Friday, November 03, 2006

The Best Defence.... is sadly not ours...


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.

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.

“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

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!


Apparently the Spleen is the number 1 ranking site for:

"Making Alcohol From Marrows"

Go figure...

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?