Friday, 30 April 2010
Mind you, it's bloody funny too. Be warned, however, that there are tons of swear words, and I usually try to stay away from that kind of language. I bloody do.
Initially, I was encouraged by Paxman's enthusiasm in pursuing Brown on his lies about, well, just about everything, and his terrible record everywhere. Then, after Brown did his usual trick of attacking the interviewer for not asking him the right questions, I really thought Paxman would lose it and go for the jugular. You know, a Howard moment, which he could have done with a question like "You say you take responsibility for the things you think you are responsible for. Name them." Something like that, or better (he was in a massively target rich environment about ten minutes in). But he didn't - and I was pretty unimpressed.
Then, once the whole, sorry spectacle of wriggling, delusion, desperate, hate-filled divisiveness and contemptuous revisionism was over, I realised what Paxman had really done. In fact he hadn't suddenly decided half way through, for some perverse personal, politically motivated reason, to go easy on Brown. He'd done precisely what everyone else has done when it comes to this useless, troubled man, including the editors of the Guardian (laughably).
He'd just given up.
And that was more damning than a hundred Howard moments, and it sealed Brown's fate in just the way I had hoped - finally and permanently - but not quite in the way I'd imagined.
So - and I never thought I'd be saying this - well done Paxman. You've finally done your compatriots a genuine service.
|Nasty piece of work|
Watching Brown's lunatic performance on Wednesday was painful, and, frankly, baffling. What kind of a man is this unasked for Prime Minister, wondered millions of people? Well, I reckon Richard Littlejohn might have found the answer. The bloke's a borderline sociopath, according to this old bruiser of a feature writer, at least in terms of his public life. Littlejohn says:
Here are some commonly accepted traits of sociopathic behaviour. Stop me when you’ve heard enough.
Glibness and superficial charm; manipulative and cunning.Check.Grandiose sense of self and entitlement.Check.Pathological lying; absence of remorse, shame or guilt; callousness and lack of empathy.Check.Refusal to accept blame; tendency to blame others even for acts they obviously committed.Check.Authoritarian; secretive; paranoid; narcissism; grandiosity; an over-inflated belief in their own powers and abilities.Check.Prone to rage and abuse; outraged by insignificant matters.Check.Instead of friends, they have only victims and accomplices who tend to end up as victims.Check.The end always justifies the means; nothing must stand in their way.Check, check.Our survey said... Anyone we know?
Tell me which of the above does not apply to Gordon Brown. Well, I can't. Can you?Personally, I think 'sociopath' is far too grand a term for Brown. I think he's just a narcissistic martinet with deep seated insecurities. But, hey, what do I know? Make up your own mind.
The only thing that still amazes me is that people are still planning on voting for this loser. They must be as delusional as he plainly is. It's alarming that they're loose in the country!
Ah well, only six more days to go, give or take a few hours. And then we'll be rid of, wait for it, the worst prime minister and government ever to have been inflicted on this country.
Play Downing Street Fighter (now with Gillian Duffy bonus round) here.
Thursday, 29 April 2010
Clegg once more tried to play on the anti-politics trick - it's tired, but the goodwill for him, that means people aren't listening closely enough to the monstrous contradictions in his party's manifesto, and, let's face it, in his party, will massage any positive view of his hesitant performance. To me, in trying so hard to rise above it all, from time to time he seemed simply to float away.
Cameron, by contrast, was tolerant, statesmanlike, patient and, above all, (and what he wasn't in the last two) completely coherent. He delivered on the substance, he sounded like a man with a positive hunger to turn this country around, but, above all, he calmly destroyed - destroyed - Gordon Brown.
As many have said, Brown needed to win this debate. Even if the popular, or spun (or both) opinion disagrees with the view that Cameron won by a country mile, what will be beyond debate from now until Election Day (or doomsday, for that matter) is that Brown lost it, and lost it bad.
Either way, that was the decider performance from Cameron that I expected, and got.
Cameron has just delivered on the faith many of us had in him, most of the time ;) He's delivered a Conservative government.
Breathe a sigh of relief on May 7th, when the work really starts. I will.
A far better writer than I will ever be, Peter Hoskin, has framed it thus:
...as soon as it came to clarifying Lib Dem policy on an amnesty for illegal immigrants, the wings rapidly fell off the yellow bird of liberty. All of a sudden, Clegg sounded rattled and unpersuasive. From then on in, it was Cameron's game.I couldn't have put it better myself. No, I really couldn't :)
It helped that Cameron had the clearest – and, I suspect, the most popular – line on immigration: "We would cut immigration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands." But, really, the Tory leader's strongest answer came in a subsequent question on improving opportunities for younger generations. What we got then was what Cameron does best: the sunshine, the positivity, the sincere concern about our nation's schooling. We even got a neat summary of Tory school reform plans. As Cameron put it, he wants to see "choice, diversity and excellence" in the state sector. It was great to hear the Tories' most impressive policy agenda talked about in such straightforward, unequivocal terms.
As for Brown ... well, he was almost a caricature of himself: grey, relentlessly negative and obsessed with the old "cuts vs investment" dividing line. At the beginning of the debate, I thought some of his attacks had a blunt kind of power to them. But as the show wore on, and as it became clear that this was all he had to offer, he faded more and more out of view. By the end, with his closing pitch about the Tories' inheritance tax plans and tax credit cuts, it was unwatchably awful. There was little to distinguish this Brown from the one who murmured gloomily in the back of a car yesterday.
Clegg's was white noise and Brown is standing on his record. Big mistake.
Got a feeling this could be Cameron's night...
Cameron, as far as I'm concerned, is winning this debate hands down.
One other thing, it is unbelievable to me that Dimbleby is plugging programmes mid-debate. Who the hell does he think he is?
This is 'grow up, do' territory, but, relentlessly, this stupid person instead drones on and on and on with this fake victimhood horse manure, possibly designed to deflect us from criticising the true villain of this piece: el Gordo. If not - if it is somehow genuine - then in terms of spectacularly missing the point it's hard to trump. The point? The point is that Brown simply lowered not just his, but his entire political party's mask for a moment and revealed in all its stark reality how very, very much the middle class snob-Left (the Toynbee and Harmans of this world, to name but two out of hundreds either in politics or in journalism or both) fear, despise and resent their own core vote. You see this not so much in the article, which is just bluster and drivel, but in the comments below it, which are generally disgusting. If you really can stand it, you can see what I mean here.
On the other hand, though, you have Steve Bell. Artist, a committed Tory basher with plenty of previous and a dyed in the wool lefty, but at least he's got a sense of humour. He hates hypocrisy even more than he loathes David Cameron:
Wednesday, 28 April 2010
But only Guido captures the summary with a beautiful number from another fallen King:
Farewell, Gordon. Peace be with you.
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
Fortunately, Iain Dale, having highlighted it in the first place, in one of the most apoplectic posts I've ever seen him write on his blog in the two years or so I've been reading it, quickly destroys the claims too. A GP has emailed him cataloguing the lies underpinning the most dishonest campaign video in British political history. Read it here.
Well done to him and to Mr Dale for knocking it down before it has a chance to gain any kind of traction. I trust this will be all over the MSM tomorrow - with the story being not only the Labour lies and filth about Conservative health and child support policy, but the abject bankruptcy of the Labour election campaign as a whole.
Mind you, they are totally desperate so they will probably get even worse.
The only game in town is Europe at the moment, with Portugal and, somewhere further down the road, Spain, next on the list for the dreaded rating drop. Whatever the virtues of wonderful and exciting policies such as Michael Gove's brilliant education plan, which has already caused a Damascene conversion of former Fabian research chairman and now editor of the Jewish Chronicle (Martin Bright take note), Stephen Pollard, the vindication of the Tories in at least promising to focus urgently on Britain's own Brown/Labour-caused debt crisis is surely now unchallengeable. Brown and Labour can go on denying the seriousness of the crisis all they want, but that will not make it go away.
And that's clearly why people increasingly are now seeing that they must therefore make Labour go away on May 6th. The stakes have never been higher - for everyone. One thing's for sure, a hung parliament or, heaven forbid, five more years of Brown - though one could and most likely would lead to the other - and we would be the ones in the unfortunate Greeks' shoes next: 16+% government borrowing interest rates, a shattered credit rating and staring down both barrels of a titanic debt default and a bombed out economy.
But the message is finally getting through: Brown or Clegg mean economic crisis and meltdown. And only the Tories offer any hope of averting both.
|Eight More Days...|
“Gordon is cyanide on the doorstep,” says one candidate from the front line of the campaign in what was once — but is no longer — a rock-solid Labour seat. But parties get the leaders they deserve and Labour too is behaving as if it has run out of steam and ideas.You do get the leader you deserve, and in this case, because they didn't have the guts to stand up to him when he stole the Labour party in a carefully orchestrated, long-planned palace coup, becoming anointed leader and unelected prime minister, and because they didn't have the guts to dispose of him when it was clear just how much of a total political liability he was not long afterwards, they are now going down hard with him, perhaps for a generation or more - and fully deserve that destiny, which they brought upon themselves.
“Gordon Brown is Labour’s worst leader ever,” another government minister says, according to Sylvester.
Monday, 26 April 2010
LabourVision.TV launches tomorrow – a crowd sourced effort to produce an online anti-party, anti-political election broadcast. Details revealed tomorrow of how your video can be part of Gordon – the Disaster Movie premiering on May Day. The bar is high. Come back tomorrow…The page can be found at the link in the quote and will be well worth a visit, not least because we have the tantalising prospect of the May Day movie, coming soon to a blog near you.
If this outstanding first effort is anything to go on, the results of this project could be pretty damaging for an already severely wounded Brown-Labour campaign.
I think this is what you call 'sharpening the message' and hats off to Guido for doing it. Tory campaign HQ should take note.
It's Brown's baby tax, created as a consequence of his crazy scorched earth, debt-fueled spending spree after his mega-bust, and it's one of many reasons why he deserves nothing less than the total political oblivion to which the nation's about to consign him. And good riddance.
And let's hear no more pathetic, desperate lies about some phantom Tory 'toddler tax'.
There's only one conclusion worth reaching in this general election, and it's becoming clearer to people by the minute: it's time for the Tories to come in and clear up another fine Labour crisis. Failing that, it's just time for Brown to go.
Sunday, 25 April 2010
Simply put, if you are a Conservative supporter, the results would all be bad. The likelihood of Brown resigning as Prime Minister after the election are minimal, even if his party is second biggest in the House of Commons. In attempting to create "stability", these new codifications of previously unwritten constitutional practices have in my opinion severely skewed the system in favour of the incumbent. Simply put, if my understanding of the piece is correct, should a hung parliament of one form or another be the outcome in which Nick Clegg held the balance of power, there would be no legal or even moral obligation for Brown to resign, so Clegg would be forced to bring down the Labour government by refusing to endorse the Queen's Speech. This would trigger another general election which, you have to think, would hardly be in the Liberal Democrat's best interest. The chances are, therefore, that Clegg would do a deal with Brown and Brown would continue as Prime Minister for the time being, despite having a smaller share of the vote than the Conservative Party. As Mr Barder says:
Thus the logic of the situation may virtually force Clegg to accept any offer from Brown either to join a Labour-LibDem coalition, with a few seats in the coalition Cabinet for Clegg, Cable and one or two others, giving them considerable influence on government policy, but with an inescapable obligation to support some Labour-inspired policies that the LibDems would prefer to oppose; or alternatively to give a conditional promise not to vote against the (Labour) Queen’s Speech or against the Labour government in a vote of confidence provided that certain basic conditions were met by Brown. If that happened, there would be no opening for Cameron to be invited to try to form a government since the Brown government would continue in office without interruption. Of course this would mean the LibDems facing a storm of bitter invective for having kept an unpopular Brown administration in office despite Labour having ‘lost’ the election. But the alternative — ejecting a broadly like-minded centre-left government from office and installing a potentially far-right Tory government in its place — might be even more unpalatable for grass-roots LibDem members and supporters.Of course, this is all moot, (and the description of the Tory Party as "far right" is ridiculous), but the point is, and Barder goes to some lengths to emphasise it, it is a very real possiblity if current polls are to be believed. The chances of Guido's "Change Coalition" ever happening, even it was desirable (which it absolutely isn't), are tiny, because the new written rules just won't allow it. The system, accidentally or otherwise, has been rigged.
My own view is that the polls are wrong and none of this will happen because there won't be a hung parliament. However, if it did happen the consequences for the country would be terrible. We would be in uncharted territory with a storm front of popular unrest and economic disruption on the near horizon (and that's the only message the Tories need send to the electorate on the subject, too).
I'm watching Sky News just now and they are speculating on this very issue, with that most dishonest of privileged socialists, Polly Toynbee, spinning this madly as some sort of political panacea. Tim Montgomerie, by contrast, has countered with the best set of arguments against this disastrous arrangement I've heard from a Tory yet. He says, in summary, that a new government and a fresh start can only be achieved one way, by voting Conservative.
However, what's now clear, at least to me, is that the Labour Party generally, and Brown in particular, think they have found a way out of their appalling political pickle and a way to cling on to power. What is more, it's also now clear beyond any shadow of a doubt, a vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote for Gordon Brown. It's also a vote for PR, a permanent centre-left, vague, ineffectual, corrupt "progressive" coalition, with full EU integration and the Euro coming close on its heals. That would be the price of a LibDems/Labour stitch-up, with five more years of Gordon Brown into the bargain just to complete the hideous, Goya-esque image. It is terrifying.
If you need any further evidence for why a hung parliament would be a very, very bad thing in every way conceivable, then you must be a Lib Dem or a Labourist, in which case you should take a long, hard look in the mirror and wonder whether something as immoral as this is a price worth paying for power. If you think it is, then you're already a lost cause.
If not, then solve the problem before it starts. On Election Day, vote Tory!
On the subject, I thought this Sunday Times leader was rather witty, and pretty telling too, in its own way:
What would coalition government be like in Britain? We’ve had no real experience of so-called unity government since the second world war, so it might help to consider how coalition would work in other areas of British life.Do any other unlikely, bizarre or unnatural coalitions spring to anyone's mind? How about cats and dogs. What would that produce? A dot? A dat? A cog??
Take Arsenal, facing yet another trophy-free season in the Premier League. Wouldn’t they be so much more successful in coalition with Tottenham, their deadly rivals? Footballers are professionals, or so they always insist. Somehow they’d make Arsenal Hotspur work on the pitch.
As in politics, it’s the grassroots support that’s the problem: like expecting Richard Dawkins and the Pope to collaborate on a revision of the Gospels. Would a merger between Oasis and Blur have produced anything other than a punch-up? Would you watch French & Pace, or would you prefer Hale & Saunders? Get used to it, because this is what we can look forward to in the coming months: the politics of Ant & Stacey. Or Gavin & Dec. Marks & Q, B & Spencer, Morecambe and Fry ...
Point being, Britain can well do without a government of Conservative Democrats, or whatever other mutant, non-viable political organism that might emerge from a split vote and deadlock. If there is no decision on May 6th, the answer is not a coaltion with small parties with small shares of the vote and a small number of seats wielding disproportionate amounts of influence. The answer is another election. We believe in strong, decisive government in this country, not the kind of stitch-up, back room compromises of 1974, that led to stagflation, union militancy, the collapse of the pound, bankruptcy and a humiliating bailout by the IMF.
There's a simple way to skip that false step and miss out those lost years of drifting and decay this time around.
Vote Conservative on May 6th. Simples!
This (Labour government) has been around a very long time, and their time is very nearly through.
But ours isn't. Our time is just starting.
You might not want a new Conservative government, but you, we and everyone else in Britain desperately needs one.
I feel it my duty to try to pass that on.
Saturday, 24 April 2010
...what if the electorate were to decide that, with the political class discredited through their abuse of their own remuneration system, they will not vote at all, or will use that vote to punish all and sundry? What message would that send to our young people on the front line in Afghanistan risking life and limb for our security? It says: we actually quite like the idea of those votes that are cast producing no clear answer – but meanwhile, you go on risking your all so we can sit at home doing nothing and deciding nothing. Frankly, we owe it to ourselves and to our servicemen and women to do better.Here here. It seems to me that General Dannatt also suggests a point that, while wrongly perceived these days as somehow old-fashioned, is nevertheless more significant now than it's ever been: a vote is a precious thing, and to use it when the time comes isn't just a right, it's a duty. And you must vote according to what you believe is in the best interests of your country, and not according to some kind of inherited political prejudice and certainly not because you think you're 'angry with the system'.
If you have any doubts, (and I no longer do), about the party to which you should lend your vote, then you should be aware that the party that best fits Dannatt's criteria for honest, patriotic voting is, currently, the Conservative Party. And this is no time for a hung parliament.
Right, having uttered all that well-intentioned claptrap, I would however like to add that wherever you are, in this real world, any chance that you get to kick Labour as hard as you can, take it. They deserve to be annihilated and, after all, ultimately that's what voting's really for. I admire and aspire to high-minded democratic principles and all that as much as the next knighted general. But, for our nation today, we all must vote and, if necessary, vote dirty. First to get rid of Brown, second to install a strong government. You can't do that by voting Lib Dem, Libertarian or UKIP. That's just true.
And even if, on the face of it, his standards seem unreachably high, I think that between the lines, that's precisely what Dannatt is saying.
So well said he!
Anyone contemplating voting for Brown - or that Clegg person (which could amount to virtually the same thing in that it would split the vote and lead to a hung parliament, possibly with Brown still in power - and still unelected) - should examine these facts very closely. And then vote Tory. Every minute Brown-Labour remain in charge of anything is another minute of calamity for Britain. That's a powerful reality.
Btw: is that Christopher Ecclestone doing the voiceover? Didn't know he was one of the honest. If it is, good on him.
Anyway, first, the lies. Brown says the Tories would cut the NHS, and apparently his goons trotted out Dan Hannan's ancient interviews and speeches on how we can solve the problem of the bottomless pit that nationalised health care has become under Brown as evidence of an evil Tory plot. This is an out and out, barefaced lie, of course. Rightly or wrongly, the Tories have ringfenced health spending. It's in the manifesto. But maybe the print's too small for Brown to read - or, more likely, he just doesn't care because it doesn't fit with his divisive, perfidious Brownian narrative.
Second, his tax on jobs. As many in the saner parts of the mainstream media have said, not ramping up National Insurance taxation means you're leaving 6Bn quid in the economy. The tax on jobs means removing badly needed capital from the productive bit of the economy. I genuinely believe that in the world of Brownomics - the economics of mismanagement and collapse, of debt-fueled booms and gargantuan busts - this simple reality is not comprehended.
Finally, the bizarre. Early in the trainwreck speech, when he was going through his usual politbureau-style list of disingenuous 'thank-yous' (cue applause from the roomful of activists - and Devon Malcolm, oddly), he decided to thank, er, the patients.
Huh? What for? For being ill?
After all is said and done, and all the reams written about this weird man, I've finally come to the earth-shattering conclusion that, simply put, Gordon Brown is definitely bonkers.
Friday, 23 April 2010
Thursday, 22 April 2010
Brown said during the EU bit of the debate: "They'll turn Great Britain into Little Britain". Just another pathetic, throwaway Brownist soundbite and, as always, instantly forgettable. You would think.
But no. Know this: it wasn't just a prepared line for Brown to chuck in. It's part of what looks like a new, concerted campaign tactic, with the diabolically unethical picture below as its visual support:
This was published hours before the debate. Given the hideousness of the image, not least because of Cameron's experience as a father caring for a severely disabled son (now sadly deceased), but also its exploitation generally of disability for cynical political purposes, it's just incomprehensibly sick - and the Labour party must be held to account for it. Severely.
You have to ask, what kind of thought processes are at work in the creation of a thing as brutally horrible as this? Damaged ones, I would say. Very damaged.
Did Brown not know about this either? He said the line in the debate, so one should conclude that, just like with his leaflet smear campaign against the Tories and the SNP, he knew full well about it.
That alone should be enough to bury him in totally justified, universal condemnation.
And I thought we'd seen the worst of him, the lowest.
Not yet, it seems.
And...pulled. Don't expect we'll be seeing that particular line of attack again from the corrupt Labourists (a couple of whom were stupid enough to leave comments here). Good, but the harm to what's left of their reputations - and to the disabled - has been done. The grim last gasps of a heartless regime, and party, rotten to the core.
For the record, I thought Cameron started off quite poorly in a very poor debate with even poorer questions ("Is the Pope a Catholic? And do you think he should be?"), but then, as the event wore tediously on, he came alive and finally showed some genuine passion, cornering Brown on smears (no irony there) and fisking Clegg on his pretty creepy immigration non-policy.
My view? A clear win for Cameron, over the cliff for Clegg and another trainwreck for Brown (to whom no one is now listening, including his own senior ministers).
The media view? Probably a narrow win for Cameron, an end to the Clegg surge nonsense - and a fair shocker for Brown. So that's something.
But, and this, to me, is the important thing, the momentum in this election is now with David Cameron after an assured performance, on balance, and one that will give floating voters confidence in him and in the Conservatives. That's good.
YouGov poll on Sky: Cameron 36%, Clegg 32% and Brown (amazingly) 29%
So I was right about the media thing, sort of, then
So now we know: Brown lost by a country mile.
No, what you need to do, tactically, is to bide your time, choose the correct ordnance and then open fire with the radar-guided, state of the art heavy guns. A battery of that nature would be (would have been/will be?) decisive; the fireworks delightful and the result, devastating. So Iain Dale and John Ward are dead right in their assessment, that the attack was ill-conceived, will backfire and the Tories should have nothing to do with it.
Having said that, I recognise the possibility that a charge of hypocrisy might be coming my way. Well, so what? It would be unfounded. What I deposit here is personal opinion. And I stand by my opinion that nothing has happened to alter my long-held view that Nick Clegg is a two-faced, overhyped, establishment lightweight that no one in their right mind should ever consider as prime ministerial material. He's benefited from the anti-politics thang, for sure, and the TV media's desire for a Close Run Thing (hung parliaments mean higher ratings), but that's it. On policy he's nowhere. At least with Labour you just have universally bad ideas, most of which have been discredited already after thirteen lost years, and involve, if we were to have to suffer five more lost years of them, plunging an increasingly authoritarian UK into social and economic oblivion.
With Clegg's Libdums, you get either conflicting policies, badly thought-out policies, unfundable policies or policies (and these are the really interesting ones) that will lead us to being kicked off the UN Security Council, subsumed by a federal EU and relegated to third rate power status (see Simon Hughes). I'm not entirely certain anyone in this country is quite ready for any of that particular brand of 'change', or ever will be.
But it's up to the Tories, and the pisspoor papers (if they can get their heads out of their collective fundaments) to make people see that.
One online rag really does provide a case in point:
I mean, shocking scaremongering!
DAS BUNKER, Whopping, Tuesday (MSBBC) — Your Super Soaraway SUN has found the blueprint for Nick Clegg’s top-secret TV debate strategy in the back of a CAB, revealing he is a MARTIAN INVADER.
It reveals the Lib Dem leader STOLE DNA from David Cameron to DUPLICATE his style and cover Britain in a ROBOT ARMY OF CLEGGS, with BlackBerrys to be installed in all citizens.
“It’s very SLOPPY to just leave it in my CAB in a locked and alarmed SUITCASE,” said the cab driver, Andy Coulson,” and I thought people should know. That’s why I SOLD it to The Sun.”
Clegg DISGRACED himself in the television debate last Thursday, winning a mere 37% in BIASED COMMUNIST POLLS, while TORY SUPERSTAR Dave “Dave” Cameron topped the charts with a SURGE to 31% — despite foolish commentators claiming Clegg was less terrible than GORDON BROWN attempting to SMILE or the picture of DAVE CAMERON someone had PHOTOSHOPPED onto the screen.
“I used my PSYCHIC POWERS to talk to ADOLF HITLER after the debate and he would DEFINITELY vote Lib Dem now,” reveals luscious, pouting MYSTIC MEG in her political opinion column on Page 3 today.
The Tories have responded by DISTANCING themselves from the Liberal Democrats’ WASHED-UP, SOCIALIST POLICIES and put out new posters blaming the recession on the people responsible: POLISH ASYLUM TERRORISTS on THE DOLE.
“The Conservative Home web forum got out MS Paint and came up with some great stuff,” said Tory webmaster Andy Coulson. “Though they thought we should distance ourselves from those WISHY-WASHY, NUT-CUTLET-EATING LIBERALS at the Daily Mail, who are SOFT ON VOLCANOES and soft on the CAUSES of volcanoes.”
An article in the Völkischer Beobachter on Sunday by Andy Coulson REVEALED Clegg’s SPANISH wife, RUSSIAN grandfather and MARTIAN allegiance, and how he would definitely fail a proper Tory BRITISHNESS test.
“Fuck,” said Rupert Murdoch, speaking to his editors about the ACTUAL poll numbers.
This is what Clegg really said (just in the spirit of accuracy, you understand - no smearist I):
Hmm. The change we need.
“Watching Germany rise from its knees after the war and become a vastly more prosperous nation has not been easy on the febrile British psyche.”
“All nations have a cross to bear, and none more so than Germany with its memories of Nazism. But the British cross is more insidious still.”
“A misplaced sense of superiority, sustained by delusions of grandeur and a tenacious obsession with the last war, is much harder to shake off. We need to be put back in our place.”
The Tories have won the argument on education. Let's hope they win the argument on running the rest of the country too.
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
I'm not gonna embed it here. Go to Ollie's awesome Red Rag site (which puts mine rightly to shame) to see it. Click on this link.
The demolition of the fraud Cable is a wonderful thing to behold.
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
Far out man! Scrap the Bomb! LSD rules! "Liberal Sychedelic (sic) Democrats". Clegg's bigger than Jesus, man! Gotta grow a beard, dude. And get some sandals. Free love!
(Good effort from one of Guido's imaginative minions.)
Hang on. What was that last one again? A Liberal Democrat News Conference. Every damn morning I'm faced not with the latest news about scary ash clouds not damaging 747s at all but still closing down the country, but with Nick "My Dad's Richer Than Dave's Dad" Clegg banging on about hopeless Libdum 'policies' (today it was the turn of the bankers. Vince wasn't there, though. Curious, that). He gets a full half hour of free airtime from the BBC every morning just when most people will be checking out the news, too.
But the BBC. Sheesh! They've got a nerve. If you only watched the BBC's news coverage, and only in the mornings, you would be forgiven for thinking the Libdums were the only party in the country. So why is the Beeb blatantly backing the yellows now? Well, not only are they biased, but they're not even that bothered about hiding it any more - perhaps as this latest scandal about a now-suspended BBC 'complaints' manager (and Labour candidate) partly demonstrates. It seems their tiresomely - and tirelessly - left wing editors and managers have finally decided that Labour can't win, so, with brazen cynicism, they're going to try to make sure that if they can't have their beloved party, they'll make it as hard as possible for the Tories to form a government by splitting the vote.
Sound crazy? Just remember who we're dealing with here. They despise the Tories quite a lot more than they despise the Liberals, half of whom are 'social democrats' (socialists) as it is. Whatever the ins and outs of it, and I doubt it's a conspiracy, but it is undoubtedly an attitude, the BBC is now buying into the hung parliament trope (or 'balanced' parliament, as it was referred to on the Today programme by one of the presenters this morning, no doubt in deference to Alex Salmond), and buying in big style.
This only annoys me slightly less than shutting down the entire UK's aviation industry because the Met Office and the EU says we have to. I put the BBC into the same category as those two menaces to a free and productive society.
But before we put all the BBC chiefs up against the wall, can't we just have a little less of the Libdums? Pretty please? It's getting beyond a joke.
Or is there an argument for letting Clegg get overexposed, so everyone can eventually see him for the pseudo-socialist, public school-educated airhead that he really is? And how utterly shallow and confused the party he leads is in reality, too? Interesting conundrum to me, that.
Monday, 19 April 2010
|Not Iceland - This ash is dangerous|
Only, he didn't mean that exactly. What he meant, precisely, is that this is an EU embarrassment and an EU mess that is rapidly developing into a full-blown EU disaster. Why, then, exactly, is our equally useless, soon-to-be-booted-out government sitting on its backside listening to this horse manure about engine-devouring ash, which has now pretty much been proved as just that, equine effluent, and not simply saying, "Up yours, Delores, our planes go up!"?
Answer? Obvious. Aside from being useless, they couldn't even do it if they wanted to. The ban was made possible by treaty and as such is legally binding, meaning that anyone breaching it, from any nation, could be fined by the EU to the tune of millions and without any democratically elected national government being able to stop it short of dropping out of the EU or going to war.
The EU, in its infinite stupidity has, thanks to its epic bureaucratic blundering, turned a minor volcanic eruption in a peripheral European nation into a crisis the scale of which can scarcely be conceived. Remember, closing Europe down directly affects the lives of 400 million people 'home' and indirectly the entire globe, one way or another. "Monumental" doesn't begin to describe it. But it certainly doesn't auger well for Britain's future if we permit a repetition. But how do we avoid a repetition, I hear you ask, when Gordon Brown has signed away our right to object without even consulting us, probably at the behest of the most dishonest man in the entire world, Peter "Lord" Mandelson?
Hmm, well now, I would imagine we could avoid a repetition, at least in Britain, by reclaiming control of our own government, regulatory systems, businesses or, at the very least, next time there's a lunatic, suicidal order from the EU, to, say, shut down the entire electricity grid of Europe because a lousy CICO computer model from the bloody Met Office has told them that there's a 34% probability that all the pylons are about to come alive and eat us all, they just say NO!
Meanwhile, I watch with increasing suspicion as our airline industry is made to implode as a result of bad science and even worse supranational, unelected government, the reaction of the alarmist lobby. You have Plane Stupid, the watermelon, single issue fanatics and misfit band of dropouts, layabouts, anarchists and other assorted activist oddballs who want to send us all back into the 14th century - not that I have anything against the 14th Century, I just don't want to live there - starting with the abolition of flight. As you might imagine, they're loving this:
So, Eyjafjallajokull, you may have an unpronounceable name and an odd smell, but nonetheless we thank you for giving us a brief glimpse of life without planes. And for demonstrating that, despite what the aviation industry would like to have us believe, a world without air travel could well be a very happy place indeed.For you maybe. But then you're a weirdo so forgive me if I ignore you from now on. Ordinary people like to use aeroplanes and they like to travel. Air travel does not harm the environment (although poorly located airports, like Heathrow, certainly do). It's all in your imagination, hairy man, stirred up into a fever by that self-same, God awful menace of a Met Office, with its useless modelling and man made warmist obsessions. Hang on a minute, Met Office gives a warning based on dodgy science to unanswerable EU body with power to shut down every airport and ground every plane on the entire continent. All aircraft are grounded. Enviro-fascists everywhere united in common approval for the Met Office's and the EU's responsible opportunism in taking full advantage of a little volcanic ash and enabling what Copenhagen could never do, bring the aviation industry, already weakened by Brown's bust, to its knees. Good heavens, I never thought they had it in them.
Well, that's the point, they don't. Between them, the EU, the Met Office and AGW nutjobs who now infest them all, couldn't organise a conspiracy of that complexity in the space of a couple of days. No, all the Met Office was, as usual, is incompetent. All that Brown did, as usual, was dither.
And all the EU is, always and forever, is completely useless - catastrophically and expensively so.
Anyone who wants five more years of Brown so he can complete the process of transforming this country into the arse end of the EU donkey wants his head examining. But this is exactly what you'll get, and more, if you vote for the Labourists or, for that matter, the Libdums. I suppose these losers all have one thing in common: all they're interested in is their own, pathetic political agendas, not the interests or the desires of the people, whether of the UK or of "Europe".
Oh Dave, Dave, if only you'd promised that referendum. The election would be over by now, and you'd be in Downing St sticking two fingers up to the EU and getting our planes flying. I trust. Why, oh why? I'll always be pondering that one right up until the day I pass on through the great ash cloud in the sky to the heavens beyond (go on holiday to Thailand, in other words, assuming we still have an aviation industry left by then).
Er, that's enough. (I'm just putting off doing some real work ;)
Hometime, I think!
Danny Finkelstein and Guido had a bit of Twitter spat about this last night. Guido holds Fink responsible for accepting the Balls/Brown dividing lines and helping to foist on the Tories their “no tax cuts” position. A policy position that Guido sees as cowardice in the face of the enemy.
Sunday, 18 April 2010
So what's the problem? Well, it ain't the Libdums. They're still a pack of political mongrels as far as I'm concerned and, in that, about as appealing as Monster Raving Loonies. Mind you, at least the Loonies know they're nutters and do it for the fun. They know who they are, the Libdums don't.
On the one hand, the Libdums (especially their ex-Labourist grandees, like that grammar school destroying, arrogant bitch Shirley Williams) are a party of the Left, who believe that stealing people's money can always be justified because society (which they confuse with 'body politic', as all socialists do) always comes first, and taxation is the means by which society's 'behaviour' can be 'modified' (they really use those terms - them and the BNP. Sinister, ain't it?).
On the other hand, they are what Margaret Thatcher might regard as Tory ultra-wets, or, in less colourful terms, old-style 'radicals' (in the revolutionary American sense), but who believe in the post-war consensus, managed decline, the intrinsic desirability of European transnationalism, country-not-court and beard growth. Believe me, electoral reform comes last on their list of priorities, whatever they say to the contrary, especially if they annihilate Labour in the general election - which always should have been their aim in the first place (duh!). Count the younger members of that party among the 'radical' number, including the leader, Vince Clegg (whatever).
In other words, it's a bizarre pushmepullyou party of Heathites and Bennites, of bleeding heart, self-banished, auto-flagellating young Tories and superannuated, pseudo-intellectual, old Labour defectors whose pomposity is ony trumped by their vanity.
The problem is not the Libdums. They'll take care of themselves, eventually. The problem is the amount of damage their antipolitics surge is going to do to the outcome of this general election in that there is a distinct possibility that Cameron is dead right - vote Libdum and get Crash Gordon. The only consensus I can discern in Britain at the moment, not only from reading the internet tealeaves, but from every one of my friends, acquaintances and colleagues, is that five more years of Brown would be an intolerable imposition on a country that never wanted him, never voted for him and never liked him. A split vote letting him in would be a total catastrophe, after the damage he's already inflicted on it, for a nation that is just about getting through the year in tact, and is seriously worried about the next few.
It's not just me that's been blindsided by this Liberal surge, though, it looks to me like the country has, too, especially the people seriously entertaining the notion that the way to punish politicians is by voting for the underdogs, thus letting the worst offenders of all of them back into power. Confused? I am. And so are, I imagine, the Tories.
However, and this is a big rider, if this really is one of those earthquake moments in British politics; if Labour are about to be (rightly) smashed down to third-party status by the Liberals, after their 90 long years in the wilderness, then so be it. It's an outcome I suppose I can live with, as long as Brown is gone and Labour do receive the massive kicking at the polls that they so richly deserve. (It's already happening in a slightly different way in my town, where Plaid look like they almost certainly will oust the sitting Labourist MP for the first time in the town's history ever.)
Guido Fawkes has kindly provided us with a thought experiment illustrating how this "Change Coalition" narrative might flow. It's well worth the read. Personally, I don't think a government like that would last six weeks. The Libdums' severe internal ideological contradictions would destablise everything within days. But, nevertheless, it does sort of look like a grownup solution that would satisfy apparently shifting public political appetites - and it would tick my top two boxes, too:
1) No more Brown
2) Labour crushed
It seems that some clouds might have two silver linings.
It all depends on Clegg, though. But I don't think he can be trusted because I don't think he's got much authority over the party we are supposed to believe he leads for the reasons I've already given.
So, ultimately, as far as I'm concerned, it's business as usual for us Conservatives, despite the blindsiding: Cameron has got to come out fighting and go in for the big win.
There is no alternative.