going to hold politicians to account in the debating chamber can we have a little less lefty bias than we get from the BBC please?
Today he’s ruled against David Cameron asking about the Labour leadership since “The Prime Minister is here to talk about government policy, that is a matter for the Labour Party”. It is true that the Speaker has had the odd pop at Blair for talking about Tory policy over the past few weeks rather than government policy but he has never once berated the PM for not answering the question that was asked of him.
Here are some examples:
DC: Three years ago, the Government said that the youth justice system had been totally transformed. Yesterday, the chief inspector of prisons said that the system was approaching breaking point. Who is right?
The Prime Minister: Over the past few years, according to the National Audit Office— [Interruption.] I am trying to answer. According to the National Audit Office, in 1997 the system was a shambles; in 2004 it had made substantial improvement. The fact is, we have managed to reduce dramatically the time that it takes to get young offenders fast-tracked through the justice system. We have expanded the amount of secure accommodation. We are making sure now that those who breach antisocial behaviour orders are given a custodial sentence, although it is true that that is causing pressures in the system. We believe that that policy is right. That is why we shall continue investing in our youth justice system and continue to make improvements.
No answer there then
DC: The Home Office has explained that it is moving prisoners at risk of escaping to open prisons. The Home Secretary is apparently happy with that. [Interruption.] Is the Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister: As the Home Secretary has just pointed out, absconding is at its lowest for 10 years, so the idea that we are going to put the public at risk is absurd. No people will be put in open prisons who are a risk to the public. [Interruption.] As the Home Secretary has just pointed out, the figures on absconding are the lowest for 10 years. Let me point something else out to the right hon. Gentleman. When he was advising the Home Secretary at the Home Office under the previous Administration, many, many category A prisoners as well as other category prisoners escaped. I am pleased to say that under this Administration there have been no category A escapes.
Nor there…
DC: Let us look at something else that the Prime Minister told us. He told us in January—Labour Members will enjoy this one—
“I’m absolutely happy that Gordon will be my successor. He needs the confidence of knowing he will succeed me and that’s fair enough.”
Does the Prime Minister still think that today?
Well does he?
The Prime Minister: Let me just say— [Interruption.] I do not resile from anything that I have said, but let me just go back for a moment to the NHS. The right hon. Gentleman has just proposed a campaign, saying that he would reverse all those decisions that are being taken by local decision makers on the NHS. Let me read to him from his campaign document—
Err…. Does he?
The Prime Minister: I am simply explaining why I will not accept the policy on the NHS proposed by the Conservative party. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is launching this policy proposal because he wants us to accept it, and the reason I will not accept it is that his proposal is for an independent board to take all commissioning decisions and to allocate resources. That would mean no accountability for politicians in this House about the decisions that are taken, and it would mean that, since there are no limits to the private sector involvement, none of these services that he will protest about at the end of the week will be guaranteed under his proposals made at the beginning of the week.
So does he or not?
Mr. Cameron: It was a pretty straight sort of question, and the Prime Minister has told us that he is a pretty straight sort of a guy. Does he back the Chancellor as his successor? Yes or no? I do, does he?
The Prime Minister: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is a lot happier talking about that than he is about policy, but I will talk about policy. I will talk about the policy on the NHS, our policy and his policy, because in the end the issue for the country is who has the right policies for the future, and it is the Labour party that has made record investment in the NHS, which he voted against. It is this party that has delivered better waiting times, improved cardiac and cancer care, better accident and emergency departments, and his policies would put all of that at risk, and that is why we will stick with our policies,not his.
Yet I still don’t know whether he supports Brown. Do you?
The Speaker might claim, as might that toadying fuckwit Khan, appearing on News 24 straight after, that it isn’t a matter of national government. Well it fucking well is boyo. Unless you’re going to call an election when Ol Tone finally fucks off you’re talking about a Prime Minister being installed. I think we have a right to know who it is.
So.. Mr. Speaker, if you’re going to chair debates you could start by not closing them down, and if you’re going to hold politicians to account in the debating chamber can we have a little less lefty bias than we get from the BBC please?
Friday, October 27, 2006
Get This Down Your Neck You Harpy!
Patsy Hewitt can just fuck off
Given that I am not a 17 year old harpy with 7 kids to 7 fathers, 2 ABSOs, an addiction to Heat magazine and would look out of place on Trisha I shouldn’t really have a problem with this. But then I am a Guttersnipe… and I do.
This is also going to contain some really quite creative swearing. Please move along if easily offended. In fact please move along if the thought of gang sodomy involving 2 marrows and a funnel offends.
A swingeing increase in tax on alcopops and other alcoholic drinks favoured by teenagers is being demanded by the health secretary, Patricia Hewitt, in an attempt to stop young people damaging their health by binge drinking. She has written to the chancellor asking him to ratchet up the cost of alcohol in his next budget, to price it beyond the reach of youngsters' earnings or pocket money.
Oh for sweet fuck’s sake. Is there anything this fucking sanctimonius perfect-poo fucking dicator won’t touch? Just fucking leave me alone, and leave everyone else alone. In fact do your bit for needless CO2 emissions and just stop fucking breathing out will you?
This governments answer to everything they don’t like is “tax it and it will stop.. if it doesn’t then Prescott can afford another secretary”. I wonder how many breezers he needed to pour down her to get her down for the Hammertime.
What are they going to do next? We’ve got a real problem with murderers so we’re going to tax guns and knives? We have a problem with terrorists so we’re going to tax explosives and rucksacks? JESUS FUCKING CHRIST WOMAN. Has it crossed your pathetic party fucking bootboy mind that if they can’t afford it they’re just going to nick it from the Off Licence?
Ms Hewitt was responding to disturbing evidence that drinking is blighting young people's lives and causing them long-term medical damage. She said: "I am asking Gordon Brown, when he comes forward with the budget next year, to really increase taxes on alcohol. And particularly things like alcopops and some of the stuff that quite a lot of teenage boys and girls are drinking, because we've got a real problem with binge drinking among young people."
So to sum up… the interfering fucking harridan thinks the price is going to go up and people will stop? As mentioned above they are either going to blag it out of Threshers or, as the Devil, The The Young Greek Chap and the erstwhile Mr. Worstall ALL point out, they’ll probably resort to the choice drink of the terminally skint – Special Brew and White Lightning. Good one Patsy, did I mention you’re a fucktard?
She disclosed her ambition in an interview with the winners of a children's newspaper competition, who straightforwardly asked her for an exclusive. In a departure from normal Whitehall protocol, she told the children - all aged under 11 - about the normally secret correspondence with the Treasury.
I’ll bet they’re all screaming out to vote Labour now aren’t they? They're fucking ELEVEN for Christ's sake. Why don't you go stand outside Tiger Tiger and say that on a Friday night? Is it because our nations drinkers would take you round the back and show you their WKD side? Is it because you'll get stoned to death? Is it? Yes? And a good fucking thing too!
She said: "We've got enormous numbers of young people, particularly on a Friday and Saturday night, ending up in the casualty department of hospitals because they're drunk. They've fallen over and bashed their heads in because they're drinking too much. I think putting taxes up on alcohol would help discourage young people from spending too much money on alcohol."
How? Surely if the object were to stop people spending too much money on alcohol then you should be making them cheaper?
Earlier this month Ms Hewitt launched a "Know Your Limits" campaign against binge drinking. A department spokesman said it was targeted at the under-25s because they were "the most likely to drink irresponsibly and cause harm to themselves and others".
I’ll tell you how to know your limits Pats… everyone should carry around a photo of you and a photo of your latest speech. When drinking read the speech. If it looks like a good idea then you’re pissed so go home.
Failing that look at the photo. If you think “She’s a bit cute” then report to the nearest A&E department. You clearly need a stomach pump and an enema.
So what’s to be done? Well in his usual style our Greek fella has some ideas,
I'd suggest locking her up, but there aren't any prison cells spare. I'd tie her to the train tracks, but the trains don't fucking run on time. I'd blindfold her and set her loose in an Army firing range, but the guns they've been issued are notoriously prone to jamming. I'd stuff her in a crate, block all the airholes, and ship her to Timbuktu, but our borders are far too porous to keep the hectoring harpy out. Putting her in one of her hospitals and waiting for her to get MRSA appeals to my sense of cosmic justice, but that would be too clumsy and random.
A nice touch… but not quite sever enough I think, so over to the Devil
“I suggest that we strap her to a chair, with her eylids held open (just so the whole experience hurts more), and with her head clamped so that her face is turned upwards; we would then gaffa-tape a large funnel into her mouth and pour alcopops into it. The first bottle would go in and she'd start to choke and retch but it'd have to go down eventually; and then more and more bottles of the most hideous Bacardi Breezers—watch her legs open after the second one—and other sweet, icky things would be poured down her funnel—with only enough respite to stop her drowning—until she's violently sick (the force of the spasms ripping her eyelids off) and one by one her organs start to collapse or explode (depending upon their make-up and function) and she dies a lingering, alcopop-fuelled death.”
A good idea don’t you agree well I would like to add:
Once we’ve drained every bit of blue fucking WKD into the quivering remains of her once proud shell we get all those redundant doctors and nurses to resuscitate her then force feed her every bit of broken glass from those empty bottles.
That should give the NHS its “best year ever”.
Then with as much Adrenalin as it takes to keep the bitch alive and in agony we drag her sorry stuporous frame round the route of every pub crawl in England leaving her to spend the last of her days pissing herself in a bus station while the tramps share their Special Brew with her.
I think I speak for all good Guttersnipes when I ask Patsy to FUCK OFF OUT OF OUR LIVES! If Bacardis were a bit cheaper then perhaps she would have been married.
Cough Up Sandal Boys!
I know Iain Dale's been on this for months but... BBC:
The Liberal Democrats could still be forced to pay back £2.4m in donations from convicted perjurer Michael Brown, the Electoral Commission has said.
The watchdog has previously said the party could keep the cash donated by Mr Brown's company 5th Avenue Partners ahead of the last election.
But new information has come to light about the company which may make the donation "impermissible," it said.
It will reach a final decision "in the next few weeks".
So how many people are going to have to sell their sandals to keep this lot afloat then eh?
Mind you.. I'll warrant Sir Ming's not short of a bob or two, shall we see how far his "rich supporting the poor" stance goes in a few weeks time?
Meanwhile Over At The Snob...
Our good fella the Reactionary Snob takes apart Reid again.
“Reid, as I've said before, is a tabloid voodoo doll. A Red Top has a campaign and gung-ho Jock runs in with all sorts of higgledy-piggledy strategy. A deeply worrying, illiberal eejit.”
Indeed,
Go read the whole thing…
“Reid, as I've said before, is a tabloid voodoo doll. A Red Top has a campaign and gung-ho Jock runs in with all sorts of higgledy-piggledy strategy. A deeply worrying, illiberal eejit.”
Indeed,
Go read the whole thing…
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Boris Bang On The Money!
Not only right wing, but rightAnd I also know that, as soon as we gave the very ghost of a tax-cutting commitment, the great Labour lie machine would chunter into action. Ed Balls would start boggling indignantly from your screens. Gordon would begin his nasal dronathon about closed hospitals, axed nurses, cancelled heart operations and mutilated stumps.
But in case there is anyone out there who doubts the evil of how Gordon Brown taxes the poor, let them hear the ill-effects on those in our Armed Forces who slave to put bread on the table for their families, and who are walloped for their pains by the Chancellor.
I back Cameron and Osborne's stance that a tax cut in unsellable at the moment but I haven't seen anyone making it sellable. Boris does so here with his usual syle.
Go read the whole thing
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Ten Points Ahead and the Guardian Still Don't Get It!
Julian Glover clutches at strawsLabour's poll rating has got that sinking feeling, falling in today's Guardian/ICM survey to 29%, a level it has hit only once before, in May 1987.
And Guttersnipe here thinks that “sinking feeling” implies that we should continue to see
On today's score, Mr Brown's spell in Downing Street, assuming it begins next year, might be rather brief. The numbers would certainly leave David Cameron as the leader of the largest party in parliament, even if they fall short of promising him a proper majority.
Actually according to Electoral Calculus they actually display a conservative majority of 38. But when have the Guardian ever been concerned about facts and research?
Yet there is another side to the story. For a start, just a year and a half before she won that third election in 1987, it was Thatcher who was in the doldrums, on 29% and in third place behind the Alliance. She bounced back, and so could Labour, especially since it has a new leader to look forward to and can hold off another election for almost four years. By 2010, Cameron may not look so glossy.
Well maybe they could… However given that Brown appears to be Blair without the smile, and that currently ALL Labour’s leadership candidates fall a good 10 points below Cameron with Brown being the best performer I doubt very much that Cameron’s glossy look will fade any time soon. Although given that they’re closing hospitals in Tory wards, they might be able to bully themselves back in.
Frankly they were elected in last time because the country did not feel that there was a better alternative, a great many people now feel differently.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
What Does He Want? Blood?
You're going down slag!Tony Blair called yesterday for the national DNA database to be expanded to include every citizen. He said there should be no limit on the development of the database because it was vital for catching serious criminals.
[…]
During a tour of the Forensic Science Service headquarters in London, he dismissed concerns of opposition politicians, saying the public backed the database because it was "helping us track down murderers, rapists".
Has this man gone absolutely bat shit mad? I don’t back the database? I guarantee you that this database will be riddled with errors, and I’ll end up on the Special Case Nonce’s Wing of Broadmoor simply because the government can’t build a computer system that can recognise the difference between a T and a G.
These fecktards can’t even get my tax and National Insurance right let alone manage a system of the individual genetic make up of every British citizen. How many serious crimes are committed by illegal immigrants eh? A good proportion of our crime is going to be done by people who aren’t even on our database, even on the 3 days in the year when it works.
Why not get some fecking police out there instead of having them tick boxes and the like all the time. You know Tone? Catching criminals, what the police want to do but you’re too busy making sure that criminals have more rights than we do.
Mr Blair said he did not believe there was "any problem" with the public providing samples because if they had committed a serious offence they "should be convicted". The database sent a "strong signal" to the criminal community that they could be identified and caught from even the smallest trace at a crime scene.
Blair gave a sample voluntarily when he announced the database. Now if you’re of the opinion that flogging a peerage is a serious offence and/or believe the Iraq War was illegal then I think we’ve disproved the merits of the system.
And what’s this shit about if they’ve committed a serious offence they “should be convicted”? Are you living in the same fucking Britain as the rest of us? You haven’t any more room in prisons, we’re letting serial rapists, nonces and terror suspects wander out at will and you’re wanting to convict more people? I’m all in favour of more convictions but let’s have the space and the means to keep people in it first eh?
Downing Street said later that no thought had been given at this stage to requiring everyone to give a DNA sample, although they will have to give scans of their eye and fingerprints for a passport and eventually a national identity card. At this stage, the Prime Minister believed it was a "personal matter" whether people, including other Government ministers, should volunteer their DNA.
Bags not be the person who has to get a semen sample from Prescott.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Time for a Polly Kicking Again!
Polly's getting scared again by those evil Tories:
The government must make the social justice case if it is to succeed in repairing the damage wrought by Thatcher
The damage wrought by Thatcher eh Pol? Baroness Thatcher resigned her role as Prime Minister on 22 November 1990. Now really Pol was there that much damage done to the system by good old Lady T that it requires 16 years to put it right? 16 years? If you have a look at say the mortgage rate tables since then you’ll find that while yes we did have 15% mortgage rates in the late 80s but they were down to about 9% in 1992 and by the time Blair and his wankerfest came in they were down at 7.58% only about 2% higher than they are now. I would rate that as a quick turnaround of what you might refer to as Thatcherite damage.
The Conservatives' tax commission is no tactical blunder or political embarrassment. It is an important political marker, an IOU to their voters even if Cameron will sign no precise sum or date for its redemption.
Of course not, you see Cameron knows full well that to promise anything regarding the economy has to be based on sound money, that being that the money will be there to deliver that which he says he is going to do. This contrasts neatly with your one eyed Norse sex beast who says “I’ll hose your fecking money down a state funded toilet. I can afford this because I can just screw more money out of you… HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!”
Of course the Tories would cut taxes. Why not? There is nothing shocking or surprising about that, since many agree that low taxes and a small state is the way to go. George Osborne and Alan Duncan commenting on their tax reform commission both said this is their direction of travel: they don't need to spell out details because everyone knows cutting tax is what the right is for.
Whereas we all know that the left is about destroying any idea of liberty or being British, about making all the people slaves to the state while the politicos live the fucking high life they believe that nobody else has a right to regardless of how well they work. After all Pol…. Hitler and Stalin were both socialists weren’t they?
Just look what is happening in Sweden, where the right toppled the social democrats from power last month. Fredrik Reinfeldt's New Moderate party, to the left of Cameron, has set about cutting taxes and benefits more sharply than it suggested during the election, where it posed as almost indistinguishable from the social democrats.
And now they’ve set about screwing the system that they’ve inherited haven’t they Pol? Oh the Swedish dream being torn down in front of your very eyes… curse those crazy Swedes for going out and voting against what you believe in, curse them all. Oh you must be heartbroken and if you are then good! Please don’t take it out on us, we don’t believe in your statist Scottish utopia any more than the Swedes do.
Since unemployment was the major election battleground, he has wisely cut payroll taxes for all employers taking on the long-term unemployed. But the quid pro quo is that employees have to pay more towards their own unemployment insurance. All his other tax changes benefit the better off.
Look Polly, I’m assuming that you’re talking about tax cuts here, well yes a tax cut will benefit the better off, but it will also benefit the worse off as well. This is what you blinkered wankers on the left never seem to get. Sometimes you have a good idea that genuinely benefits the worse off, the unfortunate, the people who want a better life and are prepared to do something about it. Then some twat on the back benches says “hang on this will give the rich an extra £15 a week” and it gets thrown in the bin. You all seem to have this attitude that anything that makes the rich richer is bad irrespective of whether it makes the poor richer as well.
He has cut property taxes by 50%, which may trigger an unhealthy house price boom, also abolishing the equivalent of stamp duty.
Would that be like the unhealthy house price boom we have here when interest rates went dramatically down? Is it? Why not think about it like this… cut the tax, encourage the market, values rise therefore tax takes increase and you’re left with more tax being collected from a lower rate.
To help pay for these cuts he is selling off 5bn euros-worth of state-owned companies, relatively uncontroversial in the UK.
Good… state owned companies are useless monopolies that do not make profits. Turn them into private sector profit making organisations and you collect on a whole raft of business taxation that you didn’t collect on before, plus you’re no longer using tax payers money to fund these monstrosities so your income goes up and expenditure down. This is a basic business principle.
But he is also cutting benefits for the unemployed by 15%, with a 15% cut in sickness and parental leave benefits as well. The unemployed now face tough new rules: after a fixed time, they must take jobs paying 10% below benefit levels, a remarkably tough policy.
Good… they’ll get into work and will quickly rise above the benefit level, engendering a level of pride in themselves and social responsibility that they did not have before. They will stick to that once they realise that they are in fact better off out of the state handouts.
Tax breaks for trade union subscriptions are abolished but there are, however, new tax breaks for families hiring cleaners.
Also good… why should you get a tax break for being a member of a union. If you want the apparent protection a union gives (i.e. you are a bad worker and don’t want to get fired) then why should I subsidise it? And before you start on the cleaners thing, good! They are providing a job to someone who did not have one, that newly employed person then probably pays more tax than you give back to the employer and tax take has increased without everyone having to pay more. Good call Sweden!
These Swedish cuts are not shocking - they are what the right is there to do. It is happening here when Conservatives win local councils. In Croydon the new Tory council is cutting £16m: £10m from social services, £1m from education, £2.5m from environment, sports and culture, losing 100 staff and aiming to cut £37m by next year.
What were they spending it on before though eh? I’ll bet it was Diversity Awareness Days and Management Workshops and Health and Safety lawyers and so forth. The constituents don’t need these things so why should they pay for them?
However at Westminster, Labour's triple victory has tugged the centre-ground over far enough for the Tories not to dare offer immediate cuts. William Hague promised £8bn in 2001 and lost, Michael Howard promised £4bn in 2005 and lost - and now Cameron will offer nothing but yesterday's undated IOU "up-front" (their current expression implying plenty in the back office later).
Polly, go and read Burning Our Money. You’ll get a regular catalogue of how our tax payers money is being wasted on fucking art to hang in parliament, pointless investigations, just a mountain of money that as the title suggests is just being thrown into the cellars and torched.
So has Labour won the argument then? No. It has hardly begun to make the real case yet and that makes it dangerously vulnerable to charges that the extra taxes it raised have been wasted.
Labour has not won the argument because it has never and I mean NEVER backed up its claim that all the Tories want to do is close your schools and hospitals. When the government recently hit financial difficulties they’ve started getting rid of teachers and nurses and the like. They haven’t started getting rid of managers, management consultants, diversity officers and all that bollocks. They have perpetuated this myth that tax cuts lead to cutting back on nurses, doctors, teachers, street sweepers and so on. It doesn’t. In any business or large organisation you get rid of the people who cost you money and deliver nothing towards your company’s goal. They’re not, the conspiratorial side of me thinks that they’re going to back up their argument by firing a shitload of nurses and saying “look.. that’s what a lack of public spending gets you now hand over some more money!”
Blair never spelled out that extra spending was mainly to be spent on social justice. The implication that all the money would buy tangible middle-class services - schools, hospitals and transport - left taxpayers expecting to get it all paid back penny for penny.
Not an unreasonable request is it Polly? We pay our money and we expect services that benefit us in return. When did you last go into a supermarket, reach the checkout and say “there’s my money, please use it to buy that man’s shopping behind me, he clearly doesn’t earn £140,000 like I do”?
If tax is sold politically as shopping, then the Tories can stir discontent about bad value for money in middle-class shopping baskets.
And if Labour hadn’t promised these things to the middle classes and then pissed it all up the wall on gratuitous wastes of money like Sure Start, the Big Conversation and er… Prescott, then they might not be that concerned, you know if you had actually delivered what you promised them. Education Education Education? Fucking spend spend spend.
Labour never spelled out how NHS and school spending would be shunted mainly towards the poorest areas, or that tax credits, benefits and help for the poorest would be the priority. So the Tory shopping trolley piled high with income tax cuts may look full of good things to many at first glance.
Yeah, especially those who pay tax.
But abolition of inheritance tax only paid by the top 15%, and cutting taxes on capital gains and shares, along with future promises to cut the top tax rates - all these, says the Institute of Fiscal Studies, make this package largely a benefit for the already well-off. And just consider how unimaginably well the wealthy and the City have prospered under Labour.
Oh for fuck’s sake Polly, read the report.
“This £21bn of relief includes a reduction in the basic income tax rate from 22% to 20% and the lifting of 2.5 million low earners from paying any income tax.”
See the words? LOW EARNERS… can you explain to me how low earners getting no tax bills is benefiting the already well off? Unless you’re counting yourself as a low earner.
Meanwhile, unheralded, Labour's most admirable annual document was published to resounding press silence this week. Opportunity for All monitors progress across the 59 original goals towards improving the life chances for the left-behind. It makes encouraging reading with 40 graphs moving in the right direction, the others unchanged and a few moving backwards. It's good to be reminded there are a million fewer poor pensioners, 700,000 fewer poor children and that all poor families get an average £3,350 more a year. This long list of steady improvements includes more social housing in good repair, better school results at 11 and 16 and better life expectancy.
Lots of pretty graphs eh Pol? We in the rest of the country, you know the ones who actually have to live in Blair and Brown’s utopia, just see that as more Labour spin after all according to them crime is at a record low. The only way these graphs would be going in the right direction is if they were shoved up Brown’s arse.
Yet this last also tells another story. Life expectancy is rising - but averages are meaningless: the rich-and-poor gap is growing, so men in Bethnal Green now die 16 years before men in Kensington's Courtfield ward. London, the great powerhouse of the economy, is the one area where child poverty is no better than nine years ago - 52% of children in inner London live on less than 60% of the median, the OECD official poverty line.
I don’t really think we can claim life expectancy as a Labour achievement can we? I mean life expectancy has been increasing since the Stone Age. Although the way that these jokers present the figures I imagine that they will put that down to Blair. After all it would be one achievement for his legacy, “look people, you’re not living in caves any more… you’ve never had it so good”. But I highlight one part of this ..
And it might have been if it had something other than money. The only political determination determination these rampant cock warts had was to con honest joe public into voting for them again and as for honest monitoring come on! You expect honesty from the likes of Blair, Prescott, Jowell, Levy?
Now the progress seems sluggish and the journey hard. Tony Travers of the LSE, in a speech this week, talked of how badly everyone underestimated the social catastrophe of 1980s deindustrialisation, made worse under Thatcherite policy. Those whose livelihoods were devastated were given no time to adapt, leaving well-paid working-class men with no jobs or chances for their children or for their communities to adapt gradually to new skills.
Now this always got me…. The textile industry in the north collapsed spectacularly, much more spectacularly than the mines did and do you know what? The textile workers all went and got other jobs. The miners on the other hand have always said “I’m a miner, me dad was a miner as was his dad” and so on. Count Guttersnipe was an engineer but that doesn’t mean I should be one. Get off your arse and get out to work!
We should really substitute the words “well paid working class men” with “overpaid working class men”. The Unions demanded such pay raises from the weaker than gnat piss Callaghan government that the mines became unsustainable. We recognised this and voted in Lady T. As usual the Tories get the blame for cleaning up a mess that you fecking soviets left behind.
That social shock we live with still, worsened by years of undertaxing and underspending.
Undertaxing? Underspending? Where are you living Polly?
Social repair is proving more difficult than anyone thought. It will take more time, more effort - and yes, much more money. Spending cuts now would be a calamity.
Jesus not more money… I think we’re all in agreement that more more money is just bollocks. Well all in agreement apart from you.
This is the social justice case Labour has to put to the voters to challenge the Tory shopping trolley. It may not be as hard as Blair always feared: yesterday YouGov said time and again polls show a large majority emphatically reject tax cuts and, if asked who should benefit, they choose pensioners and the lowest paid first, not themselves. Three elections told the same story, but when will Labour dare believe it?
Three elections did not tell that particularsame story, it told the story of the public saying “Oi Tories, come back when you’ve changed your tune”. I believe they have and I think so does Polly.
The government must make the social justice case if it is to succeed in repairing the damage wrought by Thatcher
The damage wrought by Thatcher eh Pol? Baroness Thatcher resigned her role as Prime Minister on 22 November 1990. Now really Pol was there that much damage done to the system by good old Lady T that it requires 16 years to put it right? 16 years? If you have a look at say the mortgage rate tables since then you’ll find that while yes we did have 15% mortgage rates in the late 80s but they were down to about 9% in 1992 and by the time Blair and his wankerfest came in they were down at 7.58% only about 2% higher than they are now. I would rate that as a quick turnaround of what you might refer to as Thatcherite damage.
The Conservatives' tax commission is no tactical blunder or political embarrassment. It is an important political marker, an IOU to their voters even if Cameron will sign no precise sum or date for its redemption.
Of course not, you see Cameron knows full well that to promise anything regarding the economy has to be based on sound money, that being that the money will be there to deliver that which he says he is going to do. This contrasts neatly with your one eyed Norse sex beast who says “I’ll hose your fecking money down a state funded toilet. I can afford this because I can just screw more money out of you… HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!”
Of course the Tories would cut taxes. Why not? There is nothing shocking or surprising about that, since many agree that low taxes and a small state is the way to go. George Osborne and Alan Duncan commenting on their tax reform commission both said this is their direction of travel: they don't need to spell out details because everyone knows cutting tax is what the right is for.
Whereas we all know that the left is about destroying any idea of liberty or being British, about making all the people slaves to the state while the politicos live the fucking high life they believe that nobody else has a right to regardless of how well they work. After all Pol…. Hitler and Stalin were both socialists weren’t they?
Just look what is happening in Sweden, where the right toppled the social democrats from power last month. Fredrik Reinfeldt's New Moderate party, to the left of Cameron, has set about cutting taxes and benefits more sharply than it suggested during the election, where it posed as almost indistinguishable from the social democrats.
And now they’ve set about screwing the system that they’ve inherited haven’t they Pol? Oh the Swedish dream being torn down in front of your very eyes… curse those crazy Swedes for going out and voting against what you believe in, curse them all. Oh you must be heartbroken and if you are then good! Please don’t take it out on us, we don’t believe in your statist Scottish utopia any more than the Swedes do.
Since unemployment was the major election battleground, he has wisely cut payroll taxes for all employers taking on the long-term unemployed. But the quid pro quo is that employees have to pay more towards their own unemployment insurance. All his other tax changes benefit the better off.
Look Polly, I’m assuming that you’re talking about tax cuts here, well yes a tax cut will benefit the better off, but it will also benefit the worse off as well. This is what you blinkered wankers on the left never seem to get. Sometimes you have a good idea that genuinely benefits the worse off, the unfortunate, the people who want a better life and are prepared to do something about it. Then some twat on the back benches says “hang on this will give the rich an extra £15 a week” and it gets thrown in the bin. You all seem to have this attitude that anything that makes the rich richer is bad irrespective of whether it makes the poor richer as well.
He has cut property taxes by 50%, which may trigger an unhealthy house price boom, also abolishing the equivalent of stamp duty.
Would that be like the unhealthy house price boom we have here when interest rates went dramatically down? Is it? Why not think about it like this… cut the tax, encourage the market, values rise therefore tax takes increase and you’re left with more tax being collected from a lower rate.
To help pay for these cuts he is selling off 5bn euros-worth of state-owned companies, relatively uncontroversial in the UK.
Good… state owned companies are useless monopolies that do not make profits. Turn them into private sector profit making organisations and you collect on a whole raft of business taxation that you didn’t collect on before, plus you’re no longer using tax payers money to fund these monstrosities so your income goes up and expenditure down. This is a basic business principle.
But he is also cutting benefits for the unemployed by 15%, with a 15% cut in sickness and parental leave benefits as well. The unemployed now face tough new rules: after a fixed time, they must take jobs paying 10% below benefit levels, a remarkably tough policy.
Good… they’ll get into work and will quickly rise above the benefit level, engendering a level of pride in themselves and social responsibility that they did not have before. They will stick to that once they realise that they are in fact better off out of the state handouts.
Tax breaks for trade union subscriptions are abolished but there are, however, new tax breaks for families hiring cleaners.
Also good… why should you get a tax break for being a member of a union. If you want the apparent protection a union gives (i.e. you are a bad worker and don’t want to get fired) then why should I subsidise it? And before you start on the cleaners thing, good! They are providing a job to someone who did not have one, that newly employed person then probably pays more tax than you give back to the employer and tax take has increased without everyone having to pay more. Good call Sweden!
These Swedish cuts are not shocking - they are what the right is there to do. It is happening here when Conservatives win local councils. In Croydon the new Tory council is cutting £16m: £10m from social services, £1m from education, £2.5m from environment, sports and culture, losing 100 staff and aiming to cut £37m by next year.
What were they spending it on before though eh? I’ll bet it was Diversity Awareness Days and Management Workshops and Health and Safety lawyers and so forth. The constituents don’t need these things so why should they pay for them?
However at Westminster, Labour's triple victory has tugged the centre-ground over far enough for the Tories not to dare offer immediate cuts. William Hague promised £8bn in 2001 and lost, Michael Howard promised £4bn in 2005 and lost - and now Cameron will offer nothing but yesterday's undated IOU "up-front" (their current expression implying plenty in the back office later).
Polly, go and read Burning Our Money. You’ll get a regular catalogue of how our tax payers money is being wasted on fucking art to hang in parliament, pointless investigations, just a mountain of money that as the title suggests is just being thrown into the cellars and torched.
So has Labour won the argument then? No. It has hardly begun to make the real case yet and that makes it dangerously vulnerable to charges that the extra taxes it raised have been wasted.
Labour has not won the argument because it has never and I mean NEVER backed up its claim that all the Tories want to do is close your schools and hospitals. When the government recently hit financial difficulties they’ve started getting rid of teachers and nurses and the like. They haven’t started getting rid of managers, management consultants, diversity officers and all that bollocks. They have perpetuated this myth that tax cuts lead to cutting back on nurses, doctors, teachers, street sweepers and so on. It doesn’t. In any business or large organisation you get rid of the people who cost you money and deliver nothing towards your company’s goal. They’re not, the conspiratorial side of me thinks that they’re going to back up their argument by firing a shitload of nurses and saying “look.. that’s what a lack of public spending gets you now hand over some more money!”
Blair never spelled out that extra spending was mainly to be spent on social justice. The implication that all the money would buy tangible middle-class services - schools, hospitals and transport - left taxpayers expecting to get it all paid back penny for penny.
Not an unreasonable request is it Polly? We pay our money and we expect services that benefit us in return. When did you last go into a supermarket, reach the checkout and say “there’s my money, please use it to buy that man’s shopping behind me, he clearly doesn’t earn £140,000 like I do”?
If tax is sold politically as shopping, then the Tories can stir discontent about bad value for money in middle-class shopping baskets.
And if Labour hadn’t promised these things to the middle classes and then pissed it all up the wall on gratuitous wastes of money like Sure Start, the Big Conversation and er… Prescott, then they might not be that concerned, you know if you had actually delivered what you promised them. Education Education Education? Fucking spend spend spend.
Labour never spelled out how NHS and school spending would be shunted mainly towards the poorest areas, or that tax credits, benefits and help for the poorest would be the priority. So the Tory shopping trolley piled high with income tax cuts may look full of good things to many at first glance.
Yeah, especially those who pay tax.
But abolition of inheritance tax only paid by the top 15%, and cutting taxes on capital gains and shares, along with future promises to cut the top tax rates - all these, says the Institute of Fiscal Studies, make this package largely a benefit for the already well-off. And just consider how unimaginably well the wealthy and the City have prospered under Labour.
Oh for fuck’s sake Polly, read the report.
“This £21bn of relief includes a reduction in the basic income tax rate from 22% to 20% and the lifting of 2.5 million low earners from paying any income tax.”
See the words? LOW EARNERS… can you explain to me how low earners getting no tax bills is benefiting the already well off? Unless you’re counting yourself as a low earner.
Meanwhile, unheralded, Labour's most admirable annual document was published to resounding press silence this week. Opportunity for All monitors progress across the 59 original goals towards improving the life chances for the left-behind. It makes encouraging reading with 40 graphs moving in the right direction, the others unchanged and a few moving backwards. It's good to be reminded there are a million fewer poor pensioners, 700,000 fewer poor children and that all poor families get an average £3,350 more a year. This long list of steady improvements includes more social housing in good repair, better school results at 11 and 16 and better life expectancy.
Lots of pretty graphs eh Pol? We in the rest of the country, you know the ones who actually have to live in Blair and Brown’s utopia, just see that as more Labour spin after all according to them crime is at a record low. The only way these graphs would be going in the right direction is if they were shoved up Brown’s arse.
Yet this last also tells another story. Life expectancy is rising - but averages are meaningless: the rich-and-poor gap is growing, so men in Bethnal Green now die 16 years before men in Kensington's Courtfield ward. London, the great powerhouse of the economy, is the one area where child poverty is no better than nine years ago - 52% of children in inner London live on less than 60% of the median, the OECD official poverty line.
I don’t really think we can claim life expectancy as a Labour achievement can we? I mean life expectancy has been increasing since the Stone Age. Although the way that these jokers present the figures I imagine that they will put that down to Blair. After all it would be one achievement for his legacy, “look people, you’re not living in caves any more… you’ve never had it so good”. But I highlight one part of this ..
"men in Bethnal Green now die 16 years before men in Kensington's Courtfield ward"
No doubt blowing themselves up for Galloway
So Opportunity for All also makes dispiriting reading. It is a reminder of the 1997 sunny uplands when every problem seemed soluble with a bit more money, political determination and honest monitoring.And it might have been if it had something other than money. The only political determination determination these rampant cock warts had was to con honest joe public into voting for them again and as for honest monitoring come on! You expect honesty from the likes of Blair, Prescott, Jowell, Levy?
Now the progress seems sluggish and the journey hard. Tony Travers of the LSE, in a speech this week, talked of how badly everyone underestimated the social catastrophe of 1980s deindustrialisation, made worse under Thatcherite policy. Those whose livelihoods were devastated were given no time to adapt, leaving well-paid working-class men with no jobs or chances for their children or for their communities to adapt gradually to new skills.
Now this always got me…. The textile industry in the north collapsed spectacularly, much more spectacularly than the mines did and do you know what? The textile workers all went and got other jobs. The miners on the other hand have always said “I’m a miner, me dad was a miner as was his dad” and so on. Count Guttersnipe was an engineer but that doesn’t mean I should be one. Get off your arse and get out to work!
We should really substitute the words “well paid working class men” with “overpaid working class men”. The Unions demanded such pay raises from the weaker than gnat piss Callaghan government that the mines became unsustainable. We recognised this and voted in Lady T. As usual the Tories get the blame for cleaning up a mess that you fecking soviets left behind.
That social shock we live with still, worsened by years of undertaxing and underspending.
Undertaxing? Underspending? Where are you living Polly?
Social repair is proving more difficult than anyone thought. It will take more time, more effort - and yes, much more money. Spending cuts now would be a calamity.
Jesus not more money… I think we’re all in agreement that more more money is just bollocks. Well all in agreement apart from you.
This is the social justice case Labour has to put to the voters to challenge the Tory shopping trolley. It may not be as hard as Blair always feared: yesterday YouGov said time and again polls show a large majority emphatically reject tax cuts and, if asked who should benefit, they choose pensioners and the lowest paid first, not themselves. Three elections told the same story, but when will Labour dare believe it?
Three elections did not tell that particularsame story, it told the story of the public saying “Oi Tories, come back when you’ve changed your tune”. I believe they have and I think so does Polly.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
I Thought 'Control Order' Implied Control
BBC
The home secretary is under pressure to make a statement about the UK's use of control orders after it emerged two terror suspects had gone on the run. Shadow home secretary David Davis says John Reid should explain to MPs how the pair could have escaped, in what he described as "a piece of incompetence".
Actually I would have used the phrase “Further piece of incompetence”. As many Guttersnipes will recall Rambo said that he had 100 days to fix the Home Office, and those 100 days expired on 1st September.
Is the Home Office fixed? Is it bollocks! In addition to the fact that we still have a collection of foreign loonies, robbers, murderers and terrorists that should be deported (and therefore should be someone else’s problem) running around on the loose we now have two more who think that British laws don’t apply to them.
The suspects include a British man who fled through a window of a mental health unit two weeks ago. Minister Tony McNulty says a stronger version of the orders may be necessary.
No we do not need stronger control orders you twat! What we need is for your services, for which we elected you to be responsible, to be actually implemented!
Here are some further details on control orders: Source
“Control orders contain conditions restricting the behaviour and movement of the recipient. In some cases, they effectively allow the authorities to keep suspects under house arrest.”
So as we can see, they already have the strength to keep someone under House Arrest it’s just that the wannabe martyr in question wasn‘t kept under house arrest. What stronger control orders would you like Mr. McNulty? How much are we betting that this is going back to detention without charge eh?
You have the laws to do the job… just do the fecking job will you?
A major police investigation is ongoing after the men's disappearance, and it is understood ports and airports have been notified. The British suspect, who is of Pakistani descent, is accused by the authorities of wanting to go to Iraq to fight. He had been subject to a control order since March. The second man, an Iraqi, is thought to have been missing for some months.
Some months? Let me get this straight right… there is a control order on this person because he is a terror suspect and the evidence we have would either reveal intelligence sources or has been obtained by bugging and therefore inadmissible in court. We know this miscreant is up to something we just can’t try him for it. Fair enough.
When he does a fecking runner off to freedom why is the public not made aware that this dangerous enemy of the state is on the loose? Why are wanted posters not up? Why are we not seeing his mush all over Crimestoppers? Why is Nick Ross not saying “This terrorist is loose amongst you, don’t approach him and contact Special Branch”?
Would it be because that would make Reid’s “fix the Home Office” bid look a bit shit?
But Mr Davis denounced the episode as "extraordinary" and "essentially another failure in the Home Office". He said the government had been warned about "weaknesses" in the operation of the orders and he was "really rather surprised that we weren't told about this". "It's incredibly serious," he told the BBC. "It's more than an embarrassment. These are people they describe as being a danger to the public.
See? What he said…
Meanwhile, Mr McNulty, a Home Office minister, said there may be a need for a stronger version of control orders which would depart from the European Convention on Human Rights. He told BBC Two's Newsnight: "We'll keep this under review. We have provision in the law for a different form of control orders and at this stage we don't rule either in or out."
It doesn’t fecking matter what laws you have if you’re not enforcing them? This guy didn’t trip a loophole in the system, this guy went out of a bathroom fecking window. The law wouldn’t have prevented this, the enforcement of the law would have though.
Asked why the Home Office had not told the public earlier about the suspects' escapes, he said: "I can say very clearly and assure people that the people who needed to know in both cases have known." In response to suggestions the two suspects could carry out an attack at any time, Mr McNulty said: "On balance, I don't think that's the case at all."
People who need to know? I need to know that there are not a number a free roaming terrorists getting together to blow me to kingdom come… I didn’t know this.
And if they’re not planning any attacks as you seem so confident in saying McNutball then why the feck are they locked up on a control order?
Yo Do Realise This Means WAR!
Fuck you Hans BrixThis is what the US inspectors have said yesterday:
Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte said the findings came after analysis of radioactive debris detected at the site of the test. A US military aircraft collected air samples on 11 October, two days after Pyongyang made its announcement of a successful test.The apparently small size of the explosion had led to doubts over the veracity of North Korea's claim. But the short statement from Mr Negroponte's office confirmed that a nuclear explosion with a yield of "less than a kiloton" took place. This is less than a tenth of the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.
And this is what the North Korean ambsassador has said today:
In its first official statement since the vote, North Korea said it "vehemently denounced" the resolution and called it a "product of US hostile policy" towards the country.
"The resolution cannot be construed otherwise than a declaration of a war" against the North, the statement from the foreign ministry said, echoing comments made by North Korea's ambassador to the UN on Saturday.
Comparing the US nuclear arsenal with North Korea’s…. Bring it on!
Monday, October 16, 2006
Clearly Barking... But no Bite
What the f…?
Police dogs are being muzzled to stop them biting and injuring suspected criminals, it emerged yesterday. The policy, devised by North Wales Police, comes as a result of increased compensation claims from members of the public who have been bitten by police dogs. Officers say the toothless tactic provides a safer way to tackle unco-operative offenders, and it may soon be adopted by dog squads across the country.
For the love of god…. This country, or in fact that country, has officially now gone barking batshit mad.
For years I’ve seen those great displays at country shows where anorak and padding clad copper dressed as a ne’er do well scrote pulls a gun and good old Fido wrestles him to the ground to be arrested and off to live at Her Maj’s Pleasure…
Sadly it seems no more because we can’t be having Fido getting his gnashers around a criminal can we? No… apparently criminals are all innocent victims of society aren’t they?
Fuck all of you.
But critics say it is another example of political correctness gone mad - putting the rights and safety of criminals before cutting crime and protecting the public. Rather than biting suspects, the dogs have instead been trained to disable their targets by leaping at them and delivering a flying 'head-butt'.
And what do you know… they’re right. Now if I’m legging it from the plod, loot in hand what am I going to be most put off by?
- A foaming at the mouth, battle hardened police dog trained to the hilt to rip my throat out as soon as our friendly neighbourhood copper gives the word.
Or
- A muzzled dog who can catch me but if defenceless against a sound kicking that any known criminal is going to give it.
I think the former don’t you?
'It is one of the additional options open to us to muzzle our dogs and get them to use a head butt,' said Sgt Ian Massie. 'We believe it is a safer option for an offender to be head-butted.'
Safer for who? The criminal that’s who… they don’t give a bollocks about the safety of the dog handler who’ll probably be shot, the victim whose rights don’t matter a gnat’s wank anyway or the poor dog who’s got to tackle Fingers the Hoodlum without any form of attack.
Twats
But retired dog handler John Barrett, who served for 18 years with the Metropolitan Police, is critical of the new tactic.
'The 'conflict management model' of policing says that any force must be reasonable under the circumstances. It is clearly to gain control, prevent injury to the officer or others, and prevent damage to property.'
Conflict management model?
Look…. Just nick the fucker… if he resists then beat ten bells out of him.
If the police need to use dogs then let them use dogs unimpeded. If someone’s holding a gun around my good Lady Guttersnipe then as a tax payer and an elector…
I want the fucker’s throat ripped and eaten by a hungry Alsatian.
Got it?
Police dogs are being muzzled to stop them biting and injuring suspected criminals, it emerged yesterday. The policy, devised by North Wales Police, comes as a result of increased compensation claims from members of the public who have been bitten by police dogs. Officers say the toothless tactic provides a safer way to tackle unco-operative offenders, and it may soon be adopted by dog squads across the country.
For the love of god…. This country, or in fact that country, has officially now gone barking batshit mad.
For years I’ve seen those great displays at country shows where anorak and padding clad copper dressed as a ne’er do well scrote pulls a gun and good old Fido wrestles him to the ground to be arrested and off to live at Her Maj’s Pleasure…
Sadly it seems no more because we can’t be having Fido getting his gnashers around a criminal can we? No… apparently criminals are all innocent victims of society aren’t they?
Fuck all of you.
But critics say it is another example of political correctness gone mad - putting the rights and safety of criminals before cutting crime and protecting the public. Rather than biting suspects, the dogs have instead been trained to disable their targets by leaping at them and delivering a flying 'head-butt'.
And what do you know… they’re right. Now if I’m legging it from the plod, loot in hand what am I going to be most put off by?
- A foaming at the mouth, battle hardened police dog trained to the hilt to rip my throat out as soon as our friendly neighbourhood copper gives the word.
Or
- A muzzled dog who can catch me but if defenceless against a sound kicking that any known criminal is going to give it.
I think the former don’t you?
'It is one of the additional options open to us to muzzle our dogs and get them to use a head butt,' said Sgt Ian Massie. 'We believe it is a safer option for an offender to be head-butted.'
Safer for who? The criminal that’s who… they don’t give a bollocks about the safety of the dog handler who’ll probably be shot, the victim whose rights don’t matter a gnat’s wank anyway or the poor dog who’s got to tackle Fingers the Hoodlum without any form of attack.
Twats
But retired dog handler John Barrett, who served for 18 years with the Metropolitan Police, is critical of the new tactic.
'The 'conflict management model' of policing says that any force must be reasonable under the circumstances. It is clearly to gain control, prevent injury to the officer or others, and prevent damage to property.'
Conflict management model?
Look…. Just nick the fucker… if he resists then beat ten bells out of him.
If the police need to use dogs then let them use dogs unimpeded. If someone’s holding a gun around my good Lady Guttersnipe then as a tax payer and an elector…
I want the fucker’s throat ripped and eaten by a hungry Alsatian.
Got it?
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Meanwhile over on Comment is Free
"Oi Toynbee... go feck yerself!" Meanwhile over on Comment is Free…
Shadow Education Secretary David Willets tells Polly to shut the feck up!
Well that’s the dream but his response to yesterday’s article, while not as vitriolic as your good Guttersnipe, Devil or Mr. Worstall would offer, is still a good read:
“She listed our "assault on Sure Start" as evidence of a supposed secret agenda. Like the rest of her litany of doom, this displayed a profound misunderstanding of the approach we are now taking.”
“Toynbee, by giving a roll call of Labour initiatives, mirrored the complacency of Tony Blair's article on childcare the previous day (A failed test of leadership, October 5).”
“Toynbee ended her piece by saying we are "good at lambasting Labour for all it has still not done". But that is only part of our job.”
Go read the whole thing
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Louise Bagshawe Selected for Corby
Louise Bagshawe has been selected to fight the Corby seat... I have to confess I was thinking of moving.However I have been to Corby, it's a shithole... the place contains signs in the local McDonalds that say
"Please do not cycle in the restaurant"
It just got too surreal. It does have the very beautiful Rockingham castle just outside.
So Good Luck to Louise... it won't be hard to improve Corby, and with only a 3% lead over us it shouldn't be too hard to win the seat over... especially when the MP looks like this.
Hamana Hamana Hamana
Some New Faces
Well some are not so new recently but they have all had the decency to link to the Spleen and I will be returning the favour over the next day or so...
In the mean time I would encourage all good Guttersnipes to check out the following:
BagsRants
The Daily Pundit
Out From the Crowd
and the beatifully titled and well written newcomer
What Ho Proles!
In the mean time I would encourage all good Guttersnipes to check out the following:
BagsRants
The Daily Pundit
Out From the Crowd
and the beatifully titled and well written newcomer
What Ho Proles!
Just Build Some More Prisons Will You?
The Guardian
A sweeping range of incentives to persuade foreign prisoners to go home was unveiled last night by John Reid, the home secretary, in an attempt to defuse the jail overcrowding crisis.
Now on day 39 since the Home Office was supposed to have been sorted out who’s betting that none of these sweeping plans to solve the prisons crisis will involve something radical like er… building a few more prisons? I’m not convinced.
Prisoners from countries outside the European Economic Area (EEA ) - which comprises the 25 EU nations plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein - will be offered a package worth between £500 and £2,500 to go home, rather than face detention while they are considered for deportation. Others will be encouraged to serve the remainder of their sentences in jails in their home countries.
Offered a package to go home while they are considered for deportation? Why not deport them? If we pay them £2,500 to go home while they are considered then no doubt they will still be considered and when they are found not worthy of deportation no doubt the EU lawyer types will have us British taxpayers fly them back and give them a home. Meanwhile they can reoffend just like all our home grown prisoners.
Why not just remove the right to residency once you have broken the law?
“Others will be encouraged to serve the remainder of their sentence in the jails in their home countries” – errr isn’t that deportation? And frankly if you’re due to be serving a sentence in say a Thai jail then would bunging someone £500 to leave the leafy polished glades of a British Open Prison and relocate to the Bangkok Hilton?
The Liberal Democrats accused Mr Reid of offering a "bribe" to foreign prisoners. Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem home affairs spokesman, said: "What has the home secretary been doing for the last six months if his efforts to solve the foreign prisoner crisis now amount to a vague pledge to sort the problem out by next spring, and an even vaguer plan to bribe them to go back home?"
And it is a bribe… after all a £2,500 incentive to go back home is just the same as a £2,500 ‘incentive’ to find someone not guilty or a £1 million ‘incentive’ to make someone a peer.
The BBC featured the following phrase in its coverage:
“A Home Office spokesman said the deal would not include giving cash handouts to prisoners.
The money instead would be spent on grants for accommodation, education, or training to help set up a business if they agree to be moved out of the UK.”
So what business do we think the convicted heroin trafficker is going to set up eh?
Just build some more prisons will you and kick out the ones that don't belong here. Twats!
Monday, October 09, 2006
Hattersley Allowed Out Again
"I spray what I like and I like what I bloody well spray!"
Hattersley is spouting a mountain of shite again in the Guardian today.
The Labour leadership has not, as boxing commentators would put it, laid a glove on David Cameron. There is no doubt why. They have not struck a blow in his direction.
I would agree, they’ve not laid a glove on Cameron. They have however spent all the time since David came to the front, as well as some considerable time before laying many a glove on each other. A recent poll in the Telegraph has shown the Tories more trusted with the NHS than Labour simply because your collection of morons can’t even manage your own offices let alone large government departments and services.
If, to change the sporting metaphor, the government had decided that the leader of the opposition should be given a year to play himself in, the behaviour of ministers would not have been much different.
As such though he’s had the best part of a year to ‘play himself in’ and you have done nothing other than fight amongst yourselves for whatever scraps Blair deems to leave behind at the end.
Cameron is clearly hypnotised by Tony Blair. But Blair and his closest confidantes seem to be mesmerised by Cameron. Gordon Brown, who received his biggest conference cheer when he spoke about relishing the fight ahead, cannot lead the party into battle.
This of course is something the Tories have known for sometime. Brown has never had a stand up confrontation with anyone in his career. He publicly and privately surrenders and then starts the polite process of stabbing people in the back. We all know he orchestrated a coup and then failed to take any responsibility for it at all. Several ministers resigned but he’s still here. How many more pawns do you have to sacrifice Brown?
That would look as if he took the succession for granted.
Which he has.
The chancellor has to act humble for the next six months.
Which he can’t
Meanwhile, Cameron dispenses sunshine without anybody pointing out that he is selling snake oil. This is, after all, the same David Cameron who masterminded the Tory's 2005 manifesto
No he didn’t… he was on the policy committee yes but you can’t lay the entirety of the manifesto onto Cameron. It would not have gone ahead without Michael Howard’s blessing and it would not have gone ahead without the endorsement of most of the Shadow Cabinet, and as many pissed off right-wingers will tell you a great many of these issues have been dropped, not only by the leadership but by the grass roots members of the party. Members of the party who elected their leader as opposed to just handed him the job of PM when he couldn’t get it on his own merits.
a particularly unpleasant prospectus for government on which Michael Howard based a campaign with clear racist overtones and the obvious purpose of exploiting the politics of resentment, envy and fear.
Such racist overtones that a large part of the campaign featured the words “It’s not racist to talk about immigration”? Not forgetting of course that about a year after this campaign your very own dangerous extremist said “Talking about immigration is not racist”. Let me also remind you that it was such an exploitative, odious and unpleasant document that 32% of the country voted for it… only a few percent fewer than voted for your dossier of utter bollocks and pipe-dreams, which you probably had sexed up.
If Cameron was only the nominal author of that document and allowed illiberal ideas with which he did not agree to be peddled in his name, he is too weak to be prime minister. If he actually believed in the Conservative appeal to the lowest common denominator of the British character, his claim to occupy the middle ground of politics is simply hypocritical. Somebody towards the top of Labour's high command needs to ask him which reputation he prefers.
How is it? Let’s take a little jaunt down history shall we? Before your lot starting occupying parliamentary seats and singing the fecking Red Flag all afternoon we had a system that involved the Whigs and Tories, or later the Liberals and the Conservatives. They both occupied the middle ground and the differences were about how they ran things rather than what they believed. The idea that a Conservative cannot be on the middle ground is just bollocks. A tub-thumping left wing socialist like you however has little place on the middle ground.
So with that in mind…. Would you please fuck off?
Cameron might answer the question with the claim that he has changed his entire political philosophy during the past 18 months. Nobody would believe him.
Of course nobody would believe him. It isn’t true. I heard Cameron speak 18 months ago and he’s still on the same message. Whereas your party, Lord Gobshite, has changed its political philosophy from “it’s racist to talk about immigration” to “it’s not racist to talk about immigration”.
On the evidence, he has not even changed his policies.
Good.
The rhetoric has been altered out of all recognition. But his faithful troops in the constituencies are being reassured that when the natural order of things is restored, and the Tories are back in power, all the hugging of "hoodies", endorsing same-sex unions and increasing support for lone parents will be put aside. Tax cuts will take precedence over social investment.
Oh Roy Roy Roy…. You are a twat! You spout all this bile about Cameron and the Tories and so on yet you provide me with no evidence to back it up at all. Come on Mad fecking Hatters… name your sources, after all your good Guttersnipe here has had the decency to link to mine.
Of course if you cannot provide evidence of your accusations then I would call on you to do any of the following:
- Withdraw your accusations
- Resign
- Fuck off and Die
- All of the above
The paradox of Cameron's position is that while the Conservative party does not take his speeches at face value, the Labour party does.
This doesn’t surprise me… those dense fecktards take what Blair, Blunkett and Prescott say at face value. That bunch of bottom feeders let Red fecking Ken back in the party.
The result is politically ridiculous. Polls suggest that a majority of voters, when asked to choose between Tory and Labour health policy prefer the Conservative alternative
Oh yes…. That’s just ridiculous. God forbid that someone other than your lot has a good idea. Jesus…. How much blind hatred do you have for these people?
even though the opposition has made clear that it has no policy and does not intend to produce one until much nearer the election. All that Cameron has to offer is the bedside manner of a Harley Street plastic surgeon. He can make everything more beautiful. Put your life in his hands. Why does no politician of importance say that the bill will be in the post when the operation is over?
Well it comes down to trust doesn’t it? And people are starting to trust Cameron and the Tories… whereas your trough snouted rats have done precious little other than fucking lie after lie after lie. There has been no good come out of this government unless you were actually a member of the government and you wonder why we don’t trust you any more?
Labour will remain a semi-paralysed force until a new leader is in place. But that is only part of the problem. There is a real feeling in the higher echelons of the party that while Cameron goes on being conspicuously nice, Labour cannot be overtly nasty. No one seems to have noticed that he has contracted out the dirty work by encouraging his followers to make sustained personal attacks on the chancellor.
Again prove this will you? You fat fuck! Prove it. If you can’t prove it at least show us a line of enquiry we can follow.. you know a shred of evidence or do we just have to read your bitter fucking ramblings? Get over yourself Porkesley your day has passed now let Cameron get on the job of putting right everything that Blair has shat on.
Personal unpleasantness would certainly be a mistake. Nobody, for example, should emulate George Osborne by calling a member of the shadow cabinet autistic. But that does not mean the government should shy away from subjecting the record and conduct of the leader of the opposition to the most rigorous scrutiny.
Go on then…. Find dirt on Cameron on the basis of his conduct in office. Or of course we could just keep looking at the conduct of the Labour leader in office… ypu we’re going to find more fun there aren’t we? How much did you buy your peerage for?
If Labour does not soon go on to the attack, Tory strategy will have worked. The government cannot assume that its record will, alone, be enough to guarantee re-election.
Because it is shit.
It has done much of which it can be proud.
Three victories, that is the only thing it can claim.
Cameron has been forced to pay lip service to support for a universal health service, high levels of public expenditure and non-selective secondary education.
And Blair has been forced to pay lip service to Mrs. Thatcher and the demise of closed shop unions, the removal of nationalisation and her foreign policy stance. Can we have a pat on the back for the Conservatives you one sided over indulgent fuck?
In these particulars, Labour has changed the political weather.
Yup… nothing works now
But electors become bored,
Especially when feck all happens
and the attractions of the superficial and the meretricious should not be underrated. Labour needs to look new and fresh. But it also needs to expose Cameron as a phoney - a convert to whatever postures provide him with the best chance of winning in 2009.
Yeah… good luck with that.
Twat!
Friday, October 06, 2006
Be Prepared for more Frustrated Young Muslims...
You can’t make it up…
“Deliberate masturbation during the month of Ramadan renders a fast invalid, Iranian Supreme Leader Sayyid Ali Khameini has ruled.”
So based on this, non-deliberate or ‘accidental’ masturbation is allowed? If this is the case how does one accidentally masturbate?
“Sorry guvnor I was just cleaning it and it went off….”
“Deliberate masturbation during the month of Ramadan renders a fast invalid, Iranian Supreme Leader Sayyid Ali Khameini has ruled.”
So based on this, non-deliberate or ‘accidental’ masturbation is allowed? If this is the case how does one accidentally masturbate?
“Sorry guvnor I was just cleaning it and it went off….”
That Blair Speech Part 4 - Thank God It's Over
That's the party fobbed off for another year... I'm of for a cuppa!The final instalment....
We must never again let Lebanon become the battleground for a conflict that neither Israeli or Lebanese people wanted though it was they who paid the price for it.
Really who are we to stop this? We have not been asked by either Israel or Lebanon to intervene in their respective holy wars. Neither the Lebanese or Israeli people have voted us into power in either of those countries. If we do show our faces there we will probably make the situation worse, or as happened last time we just provide a suitable human shield for Hezbollah’s forces.
Peace in Lebanon is a defeat for terrorism. Action in Africa is a defeat for terrorism. What is happening now in the Sudan cannot stand. If this were in the continent of Europe we would act. Showing an African life is worth as much as a Western one - that would help defeat terrorism too.
Maybe showing that a British life, peace, democracy and human rights are as important to you as Arab ones would go a long way for you as well Tone.
Yes it's hard sometimes to be America's strongest ally.
Especially when we are expected to jump on board every military adventure they ask us to without question. I’m far from Anti-American but where were they in the Falklands crisis when their “strongest ally” was invaded? Where were they during Suez when their “strongest ally” had territory seized by a foreign power? Yet with every American military intervention we just jump on board.
Yes, Europe can be a political headache for a proud sovereign nation like Britain.
But Europe doesn’t need to be a political headache… we can just leave. The only economic benefit to EU membership is to the EU not to Britain.
But believe me there are no half-hearted allies of America today and no semi-detached partners in Europe. And the truth is that nothing we strive for, from the world trade talks to global warming, to terrorism and Palestine can be solved without America, or without Europe.
So we work with them, this is incredibly different to the blind slavish obedience you seem to have to both.
At the moment I know people only see the price of these alliances.
Because we cannot see the benefits
Give them up and the cost in terms of power, weight and influence for Britain would be infinitely greater.
How… this has never been explained.
Distance this country and you may find it's a long way back.
Assuming you want to go back… which I for one would not.
So all these changes of a magnitude we never dreamt of, sweeping the world, are calling for answers of equal magnitude and vision. All require leadership. And here is something else I've learnt. The danger for us today is not reversion to the politics of the 1980s. It is retreat to the sidelines.
Just how sidelines were the politics of the 1980s then? We repelled invaders to British territories…. We intervened in Kuwait because we were asked to by the Kuwaitis… we played a huge part in the promotion of democracy to the Eastern Bloc and the end of the Cold War. Just how on the sidelines were we? We are on the sidelines now because we are not forming any part of the command structure. We are simply reinforcing the Americans and handing money to the Europeans, and I am not seeing anything come our way.
To the comfort zone. It is unconsciously to lose the psychology of a governing Party. As I said in 1994, courage is our friend. Caution, our enemy.
There is a wealth of difference though between courage and blind fucking stupidity.
A governing Party has confidence, self-belief. It sees the tough decision and thinks it should be taking it. Reaches for responsibility first. Serves by leading.
Oh just fuck off…. What does this government know about responsibility? It has spent 9 years of failure and blamed the Tories for it. It strips our civil liberties daily and blames the muslims for it, it releases our criminals and blames the Human Rights Act yet when we point out that they put that in place they blame the system.
There is no responsibility in this government… if there were Clarke would have resigned but instead he had to be fired, Hewitt would have resigned but instead she fired the Chief Exec of the NHS, Prescott would have resigned but instead he claims pay without a job, Blair would have resigned but instead he plays world fucking policeman.
Responsibility? You are talking out of your fucking arse.
The most common phrase uttered to me - and not at rallies or public events but in meetings of chance, quietly, is not "I hate you" or "I like you" but "I would not have your job for all the world".
Whereas I thought the most common phrase was “are you going to set a date” or “Blair Blair Blair Go Go Go”
The British people will, sometimes, forgive a wrong decision. They won't forgive not deciding. They know the choices are hard. They know there isn't some fantasy Government where nothing difficult ever happens. They've got the Lib Dems for that.
Whereas if they want fantasy government where nothing happens at all apart from a shitload of headline initiatives that never occur then they have you cunts!
Government isn't about protests or placards, shouting the odds or stealing the scene.
It’s a good job really since we’re not allowed them any more.
It's about the hard graft of achievement. There are no third-term popular Governments. Don't ignore the polls but don't be paralysed by them either.
No…. just continue fighting amongst yourselves and we can make way for a decent government.
10 years on, our advantage is time, our disadvantage time.
What?
Time gives us experience. Our capacity to lead is greater. Time gives the people fatigue; their willingness to be led, is less.
Especially when we’re being led by a group of trough snouted fucktards like you lot.
But they will lose faith in us only if first we lose faith in ourselves.
Or we might lose faith in you if you say spend 9 years fucking up everything you touch.
The first rule of politics: there are no rules. You make your own luck. There's no rule that says the Tories have got to come back.
There is however I believe a rule that says effectively don’t sell seats in the House of Lords, I believe there are also a series of rules in the Ministerial Code of Practice, you remember that big book of toilet paper that the Labour Party has.
David Cameron's Tories? My advice: get after them.
You’ll have to since you can’t seem to get in front of them.
His foreign policy. Pander to anti-Americanism by stepping back from America.
I like it… we use our power and responsilibites to futher Britain’s interests rather than America’s.
Pander to the Eurosceptics through isolation in Europe.
I like it… we use our power and responsilibites to futher Britain’s interests rather than France and Germany’s.
Sacrificing British influence for Party expediency is not a policy worthy of a Prime Minister.
Which is why we wanto vote you out you cunt… after all the Tories are not proposing to close hospitals in Labour held constituencies.
His immigration policy. Says he'll sort out illegal immigration, but opposes Identity Cards, the one thing essential to do it.
How given that immigrants and foreign nationals won’t be required to have one?
His energy policy. Nuclear power "only as a last resort". It's not a multiple choice quiz question, Mr Cameron. We need to decide now otherwise in 10 years time we will be importing expensive fossil fuels and Britain's economy will suffer.
And that can apparently be done without the use of nuclear power. Good on him.
He wants tax cuts and more spending, with the same money.
Actually he wants better spending of the money and then we can use the growth to cut tax thus leading to more growth, higher earnings and in effect therefore more tax money coming in without the tax rates having to go up. Sounds like a plan.
He wants a Bill of Rights for Britain drafted by a Committee of Lawyers. Have you ever tried drafting anything with a Committee of Lawyers?
Yup…. It leads to 9 years of nothing happening. You should know this given that your entire cabinet are lawyers.
And his policy for the old lady terrorised by the young thug is that she should put her arm round him and give him a nice, big hug.
This is bollocks and you know it.
Built to last? They haven't even laid the foundation stone. If we can't take this lot apart in the next few years we shouldn't be in the business of politics at all.
I agree…. You shouldn’t be in the business of politics at all. Politics is supposed to be an honourable call to serve, you have made a mockery of the system that Britain is based on and then blamed the system for allowing you to do so. You are a traitorous fucking shit and I think you should be shot.
The Tories haven't thought it through. They think it's all about image. It's true we changed our image. We created a professional organisation.
Yup about 3 years before the election and then you started making policies which the public took seriously once you had suitably changed your image. How are the Tories being different here, how can you disapprove? Is it because it might get your lot out of power? You’re going why should you care?
But if I'd stood in 1997 on the policies of 1987 I would have lost. Period.
Instead you stood on different policies but then proceeded to revert back to the old days of socialism with the backdoor nationalisation of the railways, your exapnsionist policy of invasions, the removal of the right to speak out, detention without trial… the list goes on. Stalin did it and why shouldn’t you eh?
And it's the same now. Enough talk of hung Parliaments.
Unless of course the current one is being hung.
The next election won't be about image unless we let it be.
Actually the next election will be about what WE want it to be.
It'll be about who has the strength, judgement, weight and ideas for Britain's future in an uncertain world.
Let’s talk judgement shall we? The judgement of Gordon Brown, a man who sold all our fucking gold at half price so he could get his hands on the money. The man who knowing there would be a pensions crisis in the future robbed the private pensions blind. Judgement? Fuck off.
Or shall we take your judgement? Ready to fire in 45 minutes? Even if you believe that should we really trust the judgement of someone who looked across a crowded bar at Cherie Booth and thought “Phwoar I’m gonna have me some of that”?
Something else I've learnt.
That you’re a cunt?
It's about a Party's character. I'll give you two examples. Dennis Skinner. Watching from his sick bed. Get well soon. Never agreed with a policy I've had. Never once stopped him knowing the difference between a Labour Government and a Tory one.
Because that’s what’s fucking important here isn’t it? Power, power and fucking power.
People like Janet Anderson, George Howarth, Mike Hall. Good Ministers, but I asked them to make way. They did. Without a word of bitterness. They never forgot their principles when in office; and they never discovered them when they left office.
They fit right in…. the whole fucking lot of you have never discovered a principle on your lives. What you did discover in office was free Jags, junkets abroad, diary secretaries, free country homes and the ability to sell our democracy down the line to any fucker with a million quid.
This is the Party I am proud to lead.
See above
From the day I was elected until the day I leave, they will always try to separate us. "He's not Labour." "He's a closet Tory."
No I don’t think you’re a Tory Tone…. The Tories would let Galloway in before you.
In the 1980s some things done were necessary for the country. That's the truth. Saying it doesn't make you a Tory. I'm a progressive.
Then how come we have progressed backwards on nearly every measure?
The true believer believes in social justice, in solidarity, in help for those not able to help themselves.
That’s as maybe but you seem to believe in making us slaves to the welfare state.
They know the race can't just be to the swift and survival for the strong.
They are of course the ones who win races
They say I hate the Party, and its traditions. I don't.
No but the party hates you Tone… you’re the reason they’re going to lose next time round. You’ve been a true heir to Mrs. T. You’ve polarised opinion in the same way.
I love this Party. There's only one tradition I hated: losing.
So you’re fucking off before they lose … nice touch.
I hated the 1980s not just for our irrelevance but for our revelling in irrelevance.
You hated the 1980s because you were in opposition and that’s all.
Every day this Government has been in power, every day in Africa, children have lived who otherwise would have died because this country led the way in cancelling debt and global poverty.
That’s a pleasant sentiment Tone but every day this Government has been in power the British citizen, the people who put you there, have been second fiddle to any Arab or African that wanted our free money. Like all good socialists you hate Britain.
That's why winning matters.
That and the ministerial salary
So keep on winning. Do it with optimism. With hope in your hearts. Politics is not a chore. It's the great adventure of progress.I don't want to be the Labour Leader who won 3 successive elections. I want to be the first Labour Leader to win 3 successive elections.
You may be… when the Labour Paty stop fucking the county’s arse
So: it's up to you.
No it’s up to US!
You take my advice. You don't take it. Your choice. Whatever you do, I'm always with you. Head and heart.
Yay… all they want is for the cunt to go and yet he’s “always with you”
You've given me all I have ever achieved, and all that we've achieved, together, for the country.
WE have given you all you have ever achieved Tone…. US
Next year I won't be making this speech. But, in the years to come, wherever I am, whatever I do. I'm with you. Wishing you well. Wanting you to win. You're the future now. Make the most of it.
Oh I intend to….
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
