tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-82783667933408777382024-03-13T03:53:32.939+00:00DENVERSTROPEUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger799125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278366793340877738.post-46358723195786014732012-10-10T10:40:00.001+01:002012-10-10T10:40:22.399+01:00Badger Cull Still Planned<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5POpKGP2jccLkxJhKVav4lzmiw6Xxh0hOflb9K3JMzBBuqdwwuWNv1n2uEgE4i2-WFuYNzpwkaCZAtlUsZrZ-wND96cCb9m8q83P3EOPqeyOcfFkYUOAZIokEDPwphI6os66is4ODUfs/s1600/220px-Brian_May_filming_for_the_BBC's_'The_One_Show'.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5POpKGP2jccLkxJhKVav4lzmiw6Xxh0hOflb9K3JMzBBuqdwwuWNv1n2uEgE4i2-WFuYNzpwkaCZAtlUsZrZ-wND96cCb9m8q83P3EOPqeyOcfFkYUOAZIokEDPwphI6os66is4ODUfs/s200/220px-Brian_May_filming_for_the_BBC's_'The_One_Show'.jpg" width="182" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">King of the Badgers</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Since this act of wildlife vandalism apparently is going to go ahead either in 2012 or 2013, I've decided to repost this blog from a few years ago, which more or less spells out not only why this is an act of wilful brutality which deflects attention away from the fact that farmers and the government will not invest in tackling the <a href="http://www.badgerprotectionleague.com/news/">real causes of the spread of bovine TB</a>, but that it will not work! All we'll be left with is another indigenous, beautiful British mammal, of which there are precious few left anyway, becoming an endangered species. It makes me very angry to think that it has come to this, but there are times - not always, there are many good farmers - when those who purport to "know" the land turn out to know no such thing. All they know is exploitation and profit. Those are the farmers who need to be stopped.
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZO4OBznyjZefRQ0AuvbxPGsFhZbLUJDsrJYPcPtrFSVpx7TI9RfVjdSkzlyAAoNffrVSOy_bOJ_OzRBAfJIqGg_1zIhU7-Pp0tmXMBoitERNO265EH3RT61I4Xd0vkIR4t6PXur4iT5k/s1600/badgers+not+guilty.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="149" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZO4OBznyjZefRQ0AuvbxPGsFhZbLUJDsrJYPcPtrFSVpx7TI9RfVjdSkzlyAAoNffrVSOy_bOJ_OzRBAfJIqGg_1zIhU7-Pp0tmXMBoitERNO265EH3RT61I4Xd0vkIR4t6PXur4iT5k/s200/badgers+not+guilty.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Not guilty!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
"Farmers today have described the suspension of the cull of Pembrokeshire's badger population, ostensibly to combat bovine TB, as a 'disaster for farming', according to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10626933">this report</a>. I'm sorry but I just do not for one moment buy that. The link between bovine TB and badgers is merely accepted wisdom based on, at best, anecdotal and/or coincidental data.<br />
<br />
But even if you refute this strange farmers' reasoning with real evidence, or just subscribe to a different interpretation of existing-though-discrete data points, you are laughed at simply because its not the fashionable view. (Remind you of any other field of 'settled science'?). Furthermore, even if one member of the badger-cow TB camp could spurn the hysterical anti-badgerism, that person would still, without a shadow of a doubt, advocate the boneheaded position 'ah yes, maybe so, but better to be safe than sorry, right?'. Again, this reminds us eerily of another scientific cop out.<br />
<br />
And sorry, but no, it isn't 'better to be safe than sorry' especially in this case because it is very likely that you are, in fact, still ignorant, more vulnerable having been lulled into a false sense of security by the massive badger bloodletting, and with one more innocent native British species of wildlife pushed onto the endangered list as a consequence of pitchforks and burning torches approach to countryside and agricultural management. A lose-lose-lose scenario. And it's pathetic. Why? Well, one South African (?) expert in the field, Martin Hancox, writes:<br />
<blockquote>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Accepted “Wisdom” after 35 years repetition is that badgers are the MAIN Reservoir of TB, and transmission is one-way badger to cow. The Emperor’s New Clothes, no-one apparently can “SEE” that thanks to the cattle TB crisis, the exact opposite is true: cattle are the MAIN reservoir and transmission is 99-100% cow to cow (and spillover to badgers and deer etc).</span></blockquote>
The rest of his <a href="http://www.badgersandtb.com/">stout defence</a> of <i>Meles meles </i>or Brother Brock is entertaining, quite compelling and well worth the read. Hats off must go not only to him but also to the Liberal Democrat AM, Peter Black, who has helped to halt the cull in Pembroke, and thus, quite possibly (since Pembroke was intended as some kind of trial), the rest of Wales, if not Britain. In addition, praise must go to those farmers who, while still strangely believing implicitly in the badger-bovine TB link, have the common sense and conservation-minded decency not to repeat the mistakes of the past.<br />
<br />
You'd think it would have dawned on them why culls have failed for forty years when they have been tried wouldn't you? Well, it hasn't, so we'll have to spell it out for them: IT'S NOT THE BADGERS' FAULT, STUPID!<br />
<br />
Not going to get through to them any time soon though, is it? It's very sad how destructive people can be in their ignorance, but too proud to stop themselves even when the truth is right there staring them in the face. Pity."<br />
<br />
Two years on and nothing much appears to have changed, apart from the inevitable has been delayed. I suppose that's the best we can do: delay the inevitable indefinitely.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, you can help. Follow the link to find out how: <a href="http://www.badgerprotectionleague.com/">http://www.badgerprotectionleague.com/</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.badgerprotectionleague.com/page/information" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQ_JD74uWKXtRIMoD97YgK49RjOXFSK-ns-DvTMx5sJUYsXccgfghrFdDyuhzo5MDiyRta-Uvw4N6L27G6GWOlJAT2ouMpVCjF72ATxINTiVxwFS-NdVmnHJ4VDuK24O32imYLLnne8D0/s400/save-the-badger.png" width="395" /></a></div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278366793340877738.post-23573118141651777142011-01-01T06:00:00.000+00:002011-01-01T06:00:27.207+00:00Happy New Year - Lunatics<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KYhaZ2pV0CQ?fs=1&hl=en_GB"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KYhaZ2pV0CQ?fs=1&hl=en_GB" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br />
<br />
Happy New Year. <br />
<br />
God help us all this year because I'm not totally convinced we're all going to make it.<br />
<br />
That's just the way it is.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278366793340877738.post-72009465666660701222010-09-25T19:12:00.005+01:002010-09-25T19:25:43.759+01:00New Labour Leader: Tory ReactionJust found a Tory circular in my email putatively from Baroness Warsi. Here's the important bit (my italics):<blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">On behalf of all of us in the Conservative Party, I congratulate Ed Miliband on his election as Leader of the Labour Party.<br />
<br />
He will have many challenges ahead in these next few days, but if he wants to be taken seriously, <i>the first thing he's got to do is own up to his role in creating the mess that Britain is in and tell us what he'd do to fix it.</i><br />
<br />
<i>From advising Gordon Brown in the Treasury in the 90s, to serving in his Cabinet in the 2000s, he must recognise his central role in creating the financial mess we're all paying for.</i><br />
<br />
For the past five months, all we've heard from Labour is knee jerk opposition to our plans to tackle the deficit. Now is the time for Mr Miliband to tell us what he'd do instead. He promised us a Labour spending plan before the spending review, now we'd all like to see it.<br />
<br />
The new Labour leader now has a clear choice. He can either serve the national interest by joining with us and the Liberal Democrats and set out how he would cut the deficit, or he can stand on the sidelines and refuse to engage with the biggest challenge facing Britain in decades.<br />
<br />
<i>The fact that Ed Miliband owes his position to the votes of the unions does not bode well. At the moment this looks like a great leap backwards for the Labour Party.</i></blockquote>Spot on. Miliband Minor, the one who sounds like he's underwater when he talks, can't be permitted to wriggle his party out of its responsibility for the massive economic, social and foreign policy calamities its previous leadership <i>and cabinet </i>wrought on this country. Miliband Minor must also be brought to book the instant he caves in to his militant socialist union backers.<br />
<br />
Personally, I expect the Coalition to treat this latest Labour clown with the contempt he so richly deserves. I know I will.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278366793340877738.post-70797918606127134752010-09-23T02:11:00.001+01:002010-09-23T02:14:24.836+01:00The Coalition SongAfter minister of the Crown for Business, the overloading-Cable's electrifying all out, carpet-bombing, nonsensical assault on the fundamental process of wealth creation, the basic tenets of civilised capitalism and, amusingly, all business generally, at the LibDum conference, I was just wondering what should be David Cameron's ironic song of the month. I've come up with this one:<br /><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Uu6MDdxBork?fs=1&hl=en_GB"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Uu6MDdxBork?fs=1&hl=en_GB" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br />Perhaps others can think of a better one. For myself, the only electricity currently flowing from this unhappy political arrangement is the stuff from the power stations that the lefty enviro-loon Chris Huhne hasn't closed down (yet) and will never replace anyway once he does. Our coalition-compromise lunatic Energy minister has stated categorically that he will not allow new power stations to be built, not just nuclear ones but any type as far as I can see, until George Osborne gives in to his tax reform demands. The tax reforms are actually a pretty good idea if taken in total theoretical isolation. But the fact that mad-Huhne and his insane-professor mentor, Cable, are <i>demanding</i> these things from their own government, and that hatstand Huhne is prepared to hold the entire nation to energy ransom to get his way, tells me two things:<br /><br />1) This coalition is one major reality check away from welcome collapse.<br />2) Cameron better realise that his friends are very definitely electric. They switch their loyalty on and off at the drop of a headline.<br /><br />These dudes have strayed way off the reservation territory the Tory-LibDum treaty had so fairly mapped-out for them. <br /><br />Interesting times are back. And Dave, hey mate: 'friends' are always electric, especially political ones.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278366793340877738.post-35363093327275034432010-09-11T03:55:00.000+01:002010-09-11T03:55:33.723+01:00A Proper Christian AttitudeNo book-burner I. In my ideal world, we turn our detractors from backwardness to comfort through a message that I believe should come with the strength of the beauty that is Christian (Catholic) largesse (sanctified but absolute free will nonetheless).<br />
<br />
There's certainly no need for any extra antagonism. Everyone already knows where there is a clash so there is certainly no need for a chap in Florida who believes he has "found God" to make any sort of a fuss. He must not.<br />
<br />
Anyway, that's all I really have to say about that. <br />
<br />
Nice sort of to see you all again.<br />
<br />
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iBWOgcX3dks?fs=1&hl=en_GB"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iBWOgcX3dks?fs=1&hl=en_GB" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br />
<br />
See? Christianity, if properly engaged with, is simply a very good thing. I challenge you or anyone else to prove otherwise.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278366793340877738.post-23678808110717869012010-08-08T03:54:00.002+01:002010-08-10T18:35:24.222+01:00The Amusing Truth About EducationIt's probably worth enjoying this again today because the loonies are no longer in charge of the asylum, apparently - since the election.<br /><br /><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ORLN45b64n0&hl=en_GB&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ORLN45b64n0&hl=en_GB&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br />If the Goves of this world really can't create a way of honestly educating this nation's young then we really are finished.<br /><br />As this bit of classic comedy demonstrates, all Gove needs to do is, to put it simply, <i>do it</i>! What "it" is is entirely up to him.<br /><br />But whether the prime minister, or anyone else for that matter, likes it or not, education is the real future of this country - and decontaminating it from years of disastrous socialist dogma must be the first port of call.<br /><br />If you disagree, then you are [probably] a socialist and you either are just being typically typecast: dull, hysterical and/or dishonest. Or you're just trying to mix things up abit. Pray for you that it's not the latter, because I can get very cranky (!)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278366793340877738.post-21751119359195823962010-08-06T14:44:00.004+01:002010-08-07T00:08:20.919+01:00Labour Leadership Election? A Futile Displacement AcitivityJeff Randall typically has come up with the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/7929242/Hypocrites-lightweights-and-clones-cant-Labour-do-better.html">best opinion piece so far</a> about the total dearth of quality, both in terms of its tainted, lightweight candidates and its inability to interest the country, in the current Labour leadership election sham.<br /><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Times,'Times New Roman',serif;">So far, observing the battle for Labour's captaincy has been like watching a 0-0 draw between reserve sides in a Sunday pub league. Lots of huffing and puffing, but no goals, little excitement, and a gloomy acceptance among supporters that it really doesn't matter who wins, because the players are simply not good enough, and no amount of post-match lagers can change that.</span></blockquote>Of course, Randall soon homes in like a well-targeted cruise missile on the real weakness underpinning the current incarnation of the parliamentary Labour party foundations and leadership: rank, institutional, barefaced, epic hypocrisy. Only, it's not just Dianne Abbott's hypocrisy he rightly lambasts (as I did here a while back) but the hypocrisy of that entire rotten political organisation. But what he does to the Milibands is priceless. Of Mili Major (Dave), before writing him off: "Offer him a platitude and he will contrive a soundbite."<br /><br />For Mili Minor (Ed): he manages to muster only a cursory put down for the ugly one with a voice like a defective waste pipe, as if he just isn't worth it (he isn't):<br /><blockquote style="font-family: times new roman;">This week, he said that he wanted Labour to become "the party of small business". Too late – Mr Brown already tried that. He began with lots of big businesses and turned many into small ones.</blockquote>Boom! Two targets with one bomb.<br /><br />The bottom line, of course, is that everyone has just had a complete bellyful of the whole package: the lying, the spin, the waste, the arrogance, the pocket-lining, the risible incompetence at every level and, it almost goes without saying, the huge levels of hypocrisy that have outraged so many for so long but who have only recently had the chance to show their displeasure. That gulf, between the Labour leadership's public pronouncements and private behaviour, grew so fast under Blair that the leader of the people's party was somehow able to leave office a millionaire many times over. But even all that is trumped by people's contempt for Labour's diabolical economic record in government (again):<br /><blockquote style="font-family: times new roman;">Labour's problem is that none of the candidates can accept the real reason for the party's abysmal performance at the ballot box. As research by Demos, the think tank, revealed this week, the public is sick of borrow, tax and waste. The days of bribing voters with their own devalued money are over.</blockquote>Let's hope "the public" really is that sick of it and has seen through the oldest Labour ruse of all (bribing voters with their own money). And let's hope public memories are a bit longer this time. My view is that this leadership campaign signals the death knell for Labour, for the reason implied in Randall's opening: it is now a party of alley cats, fat cats and pussy cats led by a bunch of common or garden careerist donkeys.<br /><br />That lack of real new leadership will kill it.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278366793340877738.post-45621119653697519842010-08-05T01:38:00.000+01:002010-08-05T01:38:33.655+01:00Blog LifeMy impression, having been 'blogging' for over a year now, is that this activity almost necessarily follows the patterns of real life, whatever they are. Unless, of course, you are a 'professional' blogger, a strange breed, like the redtop Guido or the broadshite - I mean 'broadsheet', (of course) - Dale. They are professionals - they do it, very professionally, for money.<br />
<br />
The sad thing is that for amateur bloggers, like me, who choose to write about the central weighty issues of the day, according to their proclivities and their lights, naturally, (and of which they are fully aware and to which they are relatively well-adjusted) - real life is just so time-consuming.<br />
<br />
Being busy is clearly the scurge of amateur (political) bloggers.<br />
<br />
Anyway, point is I am quite busy just now in real life. But that does not mean I've stopped bloggin, in spite of the fact I recently managed (typically for me) to upset some of the nicest Scottish nationalists anywhere on the internet, and blew any semblance of credibility I might have had out of the water in the process.<br />
<br />
I am so very, very sad about that. Of course.<br />
<br />
Update about how sad I am and how you can deal with my sadness<i> to follow</i>, quite soon.. Watch this space!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278366793340877738.post-3864808989391914642010-08-01T00:24:00.003+01:002010-08-01T01:17:19.128+01:00RhodesiaI don't know if it lowers yer blog stock price if you start embedding YouTube music video uploads to it a bit too often for comfort, but it seems to me that if your blog stock price (BSP) is already in negative territory, it really doesn't matter. You can see from my profile description what I'm mainly up to on this blog - the democratic assassination of that menace to British and world politics that is the Labour party, by any means and with extreme prejudice. But I do have other interests.<br /><br />One of them is music, and rather odd music at that. I, for instance, still hark back to the late-70s/early 80s less commercial bands who disappeared without trace pretty fast but had a far bigger influence on serious modern music - and on society generally - that anyone cares to mention, especially if they're in the industry trying to market the next vacuous girl/boy "band". (I put the word "band" in inverted commas because, even during those dark days of Duran Duran, "bands" were people with some kind of instrumental, musical ability and who somehow joined together on that basis. The "Beatle Model", you might call it, rather than the "Take That" mutation).<br /><br />Speaking of which, here's one of those weird 70s "bands": Japan. Now I know that its lead singer thought that his musical outflow smelt far better than his peers' (hence the flowery meaningless crap he's came up with since he broke up the band), but there was some stuff in the early days that really was challenging.<br /><br />I've chosen one such example for this post, although I could have chosen a number of equally challenging others. How they're challenging is a damn good question. Politically, naturally, they are challenging. And they duly challenged and intrigued me in formative years, which is probably why I spout in this way in this place through this easy electronic mass medium now. But that music, among many other forms, was the start of my inspiration. (Learning to cope with real, working life was the rest of it!)<br /><br /><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mAt2NSjAXY8&hl=en_GB&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mAt2NSjAXY8&hl=en_GB&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br />My only request is this: if anyone has the slightest idea what these lyrics actually mean I'd love to hear from you. It sounds so meaningful, but it could be a load of sh...<br /><br />Anyway, thanks for your input in anticipation of it.<br /><br />PS: This is even more fantastic, and basically incomprehensible. Maybe you can work it out, because I can't:<br /><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/B2OA0l6okRI&hl=en_GB&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/B2OA0l6okRI&hl=en_GB&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br />It's a warning to all bloggers, that's what it is...Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278366793340877738.post-62352593257019700152010-07-31T00:21:00.001+01:002010-07-31T00:42:39.892+01:00Bloggers Are FreeYou can agree or disagree with everything that irritates you all you want, and even believe that what you're spouting in response, according to your own outlook on your own, discrete blog, might even be true. But, ultimately, I really do not care about that. Why should I?<br /><br />No matter what almost-sizable political movement you think you belong to, in the end there's just you - and that's it.<br /><br />It matters not how popular you are, on or offline. What matters is that you have a view and that you are loyal to it. In the end, though, no matter how much you think you believe in something political, even to the point of becoming a useful activist, you must remain unaligned in order to keep your personal, private integrity intact. Never be tainted: Be free! Or be compromised.<br /><br />Anyway, that's why this Levellers toon is still so wonderful to me. It's a protest song that's more about free-thinking than it is about politics. In that sense, it's timeless.<br /><br /><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XScq7NLRnYU&hl=en_GB&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XScq7NLRnYU&hl=en_GB&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br />If you don't like it then, you know, we're clearly very different and there's no need for you ever to come back here.<br /><br />Seems fair enough to me.<br /><br />PS: And there's more...<br /><br /><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AezhGLq_kPE&hl=en_GB&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AezhGLq_kPE&hl=en_GB&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br />Humbling brilliance.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278366793340877738.post-40997528042327391782010-07-29T22:12:00.002+01:002010-07-29T22:38:23.165+01:00Balls: What A Piece Of WorkJust a short note to record my astonishment at the hypocrisy and arrogance not just of Labour but of a particularly bad Labourist about the roots of the Coalition on that Robinson thing on telly just now. I had thought, foolishly, that Ed Balls was incapable of getting any worse. I was, of course, wrong. Hearing him whine about Labour's negotiations with the Lib Dems after the hung parliament is extraordinary.<br /><br />I think some cognitive malfunction in his mind, combined with some serious weakness in his character, together mean that he simply is incapable of comprehending what it means to be honest. He just lies all the time, effortlessly, and has no awareness whatsoever that his habitually revised narrative of events is just that: lies - and, what's more, is <i>known </i>to be lies by everyone outside his mind who has seen the evidence - and the truth - laid out, crystal clear, before their very eyes. But it doesn't stop him - oh no! - because it's pathological. He talks, for instance, about this idea that Nick Clegg about-faced on cuts just for leverage in the negotiation process. Not so (read more about that in the Speccy online <a href="http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6176298/clegg-confirms-his-fiscal-hawkishness.thtml">here</a>). It was a bare-faced <i>lie, </i>on camera, for the film - but Balls didn't care because he doesn't understand what he did. Maybe we should pity him, he's that bad. (Nah.)<br /><br />Anyway, I could go on but this is, thankfully, all cold water under Westminster bridge. The right - the only - outcome for Britain came to pass, so none of it really matters to anyone other than various breeds of historian and fading BBC journalists like Robinson any more.<br /><br />Apart from Balls, that is. He wants to a party leader, but his party (no doubt with him - along with Straw and the other usual suspects - the ringleaders) are about to renege <i>genuinely </i>on a manifesto promise for the sake of political expediency with the AV/constituency restructuring Bill. That's genuine, pathetic, grubby opportunism and it's also why I and other people who feel, for the current incarnation of the Labour party, nothing but utter contempt, would very much like to see Balls win. It would be a great day for the nation (the death of Labour).<br /><br />But remember, always, there was at least one joyous ending to those strange days of uncertainty back in May: forget Balls because his rather more lunatic mentor, Gordon Brown, was gone, gone, <i>gone</i>! at the end of it all. And the nation breathed a heavy, collective sigh of relief because of it.<br /><br />Now that's what I call "victory". So, what the hell: good luck to the Coalition deal that fashioned that happy outcome, Tory and Lib Dem members both. Hats off to the nationalists, too (a party of which I happily and tactically voted for).<br /><br />And why not?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278366793340877738.post-67879484400516356512010-07-27T11:36:00.002+01:002010-07-27T13:35:16.129+01:00New Word: "Turcophile"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNayR0X1elBkuQ0gPb255Wga8nCFcgLYxh8wG4QIrtIFLm_M-Xp3P_lwW_nSGUvQMo9hU0eXjcykEsVsCkRpmWhJLtnCmmIMPUKHzy5soiITq58mNybS11l8suFl0cqN387eslORMzXCk/s1600/turkeymap.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="229" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNayR0X1elBkuQ0gPb255Wga8nCFcgLYxh8wG4QIrtIFLm_M-Xp3P_lwW_nSGUvQMo9hU0eXjcykEsVsCkRpmWhJLtnCmmIMPUKHzy5soiITq58mNybS11l8suFl0cqN387eslORMzXCk/s320/turkeymap.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>I rather like Dan Hannan's <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100048633/david-cameron-is-right-the-eu-is-treating-turkey-abominably/">latest post</a> about how shockingly bad the treatment of Turkey has been - and still is - by the EU (in reality, when it comes to Turkey, the semi-racist France and the fully racist Germany). This probably telegraphs my ignorance, but he also taught me a new word: "Turcophile". I like this word and I'm going to use it in polite conversation from now on. I also like the concept it denotes: admiration for Turkey and Turkish people. And, it seems, I'm not the only one. David Cameron is a Turcophile too. But that was always to be expected, says Hannan, for he is a hard line traditionalist Tory at heart and always has been. Yet there is a lot more to his Turcophilia (?) than mere nostalgia and tradition, and a lot more at stake should the EU (Germany) be permitted to ostracise Turkey any longer. As Hannan says:<br /><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">I have argued before that <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100013187/to-understand-david-cameron-look-at-the-place-he-comes-from/">David Cameron is a remarkably traditional Tory</a>, and his attitude to Turkey is as traditional as they come. His – my – party has been Turcophile since Derby’s leadership a century and a half ago. (So, come to that, has The Daily Telegraph, which broke with Gladstone over his anti-Ottoman policy in 1877, and has been Tory ever since.) Cameron’s reasons for backing Ankara’s EU membership bid are solidly Conservative: Turkey guarded Europe’s flank against the Bolshevists for three generations, and may one day be called on to do the same against the jihadis. In the circumstances, the PM believes, Turks are being treated ungratefully by their allies.</span></blockquote>To me, the "guardians of the flank against the jihadis" argument for halting Turkey's shabby treatment by German politicians in particular is bullet proof. But what about EU membership? Well, it seems to me that the EU is slightly worse at foreign policy than the last Labour government - utterly appalling in other words. Who'd want to be associated with an organisation that appears to be quite adept at upsetting all of the people all of the time while simultaneously being completely unable actually to <i>do </i>anything, anywhere, ever. Furthermore, if you accept the <i>real </i>motives behind the EU's passive-aggressive bureaucratic obstructionism over Turkish membership are ones of national self-interest on the parts of the usual suspects, then you realise that this translates as outright hostility in terms of international relations, whether it comes via Brussels or not. Why on earth would Turkey want to be a part of any of that? (Why on earth do we, for heaven's sake!).<br /><br />As Hannan says:<br /><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">For what it’s worth, if I were Turkish, I would be against EU membership. Turkey is a dynamic country with – in marked contrast to the EU – a young population. The last thing it needs is the 48-hour week, the Common Agricultural Policy, the euro and the rest of the apparatus of Brussels corporatism. Why tie yourself to a shrinking part of the world economy; when you have teeming new markets to your east? Why submit to rule by people who barely trouble to disguise their contempt for you?</span></blockquote>Good question. He answers it, too.<br /><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">There is a difference, though, between choosing not to join and being told that you’re not good enough to join. Turks are as entitled to their pride as any other people. The way they have been messed around can hardly fail to make them despise the EU. Which, in the broader sweep of history, is likely to hurt the EU more than it does Turkey.</span></blockquote>Now, you know as well as I do that Hannan is a smart dude. He's not just talking about Turkey, is he? (Or was that obvious?) He's talking about us, too. The reason why up to 70% of the UK's adult population if not despises then mistrusts the EU is because they feel the cold blast of its contempt for their beliefs, traditions, sense of independence, history, national identity and sovereignty every day. That's why I'm pretty certain Hannan is on to something here, and so is Cameron. By championing Turkey, and wearing his Turcophile tendencies on his sleeve, he can appeal to people's in-built Euroscepticism at home, temper the coaltion's Europhiliac tendencies and highlight Brussel's in-built Angloscepticism. All at a single stroke.<br /><br />If this is true then it's a foreign policy stroke of genius. Or maybe it just seems that way after years of Labour verbal incontinence on just about any international relations topic you care to think of, and total incompetence in actually doing anything, or total dishonesty and betrayal in the case of the EU.<br /><br />Maybe, for a change, this new Turcophilia is just the right policy. How refreshing.<br /><br />I think I'll have a large donar for lunch.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278366793340877738.post-57048710235497916142010-07-26T11:18:00.001+01:002010-07-26T15:32:31.106+01:00I Write Like...<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://iwl.me/" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="247" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvoqd23RA8NlFObYpY4nnh9grAr0OWObLdOR6R5lrOnMxVUW-pC1azEIe6LO6LvINgCJ-7jM1o3nqfEZ5K0stnQWkKCIpA0imxAFT2zwrXvoDnr5AdJy5bwbN59EvVqGQ4XL-s1Mwb7eE/s400/I+write+like.JPG" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br />While mucking around with the internet yesterday, I stumbled on this little engine. It's called <a href="http://iwl.me/">"I Write Like..."</a> and it claims to be able to use a sample of your own work and, by the magic of modern electronics, analyse it and then say whether your style is similar to a famous author - or not, presumably: who you "write like" in other words.<br /><br />Apparently, after extensive testing with different blog posts, I write like H.P. Lovecraft. Good grief!<br /><br />I'd never really understood exactly what people meant when they described this blog as a horror story. I thought they were just being rude. But thanks to "I Write Like..." dot com, I now know it's because <i>I write like</i> the father of the grizzly modern horror genre. So there you go.<br /><br />If you're a blogger or just curious about your general writing style, then give it a try. You might find you're (yet) another H.P. Lovecraft. Or possibly even worse.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278366793340877738.post-1237941804290085192010-07-25T01:56:00.000+01:002010-07-25T01:56:30.974+01:00The Final DelusionMy utter and entirely justified contempt for Gordon Brown is well-documented on this blog. But even he's managed to surpass himself in terms of delusion and sanctimonious bullshit flammery in his<a href="http://www.gordonbrown.org.uk/gordon-brown-addresses-african-leaders"> post-prime ministerial speech </a>to a bunch of corrupt socialist African 'leaders' (dictators) in Kampala yesterday. <br />
But hey, that's just my view of the utter Brown catastrophe. Here's a bit of what he said. I think the entire speech, taken as watertight evidence of a diseased mind, conclusively demonsrates that he is, at heart, a quasi-totalitarian egoist with messianic tendencies. But, naturally, you must make-up your own mind:<br />
<blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">All of our lives are connected: we can all impact for good or ill on the lives of people we have never met. And yet we don’t currently share a common society or effective global institutions that allow us to treat strangers as neighbours or give life to our feelings of fellowship, solidarity, compassion and care.<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">But it doesn’t have to be that way. I believe that it is possible for people, acting together, to build a global society, and design the institutions that would best serve its values</div></blockquote>OK, Gord, you get on with 'building a global society'. But while you're busy designing the brave new world, the rest of us <i>normal </i>people will be searching for ways to harness individual compassion as a social force, lowering taxes to reward hard work and freeing the education system so that our brightest no longer have to feel disadvantageded because they aren't part of the anti-excellence Labour average.<br />
I digress. The simple point is that Brown is a well-known, now-talkative lunatic, and Balls should just resign,Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278366793340877738.post-21000927817440273472010-07-25T01:10:00.001+01:002010-07-25T01:16:55.110+01:00RIP The HurricaneI suppose as one gets older (mind you, I'm only 38 - for another month or so) you have to get used to burying your dead or, if it's not a close relative you're putting in the ground, mourning the passing of a true hero.<br /><br />Alex Higgins was never one of my personal heroes, but he was certainly one of the true sporting greats that defined my childhood. Snooker, in the early 80s, was strangely massive to all of us. Higgins, largely because of his unthinkable '82 win in the age of the Steve Davis machine, was one of the reasons why.<br /><br /><object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/swflash.cab" id="TelegraphPlayer-7192576" width="400" height="227"><param name="movie" value="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/template/utils/ooyala/telegraph_player.swf"><param name="wmode" value="window"><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000"><param name="scale" value="noscale"><param name="salign" value="LT"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><param name="FlashVars" value="embedCode=pvOWE3MTokcVptiLa506NEha_k4hs2iv&offSite=true&showTD=true"><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/template/utils/ooyala/telegraph_player.swf" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer" menu="false" quality="high" play="false" name="TelegraphPlayer-7192576" wmode="window" bgcolor="#000000" scale="noscale" salign="LT" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" flashvars="embedCode=pvOWE3MTokcVptiLa506NEha_k4hs2iv&offSite=true&showTD=true" width="400" height="227"></embed></object><br /><br />RIP Alex Higgins.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278366793340877738.post-10129846177960188242010-07-23T09:22:00.004+01:002010-07-23T20:46:50.162+01:00Why The CPS Is, Unfortunately, WrongDizzy Thinks has an interesting post this morning on the travesty of justice that is the CPS decision not to prosecute a policeman for causing the death (according to the evidence of two out of three experts) of an innocent, if intoxicated, bystander at the G8 protests a couple of years back. He goes through all the various legal scenarios and outcomes studied and predicted over 16 long months by the strangely unimpressive Keir Starmer and his Crown Prosecution 'Service'. Dizzy's post is pretty comprehensive so I won't go into it in too much detail. Better you read it for yourself <a href="http://dizzythinks.net/2010/07/why-cps-was-unfortunately-right.html">here</a>. Suffice to say, he sums up his explanation of the CPS' decision and why he thinks it's the right one as follows:<br /><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">Think about it for a moment. It would, frankly, be absurd for the Crown to attempt to prosecute someone and then have their own witness testify that their own case wasn't water-tight and that the defendant might in fact be not guilty.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">That's why the CPS didn't, wouldn't, and couldn't go ahead with a trial, and screaming "whitewash" or "cover-up" is little more than a jerking knee inspired by those who have prejudged the case and have a committed held view on the officer's guilt already. If this had gone to trial, and the result would've been not guilty, I imagine there would be theories and speculation about Jury nobbling too.</span></blockquote>I'm very uncomfortable with these comments for two main reasons - and several minor ones. The main reasons are that, first, no one is shouting 'whitewash' on this blog and it is silly - if not self-defeating - for Dizzy Thinks to characterise everyone who disagrees with the decision not to prosecute the policeman concerned for anything at all after the death of a human being as either Lefties or conspiracy theorists. It's just not true, and suggests a rather unbalanced view on his part, frankly. <div><br /></div><div>Second, the decision itself. To me it was desperately wrong for a reason of principle, namely, that the CPS was not set up to adjudicate in criminal matters. It was set up to organise prosecutions. It's up to a jury in a trial to determine guilt or innocence and advocates to make the case, or defend the defendant, as best they can.<br /><br />The reason why the CPS is wrong is because the decision should not have been up to the CPS - or Keir Starmer - to decide whether there was a case for the suspect to answer in the first place. No one seems to doubt that there was, even if it were one of common assault, not even the police themselves. </div><div><br /></div><div>This is just one more instance among so many others that indicate the CPS is basically out of control. Reform seems to me to be the next logical step, so we at least can try to get back to trial by a jury of our peers - and justice - instead of non-trial by evidence review by a glorified quango - or injustice.</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Update</span></div><div>I was quite pleased to read Gerald Warner's <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100048283/when-police-officers-escape-prosecution-we-cannot-blame-idiots-for-applauding-raoul-moat/">comment </a>in the Telegraph just now:</div><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">If there are “fundamental differences” of medical opinion, as cited by the CPS, surely that is all the more reason to resolve them in a court of law, rather than to kick this life-and-deathquestion into the long grass.</span></blockquote>Dizzy can hardly describe Warner as a Lefty or a conspiracy theorist. Warner simply understands what an awful lot of other people do too: it should be up to the courts to decide whether a person is guilty of a crime, not the CPS and certainly not Keir-bloody-Starmer. <div><br /></div><div>It's probably worth adding that Warner's article mainly concerns the probability that the police's image, already quite thoroughly tarnished for a large number of pretty shabby reasons over the past decade, has just taken another hit thanks to Starmer's extremely puzzling decision. Is that really what they wanted, one wonders? Do they even care?<br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278366793340877738.post-66754008160094108202010-07-20T22:19:00.003+01:002010-07-20T22:43:35.229+01:00Brown vs Cameron: The Contrast<table class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-dX11pGvZodoT-7_v513XrUJU8L14mvpMfzjdrK4NYmzyBm3dhPQYA-Uov-l9oljwCwdGObwlAN39duI10TG53Bi3X6gbXevOYDJiCvbayi2PfhyphenhyphenECda77yoF_AzRRglnuGA0LkJexGw/s1600/cameron+obama.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-dX11pGvZodoT-7_v513XrUJU8L14mvpMfzjdrK4NYmzyBm3dhPQYA-Uov-l9oljwCwdGObwlAN39duI10TG53Bi3X6gbXevOYDJiCvbayi2PfhyphenhyphenECda77yoF_AzRRglnuGA0LkJexGw/s320/cameron+obama.jpg" border="0" width="320" height="213" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">There's Dave...</td></tr></tbody></table>Sky News' Jon Craig has posted an interesting <a href="http://blogs.news.sky.com/boultonandco/Post:bb922843-80b8-4f42-87da-ab1f7b08cf38">piece</a> on the latest Brown-sighting this evening. After Cameron's highly adroit - even deft - performance in the US, it's becoming pretty clear that, in absolute fact, Britain is far better off, both at home and abroad, now that she is finally being represented by a prime minister that isn't either a) a hopeless attention-seeker obsessed with his own image rather than concerned with the needs of a country he laughably purported to lead or the world that he generally preferred to start wars in, or b) a socially inept weirdo with terrifying delusions of grandeur and a pathological inability to recognise, much less tell, the truth.<br /><br />Jon Craig writes of the latter's latest noises well-off performance:<br /><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">So what did Gordon Brown do after his brief appearance in the House of Lords?<br />(See previous blog.)<br />Speak in the Commons during the third reading debate on the Finance Bill?<br />Er, no.<br />Pop down to Strangers' Bar or the terrace for a few beers with old comrades?<br />Er, no.<br />The former Prime Minister, I can reveal, had already invited new Labour MPs elected for the first time on May 6 - about 70 in all - for a chat at 4pm in his grand and spacious new office on the top floor of Portcullis House.<br />An audience with Gordon.<br />Aah. So the room was packed, then?<br />Er, no.<br />Apparently, so my informant tells me, only about 10 turned up to listen to the former PM.<br />I'm also told that some of the bright young things turned up hoping to ask him worthy questions about the Alternative Vote referendum and other current topics.<br />But they were disapppointed to hear him talk at some length - no change there, then - about how the Tories kept trashing his record in power.<br />Oh dear.<br />In denial?<br />That's what some Labour MPs are claiming.</blockquote><table class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtfpNTiecZCHfEdtsb-I0jvvAaeiRjnaAw0bylW21loCAitFn6hxpTYlqRvSI1SwXjmqlrfli7sQY2nIpgdVel__3_0Njbbz9hgRxaswCZJEkYnjibDXNvuQFDUTp1-W8MRrrM1FFgdEY/s1600/wallybrown.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtfpNTiecZCHfEdtsb-I0jvvAaeiRjnaAw0bylW21loCAitFn6hxpTYlqRvSI1SwXjmqlrfli7sQY2nIpgdVel__3_0Njbbz9hgRxaswCZJEkYnjibDXNvuQFDUTp1-W8MRrrM1FFgdEY/s200/wallybrown.jpg" border="0" width="200" height="200" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Where's <strike>Wally</strike> Gordon?</td></tr></tbody></table>I'm quite surprised to be writing this, but Cameron is actually beginning to look great. Now that could just be because he's normal compared to the two contemptible Labour has-beens this country and the world have been forced to tolerate for over a decade in unequal shares until very recently.<br /><br />But he did look and sound great today - a real independent force. Having seen some of the clips of his performance with the latest incarnation of the US president, compared to the rather brittle-looking, slightly spiteful-sounding Barack Hussein Obama, he was, well, just great.<br /><br />Hang-on, I know it's early days, but it is possible Cameron <i>is </i>great - as in an unusually gifted statesman and leader (at least in the making).<br /><br />One day maybe it'll even become a famous quotation: "Andy Burnham [or whoever], you are no David Cameron! (You're actually a bit like Tony Blair - but not quite as bad as Gordon Thingumyjig)," says someone or other who's fairly famous in politics .<br /><br />Hmm. Maybe not (yet). But he's clearly better than Blair. And way, way, <i>way </i>better than the unspeakable (and nearly vanished forever anyway) Brown. We might still be in the 'thank God for small mercies' stage of Cameron's premiership, but there can be no denying it: there were one or two glimpses of greatness there today.<br /><br />What a contrast!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278366793340877738.post-35332018692717991402010-07-18T19:47:00.003+01:002010-07-19T11:16:03.540+01:00Blair To Blame For Brown<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKxLOlHv-jN_vnidktkPqXjhJhbSjVCVUu2e3Jl1joXILZt_m_o0wmKeU0Pe1warhMXi2faIufmluRiHvGY-ydVf5Wwbjette6vzs7ji1Ov_p_vFOODmcTtHRcv9E35ct6nM5LeqOenOU/s1600/brownblair.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="301" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKxLOlHv-jN_vnidktkPqXjhJhbSjVCVUu2e3Jl1joXILZt_m_o0wmKeU0Pe1warhMXi2faIufmluRiHvGY-ydVf5Wwbjette6vzs7ji1Ov_p_vFOODmcTtHRcv9E35ct6nM5LeqOenOU/s320/brownblair.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Quite aside from all his other disastrous decisions, mainly on foreign policy, it seems perfectly fair to me that Blair be blamed for not seeing while he was Prime Minister that Britain wasn't saddled with a successor he himself thought was unfit to govern. This is, according to Andrew Rawnsley in his <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/18/peter-mandelson-gordon-brown-rawnsley">extraordinarily excoriating assault</a> on virtually the entire Labour administration, the thing for which Blair, ultimately, is most guilty. It's a heck of a read and should be disastrous for all Labour's leadership candidates, tainted as they are with the charge of cowardice, arch and chronic dishonesty and, simply put, self-interested misgovernance. Anyway, here's a taste of something which, if you haven't already read it, is well worth a look:<br /><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">If Blair thought that Brown was unfit to be prime minister – and there's now lots of evidence that this is precisely what Blair thought – he had an obligation to his party and his country to do something about it. At the very least, he should have, as he could have, ensured that there was a contest for the succession in 2007 rather than allow Brown to be crowned without proper scrutiny. It was one of Blair's most selfish acts and a gross dereliction of duty to swan off to make his millions while leaving his party and country to cope with the consequences of a Brown premiership.</blockquote>The implication from this is that by the time he had finally given in to the forces of hell unleashed by Brown in the form of Balls, Wheelan et al in 2006, Blair simply didn't give a toss about what happened next. A more damning indictment of the man as Prime Minister is simply inconceivable, even one involving his misleading the House of Commons, the country and the world over WMDs in Iraq. It's actually quite difficult accurately to describe a person like that, whose self-interest and vanity is only trumped by his greed and dishonesty. In some ways if one views it in the light of this unforgivable dereliction of duty, as Rawnsley rightly calls it, Blair ends up as an even worse national leader than Brown, difficult though that might be for some (like me) to swallow.<br /><br />If you do accept Rawnsley's characterisation of Blair, it is, however, perfectly possible to argue that he was worse than Brown as a man and as a leader. The only difference between the two frauds being, therefore, that Blair was a far better con man than Brown ever could be, which meant that Blair was able to trick the country into believing him and then voting for him. By contrast, Brown was just Brown: paranoid, delusional, vicious, incompetent even in disguising his many falsehoods and, ultimately, a total electoral liability and a catastrophe for the nation.<br /><br />The impact of these realisations on the Labour leadership campaign as I said <i>should </i>be massive. All the candidates are as discredited as each other for failing to make the decision Blair couldn't be ar*ed to make and stopping Brown once it was crystal clear he was utterly hopeless. As Rawnsley says, quite fairly and quite mildly in truth:<br /><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">Andy Burnham was one of the nodding dogs who would declare to TV cameras that the cabinet had every confidence in Gordon Brown when the reverse was the case. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/edballs" title="More from guardian.co.uk on Ed Balls">Ed Balls</a> ran the thuggish Brownite machine and the decade-long insurgency against Tony Blair to put his master in Number 10. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/edmiliband" title="More from guardian.co.uk on Ed Miliband">Ed Miliband</a> makes pious noises denouncing "factionalism" as if he is a saintly figure who never had anything to do with it. "The emissary from Planet Fuck" – as he was known among Blair's aides during the civil war – was at the heart of the Brown faction.It is a bit tricky for David Miliband. He was one of the senior members of the cabinet who knew Brown was taking them to defeat and failed to act before it was too late.</blockquote>So they all should be screwed - and rightly so. For all his hypocrisy, Mandelson doesn't really matter because he's not a leadership candidate. So, assuming (and this is a big assumption) the MSM ends its own version of Labourist dishonesty and begins to treat the rest with the contempt they should have coming to them for their pathetic behaviour in propping up Brown, the only untainted candidate in the Labour leadership race is, hilariously, Diane Abbott!<br /><br />Either way, and this is essentially Rawnsley's conclusion, Labour is truly, deservedly and royally buggered. And in the end, of course, they themselves are the ones who are to blame for it. After all, Blair only gave us Brown because he'd given up, and that's how history will judge him. But the Milibands, Burnham and Balls (and Mandelson) are the ones who propped the disastrous loser up. That was unforgivable - and the country isn't going to forgive them, ever.<br /><br />Now, thankfully, their past seems finally to be catching up with them. Soon there'll be nowhere left for them to hide any more and no amount of continued lying will save their collective political bacon. If the PLP is stupid enough to elect one of them, (and it's almost certain that it is that stupid) then they should prepare to be out of power for decades, if not forever. Mind you, exactly the same thing will happen if they choose bonkers Abbott.<br /><br />Catch 22 for the Labourist wreckers - and music to my ears!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278366793340877738.post-82012221853090689392010-07-17T21:23:00.003+01:002010-07-17T21:33:04.532+01:00Brian Clough: What A LegendJust watch this video and realise that not only does English football urgently need a man like Brian Clough, British public life generally does too. A sense of fair play, a respect for authority, a deep understanding of genuine priorities - what's really important (like taking the initiative when someone's being an idiot and stopping them!) - and a healthy contempt for the BBC's po-faced, self-important, self-appointed, misplaced, half-baked didacticism. Best man never to have managed England, obviously, and rightfully regarded by those who knew him or supported football clubs he coached as a legend. Wish I'd been one of them!<br /><br /><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oqAZsoF-ghw&hl=en_GB&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oqAZsoF-ghw&hl=en_GB&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br />Marvellous.<br /><br />My word he would have made a team out of that bunch of overpaid airheads and losers we sent to South Africa. He makes Don Fabio look like precisely what he is, only a half-decent manager, and John Motson look like precisely what he is: a complete idiot.<br /><br />Where are this nation's Brian Cloughs, with all that flair, individualism and inner steel, when we so desperately need them!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278366793340877738.post-68196361096977663442010-07-16T22:59:00.003+01:002010-07-17T01:06:23.522+01:00Hunt Declares War On The BBCNot a moment too soon it actually looks like the BBC's cosy world of unaccountability, an appallingly cavalier attitude to income it does not earn but extorts from the general public for whom it has constantly shown nothing but contempt in recent years, and a severe political bias that has penetrated every level of the organisation over several decades, is about to come to an abrupt end. It certainly looks like Jeremy Hunt, the Conservative culture secretary, has actually been listening to people like me (and there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people like me) and has bravely, recognising the urgent necessity, decided to be the one to stand up to and take on the monolithic social, economic and cultural parasite that our national broadcaster, in its current form, has become.<br /><br />If we are to believe what Hunt <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/7895750/Licence-fee-for-wasteful-BBC-will-be-cut.html">has told</a> the Daily Telegraph, then the skids really are finally under the BBC closed shop. Furthermore, if its managers refuse to budge on certain issues, including Hunt's very reasonable proposal that there be a significant reduction in the ridiculous licence tax given the Labour-generated current economic climate, then it could, finally, <i>finally, </i>herald the moment when long-overdue and massive reform comes to the creaking, unfit-for-purpose, throwback-Soviet organisation.<br /><br />The Telegraph reports Hunt as saying, among other things:<br /><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">There are huge numbers of things that need to be changed at the BBC. They need to demonstrate the very constrained financial situation we are now in</blockquote><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">All the concerns I had in opposition about executive salaries and use of licence fee funds for things many people thought were extraordinary or outrageous - that (next year) will be moment when I express them</blockquote>Now, I know this won't lead to the kind of breaking-up of the corporation I want to see, with the selling off of all but the core radio and TV channels (R4, R2, Five Live, BBC1 and 2), the abolition of the jurassic licence fee (to be replaced by a central grant, charitable status and fundraising powers), but I certainly recognise that this is far more than mere gesture politics at a ripe moment. Hunt means to force the BBC into putting its house in real order, or else.<br /><br />Never thought I'd see the day. Well done Jeremy Hunt. Let battle commence!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278366793340877738.post-48132006144937223132010-07-16T00:18:00.003+01:002010-07-16T00:31:27.631+01:00Inside the Bunker<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiU71RkSb-AKcWMCBQ8Rzpjy_kh8AGx5WTVVI-V4FA8YDkBOqL252PlLFIpHqNAj0hqFcrd6sSjhma_kUgUKCI2FMMrDAmkMnWsMYpEnPuvXGKAqI72xtAtkNfnJW3jJQp6SsMIK_woy8/s1600/downing-street-bunker.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiU71RkSb-AKcWMCBQ8Rzpjy_kh8AGx5WTVVI-V4FA8YDkBOqL252PlLFIpHqNAj0hqFcrd6sSjhma_kUgUKCI2FMMrDAmkMnWsMYpEnPuvXGKAqI72xtAtkNfnJW3jJQp6SsMIK_woy8/s320/downing-street-bunker.jpg" border="0" width="320" height="240" /></a></div>Iain Martin has provided, presumably from his sources inside the civil service, a fascinating and chilling insight into Brown's autocratic, paranoid and hopeless (mis)management of day-to-day Prime Ministerial business. If you haven't already read it, click through <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2010/07/15/gordon-brown-and-his-secret-red-box-signing-room/">here</a>.<br /><br />It will take a lot of effort to work out just how much damage three years (or 13 years if you include his time as a diabolical, serially disloyal Chancellor) of Brown's weirdness and chaos in Downing Street has done to this nation. The litany of disasters that can be traced directly back to Brown's bunker door are emerging daily, of course, so the process could take less time than we think.<br /><br />Quite frankly, I think how such a man was elevated to the level of the highest office in the land in the first place, without even the pretence of any form of democratic election, should also be a source of deep and urgent study. Why? Because it must never, ever be permitted to happen again and if that means radical alterations to the rules governing the way Prime Ministers are chosen, then so be it.<br /><br />In the meantime we can be happy about a couple of things, and Martin alludes to these in his excellent piece: stable, reasonable, elected people are back in charge, cabinet government appears to have returned and the principles of ministerial and collective responsibility look like being rigorously reinstated.<br /><br />We shall see, but after the cocksure, cowboy, sofa government years of Blair and the mentally disturbed, incoherent, mafiosi years of Brown, it certainly feels like accountability, professionalism and, crucially, normality have returned to Downing Street, Whitehall and, perhaps (just perhaps), even Westminster.<br /><br />Well, you might disagree. But God help us all if I'm wrong!<br /><br />Just remember, Brown's chief hit man, Balls, is still around, waiting in the wings, shamelessly spewing his poisonous politics of propaganda, division, dishonesty and fear. He's on This Week right now lying through his teeth about, in this case, his many crimes against Tony Blair on behalf of his boss, Brown, to whom he remains fanatically loyal. The chances of the evil Balls becoming leader even of his own party are pretty slim, I admit, (oh I do hope he wins!) but there's still that chance, however slight, and the frailties of our system, exposed by the Brown 2007 <i>coup d'état</i>, mean that at that point, he would be a hell of a lot closer to Number 10 than is sanely conceivable.<br /><br />If Iain Martin's revelations reveal just how very, very, incredibly bad Brown was, just imagine what life would be like under Prime Minister Balls.<br /><br />That would be a nightmare from which we might never wake up.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278366793340877738.post-60612392955758424492010-07-15T09:18:00.004+01:002010-07-16T23:39:51.366+01:00Mandelson Spins His Own Memoirs<table class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvt_dhgTq-pRaNvM8oW2W34XYOXzaX_tFxL-KiW_xWLDvp3lZJOmf_iAsy2kSm-YrLEJKcH7xyj28sYoy2gudJO1PQUYbA_wVRyeEfCuKEYpPnhf3jY2VGC-frsUqEM2uoMFi5J8FEHh8/s1600/liars+together.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvt_dhgTq-pRaNvM8oW2W34XYOXzaX_tFxL-KiW_xWLDvp3lZJOmf_iAsy2kSm-YrLEJKcH7xyj28sYoy2gudJO1PQUYbA_wVRyeEfCuKEYpPnhf3jY2VGC-frsUqEM2uoMFi5J8FEHh8/s320/liars+together.jpg" border="0" width="300" height="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">New Labour Spin Twins: currently out-lying each other</td></tr></tbody></table>Hardly surprising, I know, but since they have not been entirely well-received by his own party it was necessary for Mandelson to spin his memoirs for all he was worth upon their publication today in the face of what I predict will be pretty poor sales - and some reasonably tough questioning from Evan Davies this morning.<br /><br />Even so, to hear Mandelson actually trying to spin his own, printed words from his own, conceited book - to hear him attempt the epistemologically impossible and wriggle and squirm as he did so - was a source of some pleasure for me as I battled my way into work through sheets and sheets of West Wales rain.<br /><br />Doesn't he realise we stopped believing anything he says long ago? Davies made the point quite well: something like, don't you think the public will find it quite annoying that only three months ago you were telling them to vote for what you now call a 'dysfunctional' prime minister and party. Mandelson had no convincing answer to that, at least, not convincing enough for any potential readership, I would say.<br /><br />But is this a case of one spin operation too far for the Prince of Spain (<i>sic)</i>? I suppose it's inevitable, actually, that spinners end up spectacularly but stubbornly contradicting themselves. After all, 'spin' is merely a euphemism for 'lie'. And Mandelson, after Alistair Campbell, is the biggest spinner of them all.<br /><br />The only important thing about this book of Mandy's is that it represents the first shot in Labour's latest civil war, a war which, with enough luck, should keep them away from office - and us - for a generation.<br /><div><br /></div><div>So well done he. Sort of.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278366793340877738.post-3583304153592334552010-07-14T16:36:00.003+01:002012-10-10T10:20:23.532+01:00Badger Culling Doesn't Work<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZO4OBznyjZefRQ0AuvbxPGsFhZbLUJDsrJYPcPtrFSVpx7TI9RfVjdSkzlyAAoNffrVSOy_bOJ_OzRBAfJIqGg_1zIhU7-Pp0tmXMBoitERNO265EH3RT61I4Xd0vkIR4t6PXur4iT5k/s1600/badgers+not+guilty.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="149" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZO4OBznyjZefRQ0AuvbxPGsFhZbLUJDsrJYPcPtrFSVpx7TI9RfVjdSkzlyAAoNffrVSOy_bOJ_OzRBAfJIqGg_1zIhU7-Pp0tmXMBoitERNO265EH3RT61I4Xd0vkIR4t6PXur4iT5k/s200/badgers+not+guilty.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Not guilty!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Farmers today have described the suspension of the cull of Pembrokeshire's badger population, ostensibly to combat bovine TB, as a 'disaster for farming', according to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10626933">this report</a>. I'm sorry but I just do not for one moment buy that. The link between bovine TB and badgers is merely accepted wisdom based on, at best, anecdotal and/or coincidental data.<br />
<br />
But even if you refute this strange farmers' reasoning with real evidence, or just subscribe to a different interpretation of existing-though-discrete data points, you are laughed at simply because its not the fashionable view. (Remind you of any other field of 'settled science'?). Furthermore, even if one member of the badger-cow TB camp could spurn the hysterical anti-badgerism, that person would still, without a shadow of a doubt, advocate the boneheaded position 'ah yes, maybe so, but better to be safe than sorry, right?'. Again, this reminds us eerily of another scientific cop out.<br />
<br />
And sorry, but no, it isn't 'better to be safe than sorry' especially in this case because it is very likely that you are, in fact, still ignorant, more vulnerable having been lulled into a false sense of security by the massive badger bloodletting, and with one more innocent native British species of wildlife pushed onto the endangered list as a consequence of pitchforks and burning torches approach to countryside and agricultural management. A lose-lose-lose scenario. And it's pathetic. Why? Well, one South African (?) expert in the field, Martin Hancox, writes:<br />
<blockquote>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Accepted “Wisdom” after 35 years repetition is that badgers are the MAIN Reservoir of TB, and transmission is one-way badger to cow. The Emperor’s New Clothes, no-one apparently can “SEE” that thanks to the cattle TB crisis, the exact opposite is true: cattle are the MAIN reservoir and transmission is 99-100% cow to cow (and spillover to badgers and deer etc).</span></blockquote>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img height="190" src="http://www.badgersandtb.com/pic3.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="320" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Cows give badgers TB!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The rest of his <a href="http://www.badgersandtb.com/">stout defence</a> of <i>Meles meles </i>or Brother Brock is entertaining, quite compelling and well worth the read. Hats off must go not only to him but also to the Liberal Democrat AM, Peter Black, who has helped to halt the cull in Pembroke, and thus, quite possibly (since Pembroke was intended as some kind of trial), the rest of Wales, if not Britain. In addition, praise must go to those farmers who, while still strangely believing implicitly in the badger-bovine TB link, have the common sense and conservation-minded decency not to repeat the mistakes of the past.<br />
<br />
You'd think it would have dawned on them why culls have failed for forty years when they have been tried wouldn't you? Well, it hasn't, so we'll have to spell it out for them: IT'S NOT THE BADGERS' FAULT, STUPID!<br />
<br />
Not going to get through to them any time soon though, is it? It's very sad how destructive people can be in their ignorance, but too proud to stop themselves even when the truth is right there staring them in the face. Pity.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278366793340877738.post-3589184614288984462010-07-14T09:19:00.003+01:002010-07-14T11:34:07.487+01:00We Need Troops In Afghanistan, Not Just Timetables<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXEL9lXWBqKGfAIa6_JIqk4wZJ3Yrox8FBKIzOQGRjYsFPTddc5Ds2naYzlKGlhdy-EqcJkQx2Asg4Aj5pCIcvZ83L7YXqhMpPDugIMCZ0UPXktc0hapNuk1m43A3pwIrM71HAkZ3R85A/s1600/British_army+-+lowering+the+flag.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXEL9lXWBqKGfAIa6_JIqk4wZJ3Yrox8FBKIzOQGRjYsFPTddc5Ds2naYzlKGlhdy-EqcJkQx2Asg4Aj5pCIcvZ83L7YXqhMpPDugIMCZ0UPXktc0hapNuk1m43A3pwIrM71HAkZ3R85A/s320/British_army+-+lowering+the+flag.jpg" width="212" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Mission accomplished? Hardly</td></tr>
</tbody></table>I must say, I'm afraid I found Liam Fox's explanations and justifications for the combat drawdown timetable in Afghanistan on Radio 4 this morning rather unconvincing. At one point he started to remind me of various Labour defence ministers (you can pick one) in his attempts to service the argument that the Afghan National Army will somehow be ready to take over from American and British troops in five years' time, despite mounting evidence to the contrary (not least yesterday's tragic rocket attack on British soldiers by an insurgent who had infiltrated the Afghan army) and continuing military reversals (I define losing territory you have just gained from the enemy because you don't have enough men to hold it a 'reversal', don't you?).<br />
<br />
It's not that I don't buy what he says - in most ways, he is far more believable than his Labour predecessors, who spent most of their time lying through their teeth about helicopter numbers, among many other things - it's that things just don't add up given the time frame proposed and troop levels involved. <br />
<div><br />
</div><div>It's been said by a lot of commentators and experts alike that the mission, the war aims, the 'liberation not occupation' philosophy, the 'protecting us at home by fighting terror abroad' ideology, even the timetable that's been announced, are all theoretically sound apart from one, vitally important factor: for all these goals to be accomplished, our troop levels in the short term need to <i>rise </i>substantially; our level of engagement <i>intensify </i>dramatically.<br />
<br />
Under-manning has and, it seems, always will be the British problem in Afghanistan. In order to fulfil the mission we set for ourselves, two or even three <i>divisions </i>of soldiers (around 30,000+ combat troops plus support) should have been committed, and now should be committed, to augment the USA's 10. "But that would cost the country a fortune!" I hear you gasp. Well, war does cost a fortune and if you are not prepared to pay it, then you should pull the hell out immediately because there is no point in staying.</div><div><br />
It was a fortune of our treasure that Gordon Brown was not willing to spend on our behalf to protect our armed forces, so I place the blame squarely at his door for subsequent losses, both the ones caused by a lack of equipment - strength in the air - and the ones caused by insufficient strength on the ground.<br />
<br />
I'm now wondering, though, will the Coalition government try to fight this war on the cheap as well? If they do, then we will lose. </div><div><br />
</div><div>Dr Fox had better wake up to that reality - fast. And so had David Cameron and the Coalition he purports to lead.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278366793340877738.post-39458052905870152662010-07-13T15:16:00.005+01:002010-07-16T23:18:26.891+01:00Another Day, Another BBC Online Pro-Labour Report<table class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHZ59TgVo2vK-xXdTRdRopshjVu__wZ1zd-ngI1OvUeqnatqtPXekFhFBXoz7JVA_MnE8W5s6AJBKmSXzm-SSawu86xShJ4til6pnjRbcBrKMluWBQtZXsFMN4q1maoobM5spDsHFniws/s1600/markelms.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHZ59TgVo2vK-xXdTRdRopshjVu__wZ1zd-ngI1OvUeqnatqtPXekFhFBXoz7JVA_MnE8W5s6AJBKmSXzm-SSawu86xShJ4til6pnjRbcBrKMluWBQtZXsFMN4q1maoobM5spDsHFniws/s1600/markelms.jpg" border="0" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">200K London Superhead? Yer 'avin a larf in't ya?</span></b></span></td></tr></tbody></table>I know, I know - if you wanted to read about how bad the BBC is, you'd make your way to the first rate <a href="http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/">"Biased BBC</a>" blog. But I just can't help it, mainly because every day with relentless regularity, the BBC - particularly its online news incarnation - confirms all my suspicions about it. The chief suspicion, of course - that the BBC is institutionally left wing, pro-Labour and viscerally Tory-hating - can hardly be called a 'suspicion' any more since so much evidence to prove this is right beyond any reasonable doubt has been forthcoming over the years. Lame BBC managerial and editorial statements to the contrary have become a joke.<br /><br />You, as I often do, might be wondering to what lengths the BBC will go in pursuit of its propaganda goals. Well, today we have yet more data to show that "any" is the answer. Consider the farce of Ed Balls' entire education strategy for the past three years, given plummeting literacy and numeracy levels and ever-dumber standards in exams. Consider, for instance, the £10Bn+ that has been frittered away over and above the £30Bn school building and refurbishment programme, now being gallantly corrected by Michael Gove.<br /><br />Consider also today's extraordinary news that a primary school head teacher has been raking in 200 large a year on the back of, we assume, some half-decent administration of a small school, the consequence of another Balls brainchild, "City Challenge". Jackpot! At least for Mark Elms, that is, who, it seems, is some kind of hyper-teacher, a true saviour capable of healing the educationally sick and giving the word-blind sight. At least I assume that's how good he is otherwise why is he troughing eight times more for running a primary school than a close relative of mine retired on after 35 years of highly distinguished teaching and administration in the secondary sector? No one, but no one, in the education industry is <i>that good. </i><i><br /></i><br />It seems the BBC's reporter, one Hannah Richardson, disagrees. I'll quote a bit of it, but you will need to read to whole thing to get a taste of just how extraordinarily one-sided it is - and I mean in favour, by implication, not of the teacher in question, but of the brains behind the ridiculously expensive but "prestigious" (according to Richardson - you betcha, girly! Anyone who can syphon off 200k from the government for running a primary school deserves some kind of admiration) "National Leader of Education" programme, Edward BALLS.<br /><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Times,'Times New Roman',serif;">For this work, at his 400-pupil school, Mr Elms receives a basic salary of £82,417.This is well within the maximum head teacher pay rate of £109,000 for large inner London state schools.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Times,'Times New Roman',serif;">The bulk of the £200,000 pay package he received last year was for the work he did on the London Challenge and City Challenge project over two years.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Times,'Times New Roman',serif;">These schemes support schools in challenging circumstances and have been very successful in improving education in deprived areas of the country.</span></blockquote>Well now, pardon me for complaining, but does this or any of the other half-baked comments she makes in her little piece remotely justify giving one man two hundred grand for running <i>one school, </i>no matter how bad it had become in a Labour-run inner city area. As I said, however, it's important to recognise that that's not the real purpose of this dizzyingly-spun article. The real purpose for this editorially on-message young BBC hackette is to speak out for a very expensive, and highly divisive, Labour schools policy, and therefore, by implication, up for Balls.<br /><br />Gladly, if the rider at the top of the old Department for Children, Schools and Families, website dedicated to this policy from the incumbents is anything to go by, the "City Challenge" policy Ms Richardson seems to like so much, and Mark Elms obviously loves, is now as defunct and kaput as the failed government that spawned it. It goes:<br /><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><b>A new UK Government took office on 11 May. As a result the content on this site may not reflect current Government policy</b>.<br />All statutory guidance and legislation published on this site continues to reflect the current legal position unless indicated otherwise.<br />To view the new Department for Education website, please go to <a href="http://www.education.gov.uk/">http://www.education.gov.uk</a></span></blockquote>I like it! Seems Hannah Richardson was reporting on a dead policy walking, regardless of her motives for doing so. <div><br /></div><div>Time she and the BBC woke up to the fact that Labour is out of office, and that their cosy world of protected political bias is no longer as safe as they might like to believe. Just as Mark Elms can expect no more ridiculous bonuses (or perhaps "bribes" would be a better word) for doing his job in a less than salubrious area of the Smoke, left wing BBC hacks, editors and managers can expect no more sanctuary in a public institution that urgently needs to be given back to the public, or go the way of the "Department for Children, Families, Schools, Pets and Wasting Money", Ed Balls and the entire, trainwreck New Labour Government.<br /><br />Do you think they get that yet? I don't.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com8