You are currently browsing the monthly archive for May 2008.

What is the difference between Pigs and MPs?
Pigs are highly intelligent and of great benefit to mankind.

The House of Commons Chumocracy is nothing, if not resilient. Having spent bucketsful of Taxpayer’s money in trying to conceal details of their expenses from the prying eyes of those selfsame Taxpayers, they have devised a new way of looting the public purse with impunity. Like the Bourbons, they have learnt nothing and forgotten everything.

Instead of behaving themselves and making a fist of trying to live in the same world as their hard-pressed constituents, they are busy devising yet another set of scams to enable them to loot the public purse with facility and impunity. The most important feature of these scams (reports here, here, here, here and here) is that they are all designed to keep the moolah (lots of it) flowing into their bank accounts and to conceal how that moolah is spent.

One wonders just how thick the skull of the average MP is. Do they really think we will let them get away with this?

We now know, just on the basis of the lately-released details of fourteen MPs expenses and on the basis of all the information which has flowed, uncontested, into the public domain in the last twelve months, the extent to which some MPs (by no means all: many MPs, such as the quite excellent Phillip Hollobone, The Huntsman’s very own here in the constituency of Kettering, are models of restraint for their more greedy colleagues) see the public purse as a private piggy bank which can be used to enrich themselves.

That information has demonstrated beyond a peradventure what impelled David Maclean, a member of the House of Commons Chumocracy which looks to ensure that the well of public money available to MPs remains as deep as possible, to try and steer his Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill through Parliament this time last year. This, it may be recalled, was a Bill to exempt from public scrutiny any information concerning MPs expenses and was introduced in clear anticipation of trouble to come.

The Freedom of Information Act requests to see named MPs expenses had then been under way for a while and one can well imagine that Chumocracy already had a fair idea how it would all end up: with a requirement that they disclose everything. Knowing that the public mood was strongly, violently even, against them, they tried to use their privileged position to put themselves above and beyond the law.

That plan has in the meantime come completely unstuck whilst managing to arouse public ire and damage further the reputation of MPs even more. Yet now they come back with yet more proposals to enable them to get their snouts even deeper in the trough.

They must have been stuffing themselves full of ‘stupid’ pills if they really think that this will end the matter.

COMMENT THREAD

Advertisements
May 2007: The Choice of 313 Labour MPs.
Now they try to deny their complicity

Having been out and about last week, seeing a man about a dog, I have, perforce, missed the immediacy of The Ovine & The Bovine on the Labour benches having to contemplate the approach of their trip to the electoral abattoir. The cheering thing is that 313 of these numpties voted for the means of their own destruction.


There is, of course, a long way to go as yet. The Conservative Party still has the ability to lose the next general election by committing some act of stupendous idiocy or by letting Labour back into the game. It could slump back into complacent mode and assume that the result is a foregone conclusion and allow McStalin and his band of seriously nincompoop ministers to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

That said it is hard to see how the singularly over-rated Brown can recover. It is blindingly evident that the British public, which allowed itself to be gulled by Smuggo, the smarmy snake-oil salesman who invented the flatulence that is ‘New Labour’, has now been thoroughly aroused to the price they are having to pay for no significant improvement in education, health and other public services at which Labour has been bunging billions of pounds the last eleven years.

Blair was, of course, a confidence trickster of some skill. He managed to create the illusion that he inhabited the centre ground of British politics and that he and the Labour Party had ‘changed’ from being a bunch of tax & spend redistributive socialists into nice moderate social democrats. He was able to do so by having as his ‘straight man’ the rather weird, geeky and, frankly, scary Gordon as the mobster enforcer who ran his protection racket for him – ‘give us your money or you will have the tories back’ – leaving him to do the nice smiley ‘I’m a straight kind of guy’ routine.

In the last twelve months, however, the British electorate has woken up to the reality of what has been going on since 1997: the looting of the productive part of the nation to feed a fat, wastrel, unproductive client state which has simply blown the lot on living beyond its means. Such is the lesson we have to undergo every few years. Unfortunately it is a lesson which always comes to the same unhappy conclusion, which is: they spend, we pay.

And the paying always goes on until we are broke, which is where we are now, given that the electoral bribes to keep McStalin in office can no longer be afforded out of the kitty but are having to be paid for by sinking the United Kingdom ever further into debt.

The only remarkable thing has been the swiftness and the savagery of the moment of retribution. The people have worked out that Brown is, in fact, a one-trick 1970s era pony who has devised a wide range of ever more crafty and secretive ways to loot the earnings and savings of the public and who spends, spends, spends without caring overmuch on how it is spent or making sure it is spent wisely in the cause of getting value for money.

Now the spin from The Ovine & The Bovine is that our current problems are nothing to do with them and may be laid at the door of events which have happened in far away countries: the US sub-prime mortgage crisis, the rising price of oil, food prices and so forth. If, which is denied, any part of our troubles is home-grown, then it is all the fault of Gordon Brown and has nothing to do with Labour generally nor with them in particular.

As John Rentoul, who is not exactly ill-disposed towards Labour, observes, all but a couple of handfuls of Labour’s MPs are jointly and severally liable for the ordure in which they have landed the nation. Three hundred and thirteen of them signed Brown’s nomination papers last year when they loudly and vociferously proclaimed him to be the towering political figure of the age. They kept on so doing until they he marched them close to the top of the hill of a general election in the autumn of last year.

At that point McStalin, like the bully he is, messed his pants and ran away when he contemplated that which he avoids at all costs: a real fight and the prospect of defeat. In the intervening eight months it has slowly dawned on the dimwits that make up the Parliamentary Labour Party that their hero now has to pop the future national wealth and income at the pawnshop simply in order to find the next bung for the electorate. Unfortunately the electorate has also come to the same conclusion and is suddenly very keen to dispense with such profligacy.

I shall stick my neck out.

Brown is likely to be the PM at the next election: who, after all, being of sound mind and discretion would want to volunteer to drive the tumbrill to the guillotine and to supervise the despatch of large swathes of his or her colleagues (I say ‘her’ as I read one piece last week which pondered on the possibility of Chief Lemon Sucker Harriet Harperson being a candidate: oh please, please, let it be so! Then I will go and put a £1000 on Labour having less than 100 MPs after the next election). He is psychologically incapable of the sort of change that might enable him to persuade the British people that he is the man for the job and he will lead his party to a monumental defeat come 2010. He is, in short, toast.

The worrying thing is that he still has two years in which to inflict yet more grievous damage to the body politic of our nation. He so loathes the Conservative party that he is quite capable of trashing the house before handing over the keys. If that is so, then the Tories must start their next government by giving the British people a detailed account of Labour’s conduct between no and 2010 so that there can be no claims in the future that any successes by the Tories are in fact because of Brown’s prudent handling of the nation’s affairs.

Whilst I remain deeply uneasy at the Butskellite tendencies of David Cameron, the Tories remain a far better option for the nation than the labour Looters who have acquired such a taste for spending other people’s money. The day of their humiliation and utter rejection cannot come quickly enough.

COMMENT THREAD

May 2007: The Choice of 313 Labour MPs.
Now they try to deny their complicity

Having been out and about last week, seeing a man about a dog, I have, perforce, missed the immediacy of The Ovine & The Bovine on the Labour benches having to contemplate the approach of their trip to the electoral abattoir. The cheering thing is that 313 of these numpties voted for the means of their own destruction.


There is, of course, a long way to go as yet. The Conservative Party still has the ability to lose the next general election by committing some act of stupendous idiocy or by letting Labour back into the game. It could slump back into complacent mode and assume that the result is a foregone conclusion and allow McStalin and his band of seriously nincompoop ministers to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

That said it is hard to see how the singularly over-rated Brown can recover. It is blindingly evident that the British public, which allowed itself to be gulled by Smuggo, the smarmy snake-oil salesman who invented the flatulence that is ‘New Labour’, has now been thoroughly aroused to the price they are having to pay for no significant improvement in education, health and other public services at which Labour has been bunging billions of pounds the last eleven years.

Blair was, of course, a confidence trickster of some skill. He managed to create the illusion that he inhabited the centre ground of British politics and that he and the Labour Party had ‘changed’ from being a bunch of tax & spend redistributive socialists into nice moderate social democrats. He was able to do so by having as his ‘straight man’ the rather weird, geeky and, frankly, scary Gordon as the mobster enforcer who ran his protection racket for him – ‘give us your money or you will have the tories back’ – leaving him to do the nice smiley ‘I’m a straight kind of guy’ routine.

In the last twelve months, however, the British electorate has woken up to the reality of what has been going on since 1997: the looting of the productive part of the nation to feed a fat, wastrel, unproductive client state which has simply blown the lot on living beyond its means. Such is the lesson we have to undergo every few years. Unfortunately it is a lesson which always comes to the same unhappy conclusion, which is: they spend, we pay.

And the paying always goes on until we are broke, which is where we are now, given that the electoral bribes to keep McStalin in office can no longer be afforded out of the kitty but are having to be paid for by sinking the United Kingdom ever further into debt.

The only remarkable thing has been the swiftness and the savagery of the moment of retribution. The people have worked out that Brown is, in fact, a one-trick 1970s era pony who has devised a wide range of ever more crafty and secretive ways to loot the earnings and savings of the public and who spends, spends, spends without caring overmuch on how it is spent or making sure it is spent wisely in the cause of getting value for money.

Now the spin from The Ovine & The Bovine is that our current problems are nothing to do with them and may be laid at the door of events which have happened in far away countries: the US sub-prime mortgage crisis, the rising price of oil, food prices and so forth. If, which is denied, any part of our troubles is home-grown, then it is all the fault of Gordon Brown and has nothing to do with Labour generally nor with them in particular.

As John Rentoul, who is not exactly ill-disposed towards Labour, observes, all but a couple of handfuls of Labour’s MPs are jointly and severally liable for the ordure in which they have landed the nation. Three hundred and thirteen of them signed Brown’s nomination papers last year when they loudly and vociferously proclaimed him to be the towering political figure of the age. They kept on so doing until they he marched them close to the top of the hill of a general election in the autumn of last year.

At that point McStalin, like the bully he is, messed his pants and ran away when he contemplated that which he avoids at all costs: a real fight and the prospect of defeat. In the intervening eight months it has slowly dawned on the dimwits that make up the Parliamentary Labour Party that their hero now has to pop the future national wealth and income at the pawnshop simply in order to find the next bung for the electorate. Unfortunately the electorate has also come to the same conclusion and is suddenly very keen to dispense with such profligacy.

I shall stick my neck out.

Brown is likely to be the PM at the next election: who, after all, being of sound mind and discretion would want to volunteer to drive the tumbrill to the guillotine and to supervise the despatch of large swathes of his or her colleagues (I say ‘her’ as I read one piece last week which pondered on the possibility of Chief Lemon Sucker Harriet Harperson being a candidate: oh please, please, let it be so! Then I will go and put a £1000 on Labour having less than 100 MPs after the next election). He is psychologically incapable of the sort of change that might enable him to persuade the British people that he is the man for the job and he will lead his party to a monumental defeat come 2010. He is, in short, toast.

The worrying thing is that he still has two years in which to inflict yet more grievous damage to the body politic of our nation. He so loathes the Conservative party that he is quite capable of trashing the house before handing over the keys. If that is so, then the Tories must start their next government by giving the British people a detailed account of Labour’s conduct between no and 2010 so that there can be no claims in the future that any successes by the Tories are in fact because of Brown’s prudent handling of the nation’s affairs.

Whilst I remain deeply uneasy at the Butskellite tendencies of David Cameron, the Tories remain a far better option for the nation than the labour Looters who have acquired such a taste for spending other people’s money. The day of their humiliation and utter rejection cannot come quickly enough.

COMMENT THREAD

Harman: A dreary, cheerless and
humourless enthusiast for
debauching the family in the
name of equality and choice

Lemon-sucking Harpy Harriet Harperson spent a cheery ten minutes on the rack yesterday as Jon Sopel, who would normally give a fellow lefty a free shy at the coconuts, discovered the joys of pig-sticking on yesterday’s The Politics Show on BBC 1. His quarry was left squirming as Sopel challenged her over Labour’s laughable campaign in the Crewe & Nantwich bye-election.


This campaign, which seems, on the Labour side, to have a curiously 19th. Century feel to it, ought to make most serious Labour politicians cringe. It might make the likes of John Prescott, Dennis Skinner and Ed Balls happy but one suspects that the assembled ranks of The Ovine & The Bovine who have been transported north in flocks and herds to campaign will have found the tone of their campaign deeply embarrassing.


The campaign has foundered for a number of reasons. The Tory candidate has been portrayed as a ‘Tory Toff’ (Andrew Marr said the other day that all Tories are Toffs, which suggests there is not much to be found between those spectacular ears) which spectacularly rebounded on the Socialists. In fact his father has been a hard-working entrepreneur whose wife has presided over a spectacular feat of fostering for which she has been given an OBE. The candidate himself is apparently a hard-working and competent member of The Bar.


The dressing up of a couple of Labour activists in top hat and tails has also back-fired as it was discovered that one of them actually went to Manchester Grammar School, a seat of learning every bit as distinguished as Uppingham, the alma mater of the Tory Candidate. There are a fair few on the Labour front-bench who will have squirmed themselves at that as they contemplated their own exclusive up-bringing. What could be more posh than having an education at Fettes (Smuggo) or Loretto (Alistair Darling) or St Paul‘s Girls’ School (our very own Harriet Harperson), to name but a few?


So the campaign itself is repellent and likely to redound to the utter discredit of McStalin and his chip-on-shoulder party. Bruce Anderson in the Independent has a thought-provoking article in The Independent on this which I commend to you. But the further thought occurs that if this is the tenor of Labour’s campaign, one might observe that, far from upsetting the Tories, they must be absolutely delighted. For does it not indicate that Labour have absolutely nothing to say to the electors of Crewe and Nantwich, not on their own failed policies nor on those proposed by the Tories?


Harperson pointedly avoided defending the campaign. She may be utterly obnoxious but her expensive and privileged public-school education has not entirely deprived her of common sense. The transcript of her observations and the application of the pig-stick by Sopel can be found here. In the second half of the transcript. One gem:

JON SOPEL: ……..We heard there from our North West Political Editor about this toff campaign that you’ve been running and Steve McCabe, who’s running the Labour campaign up there, has talked about the Conservative candidate as being, from an “excessively privileged” background. What is excessively privileged.

HARRIET HARMAN: Well, I think what they’re saying, is they’re just putting a spotlight on you know, the difference between, between the two candidates and you know ? (interjection)

JON SOPEL: I want to know what excessive privilege is.

HARRIET HARMAN: I, I think he’s a multi-millionaire, I mean, you know, those are the, the issues that are being ?

JON SOPEL: Well his parents are, he’s a barrister.

HARRIET HARMAN: Erm.

JON SOPEL: So your parent’s background counts, it’s to be used against you?

HARRIET HARMAN: Well, no, I think it’s his, you know, his own, you know personal situation and we’re putting the focus on our candidate, Tamsin, who is a hardworking mother of five children, and we think would be the very best representative for Crewe and Nantwich.

JON SOPEL: You’re the niece of the Countess of Longford, you went to the poshest girl’s school in the country, which gets the best private school results. Does that make you excessively privileged?

HARRIET HARMAN: Well, I’ve never made any issue about my background and you know, what we’re saying in Crewe is we think that Tamsin is the best candidate and you know, we’re putting the focus on her and how she would be a very good person to be Member of Parliament for Crewe and Nantwich.

Coincidentally she has been opining on the matter of the family. Research (as if sensible people needed it) has shown that children do better when they are brought up in the bounds of a conventional family where there is both a mother and a father who are married. Such research must be anathema to Labour which has done so much to debauch the family in so many ways over the last forty years. Harperson is, of course, one of their chief debauchers and her latest offering will have reinforced her credentials.

Her latest take on ‘the family’ is that it is or ought to be ‘irrelevant’ to government policy. This we always suspected was Labour’s view of society, that instead of promoting the family as the glue of a cohesive and well-ordered society, everything, as Haperson says, should be reduced to the level of personal choice, whatever might be the consequences for our children. This, of course, is merely a logical conclusion of liberal-left belief in the god of self-gratification. That it is deleterious to huge swathes of our youth neither occurs to them nor troubles them, just so long as Labour can be seen to be all things to all men and all women.

The sad thing is that she represents a constituency (Camberwell & Peckham) which is unlikely ever to vote anything other than a Labour MP: if the Tories were to win this seat it would leave perhaps no more than 27 other Labour MPs in Parliament (see Electoral Calculus here and click on ‘Ordered Seats’). She could probably get away with espousing compulsory castration for men and still get elected. Thus she is likely to blight public life for years to come. All we have left to look forward to is the night of the next general election which will be a real seven lemon event for this chief of lemon-suckers.

COMMENT THREAD

Blair must wonder if he will be remembered
as a ‘man much damn’d in a poisonous wife’.

Thursday may well see McStalin with nothing more to do than contemplate his ‘legacy’. Smuggo had the best part of six months to prance around furiously daubing everything he could with ‘Brasso’ in a vain effort to polish his, at considerable expense to the Taxpayer. Now McStalin will have two years to try and buff his legacy up. Expect it to cost us a lot more.


This ‘legacy’ thing is a latecomer onto our political landscape. It is essentially the construct of little men: Margaret Thatcher had no need to worry about her ‘legacy’. ‘Si monumentem requiris, circumspice’, she might say, in echo of Sir Christopher’s Wren’s epitaph in St. Paul’s Cathedral, if you wish to see her legacy, all you have to do is look about yourself.


John Major was in no position to worry about his. His legacy to us was to create the circumstances in which the clock could be turned back for us to have yet another defining (and horribly extended) experience of 1960s & 1970s Socialism, the fruits of which the British Body Politic is about to pass into the sewers of history. He will be remembered for little more than handing over huge swathes of power to the EU without the whole-hearted consent of the British people, presiding over a poorish collection of Tory MPs of whom a fair few proved to be personally flawed and for his hypocritical affair with, of all people, the appalling Edwina Currie.


When it came, however, to Smuggo and his ghastly wife (and just how ghastly she is the woman herself has been demonstrating on a daily basis this week with her ‘penny dreadful’ account of what she is pleased to dignify as her ‘memoirs’), their last six months or so at the pinnacle of British political life were marked by his making an imperial progress around this land and abroad. His thought was to leave in place his ‘legacy’ and to do so he believed he could emulate Churchill who is reputed to have observed “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.”.


In the event it has turned out that his true legacy to us is Gordon Brown and his ten years of fiscal mismanagement in the Treasury. Almost on a daily basis now do the pigeons created by this latest dose of ‘tax & spend’ socialism come home to roost, so much so that we are now so broke that the electoral bribes can no longer be paid for by the immediate dreaming up of yet another stealth tax but has to be found out of borrowing a huge sum of money which merely represents a ‘poison pill’ of a tax rise for the next Conservative Government.


Some legacy! Alhough Blair must daily thank his lucky stars that he got out whilst the going was still apparently good (and doubtless his bank manager offers up a similar prayer every time the Blair Cash Register goes ‘kerching!’), he must get frightfully cross every time he contemplates just how quickly McStalin has utterly trashed the reputation of the ‘New’ Labour project, mostly by making us realise that, in reality, it was actually ‘Old’ Labour mutton dressed up as ‘New’ Labour lamb.


The problem for Blair is that it will in future be impossible to separate the ‘Blair’ legacy from the ‘Brown’ legacy. For ten years they were essentially joined at the hip. Blair let Brown loose, free to prey on the hard-won earnings and savings of the British people and, as long as the money kept coming in to keep the bailiffs of economic reality from the door, Blair let him do much as he pleased. John Prescott says he tried to persuade Blair to give Brown the boot. Blair could have done so whenever he wished but opted to keep this master of ‘tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend’ in office until his last moment as ‘First Lord of the Treasury’ and thus is implicated in the Socialist excesses of the last ten years not as a mere aider and abettor but as a principal in the first degree.


Thus it is left to Mrs. Blair to serve as the dregs of her weaselly husband’s tine of ‘Brasso’. Indeed the name ‘Brasso’ seems so very apt for this deeply unlovely woman and her grasping ways. We should be grateful for her recollections of her husband’s days in office. Not only have they helped, albeit modestly, to reinforce the public’s perception of Gordon Brown as a thoroughly nasty bit of work but they have laid bare the shallowness of the Blair story and the degree to which chippiness, cant, envy and hypocrisy were her guiding lights all these years.


You will, I am sure, remember her visit to His Holiness The Pope when she wore, as if she were Doña Cherie, the wife of a very grand Spanish Grandee, a fine black lace mantilla, parading herself as being at the very least, as Roman as the Pontiff himself. Yet we now know that all the time she was in serious breach of Rule 43 of the Catholic Criminal Code: she and her closet-Catholic husband were using contraception. This we know because of the unhelpful revelation that the most recent Blairette was caused by leaving her means of contraception at home for a visit to Balmoral because she was too po-faced to risk any of the staff seeing it. She says out was out of embarrassment. I doubt it.


More likely she did not want to risk a leak to a Tabloid by an unsympathetic Royal servant which would have revealed then and there what a dreadful hypocrite she was. The only suprising thing is that we are not told whether the offending item was a pack of The Pill, a diaphragm or merely a pack of five Mates for His Smugness. Ribbed? Vanilla & Blueberry flavoured? Easy Fit? I think we should be told.


As for that Blair legacy, well, ‘Si monumentum requiris, circumspice’.


COMMENT THREAD


Powered by ScribeFire.

Blair must wonder if he will be remembered
as a ‘man much damn’d in a poisonous wife’.

Thursday may well see McStalin with nothing more to do than contemplate his ‘legacy’. Smuggo had the best part of six months to prance around furiously daubing everything he could with ‘Brasso’ in a vain effort to polish his, at considerable expense to the Taxpayer. Now McStalin will have two years to try and buff his legacy up. Expect it to cost us a lot more.


This ‘legacy’ thing is a latecomer onto our political landscape. It is essentially the construct of little men: Margaret Thatcher had no need to worry about her ‘legacy’. ‘Si monumentem requiris, circumspice’, she might say, in echo of Sir Christopher’s Wren’s epitaph in St. Paul’s Cathedral, if you wish to see her legacy, all you have to do is look about yourself.


John Major was in no position to worry about his. His legacy to us was to create the circumstances in which the clock could be turned back for us to have yet another defining (and horribly extended) experience of 1960s & 1970s Socialism, the fruits of which the British Body Politic is about to pass into the sewers of history. He will be remembered for little more than handing over huge swathes of power to the EU without the whole-hearted consent of the British people, presiding over a poorish collection of Tory MPs of whom a fair few proved to be personally flawed and for his hypocritical affair with, of all people, the appalling Edwina Currie.


When it came, however, to Smuggo and his ghastly wife (and just how ghastly she is the woman herself has been demonstrating on a daily basis this week with her ‘penny dreadful’ account of what she is pleased to dignify as her ‘memoirs’), their last six months or so at the pinnacle of British political life were marked by his making an imperial progress around this land and abroad. His thought was to leave in place his ‘legacy’ and to do so he believed he could emulate Churchill who is reputed to have observed “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.”.


In the event it has turned out that his true legacy to us is Gordon Brown and his ten years of fiscal mismanagement in the Treasury. Almost on a daily basis now do the pigeons created by this latest dose of ‘tax & spend’ socialism come home to roost, so much so that we are now so broke that the electoral bribes can no longer be paid for by the immediate dreaming up of yet another stealth tax but has to be found out of borrowing a huge sum of money which merely represents a ‘poison pill’ of a tax rise for the next Conservative Government.


Some legacy! Alhough Blair must daily thank his lucky stars that he got out whilst the going was still apparently good (and doubtless his bank manager offers up a similar prayer every time the Blair Cash Register goes ‘kerching!’), he must get frightfully cross every time he contemplates just how quickly McStalin has utterly trashed the reputation of the ‘New’ Labour project, mostly by making us realise that, in reality, it was actually ‘Old’ Labour mutton dressed up as ‘New’ Labour lamb.


The problem for Blair is that it will in future be impossible to separate the ‘Blair’ legacy from the ‘Brown’ legacy. For ten years they were essentially joined at the hip. Blair let Brown loose, free to prey on the hard-won earnings and savings of the British people and, as long as the money kept coming in to keep the bailiffs of economic reality from the door, Blair let him do much as he pleased. John Prescott says he tried to persuade Blair to give Brown the boot. Blair could have done so whenever he wished but opted to keep this master of ‘tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend’ in office until his last moment as ‘First Lord of the Treasury’ and thus is implicated in the Socialist excesses of the last ten years not as a mere aider and abettor but as a principal in the first degree.


Thus it is left to Mrs. Blair to serve as the dregs of her weaselly husband’s tine of ‘Brasso’. Indeed the name ‘Brasso’ seems so very apt for this deeply unlovely woman and her grasping ways. We should be grateful for her recollections of her husband’s days in office. Not only have they helped, albeit modestly, to reinforce the public’s perception of Gordon Brown as a thoroughly nasty bit of work but they have laid bare the shallowness of the Blair story and the degree to which chippiness, cant, envy and hypocrisy were her guiding lights all these years.


You will, I am sure, remember her visit to His Holiness The Pope when she wore, as if she were Doña Cherie, the wife of a very grand Spanish Grandee, a fine black lace mantilla, parading herself as being at the very least, as Roman as the Pontiff himself. Yet we now know that all the time she was in serious breach of Rule 43 of the Catholic Criminal Code: she and her closet-Catholic husband were using contraception. This we know because of the unhelpful revelation that the most recent Blairette was caused by leaving her means of contraception at home for a visit to Balmoral because she was too po-faced to risk any of the staff seeing it. She says out was out of embarrassment. I doubt it.


More likely she did not want to risk a leak to a Tabloid by an unsympathetic Royal servant which would have revealed then and there what a dreadful hypocrite she was. The only suprising thing is that we are not told whether the offending item was a pack of The Pill, a diaphragm or merely a pack of five Mates for His Smugness. Ribbed? Vanilla & Blueberry flavoured? Easy Fit? I think we should be told.


As for that Blair legacy, well, ‘Si monumentum requiris, circumspice’.


COMMENT THREAD


Powered by ScribeFire.

Blair must wonder if he will be remembered
as a ‘man much damn’d in a poisonous wife’.

Thursday may well see McStalin with nothing more to do than contemplate his ‘legacy’. Smuggo had the best part of six months to prance around furiously daubing everything he could with ‘Brasso’ in a vain effort to polish his, at considerable expense to the Taxpayer. Now McStalin will have two years to try and buff his legacy up. Expect it to cost us a lot more.


This ‘legacy’ thing is a latecomer onto our political landscape. It is essentially the construct of little men: Margaret Thatcher had no need to worry about her ‘legacy’. ‘Si monumentem requiris, circumspice’, she might say, in echo of Sir Christopher’s Wren’s epitaph in St. Paul’s Cathedral, if you wish to see her legacy, all you have to do is look about yourself.


John Major was in no position to worry about his. His legacy to us was to create the circumstances in which the clock could be turned back for us to have yet another defining (and horribly extended) experience of 1960s & 1970s Socialism, the fruits of which the British Body Politic is about to pass into the sewers of history. He will be remembered for little more than handing over huge swathes of power to the EU without the whole-hearted consent of the British people, presiding over a poorish collection of Tory MPs of whom a fair few proved to be personally flawed and for his hypocritical affair with, of all people, the appalling Edwina Currie.


When it came, however, to Smuggo and his ghastly wife (and just how ghastly she is the woman herself has been demonstrating on a daily basis this week with her ‘penny dreadful’ account of what she is pleased to dignify as her ‘memoirs’), their last six months or so at the pinnacle of British political life were marked by his making an imperial progress around this land and abroad. His thought was to leave in place his ‘legacy’ and to do so he believed he could emulate Churchill who is reputed to have observed “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.”.


In the event it has turned out that his true legacy to us is Gordon Brown and his ten years of fiscal mismanagement in the Treasury. Almost on a daily basis now do the pigeons created by this latest dose of ‘tax & spend’ socialism come home to roost, so much so that we are now so broke that the electoral bribes can no longer be paid for by the immediate dreaming up of yet another stealth tax but has to be found out of borrowing a huge sum of money which merely represents a ‘poison pill’ of a tax rise for the next Conservative Government.


Some legacy! Alhough Blair must daily thank his lucky stars that he got out whilst the going was still apparently good (and doubtless his bank manager offers up a similar prayer every time the Blair Cash Register goes ‘kerching!’), he must get frightfully cross every time he contemplates just how quickly McStalin has utterly trashed the reputation of the ‘New’ Labour project, mostly by making us realise that, in reality, it was actually ‘Old’ Labour mutton dressed up as ‘New’ Labour lamb.


The problem for Blair is that it will in future be impossible to separate the ‘Blair’ legacy from the ‘Brown’ legacy. For ten years they were essentially joined at the hip. Blair let Brown loose, free to prey on the hard-won earnings and savings of the British people and, as long as the money kept coming in to keep the bailiffs of economic reality from the door, Blair let him do much as he pleased. John Prescott says he tried to persuade Blair to give Brown the boot. Blair could have done so whenever he wished but opted to keep this master of ‘tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend’ in office until his last moment as ‘First Lord of the Treasury’ and thus is implicated in the Socialist excesses of the last ten years not as a mere aider and abettor but as a principal in the first degree.


Thus it is left to Mrs. Blair to serve as the dregs of her weaselly husband’s tine of ‘Brasso’. Indeed the name ‘Brasso’ seems so very apt for this deeply unlovely woman and her grasping ways. We should be grateful for her recollections of her husband’s days in office. Not only have they helped, albeit modestly, to reinforce the public’s perception of Gordon Brown as a thoroughly nasty bit of work but they have laid bare the shallowness of the Blair story and the degree to which chippiness, cant, envy and hypocrisy were her guiding lights all these years.


You will, I am sure, remember her visit to His Holiness The Pope when she wore, as if she were Doña Cherie, the wife of a very grand Spanish Grandee, a fine black lace mantilla, parading herself as being at the very least, as Roman as the Pontiff himself. Yet we now know that all the time she was in serious breach of Rule 43 of the Catholic Criminal Code: she and her closet-Catholic husband were using contraception. This we know because of the unhelpful revelation that the most recent Blairette was caused by leaving her means of contraception at home for a visit to Balmoral because she was too po-faced to risk any of the staff seeing it. She says out was out of embarrassment. I doubt it.


More likely she did not want to risk a leak to a Tabloid by an unsympathetic Royal servant which would have revealed then and there what a dreadful hypocrite she was. The only suprising thing is that we are not told whether the offending item was a pack of The Pill, a diaphragm or merely a pack of five Mates for His Smugness. Ribbed? Vanilla & Blueberry flavoured? Easy Fit? I think we should be told.


As for that Blair legacy, well, ‘Si monumentum requiris, circumspice’.


COMMENT THREAD


Powered by ScribeFire.

Caroline Flint: So keen was
she to smile for the cameras that
she forgot about the document.
Snapped, it told the truth we
we not supposed to know

One thing which citizens want and, save perhaps in the extremes of a major war, to which they are entitled is a sober and accurate assessment of the prospects for our economy and general prospects so that they might make informed decisions on how to deploy their resources. From this Government, whose Head lies to himself every morning in the shaving mirror, we know such will not be forthcoming.

Anyone who doubts such an an assertion need look no further than the briefing note clutched in the hand of Labour Harpy Caroline Flint, photographed with consummate ease as she made her way up Downing Street to attend Cabinet today. The document itself contained the sort of truths from which Labour, well taught by the Master of Mendacity, Alistair Campbell (the most interesting Propaganda Chief since the end of April 1945), carefully strives at all costs and at every turn to exclude us. Instead the truth is to be rendered down like so much fat into a gooey Labour soap.

Thus does Flint remind everyone:

It is vital that at this time of uncertainty, we show that we are on people’s side.

So, it is to be spin, spin, spin until they are dragged, blinking in the sunlight, from Herr Brown’s Bunker in the final days of the New Labour Reich, that happy day upon which the McStalin clique is ferreted out to face the music which will be played to them long, loud and hard by the vengeful masses.

Instead of reminding themselves of the Party Line on how to keep the ravening mob from the door, might not this sentence have proceeded, for example, thus:

“It is vital that, at this time of uncertainty, that we take bold positive steps to remedy the problem. To that end we should proceed to a programme of tax cuts and radical deregulation designed to breathe new life into the economy so that the worst effects of the housing crisis which our policies have in large part created might be mitigated”.

Instead Flint and the rest of the crew take the position that, whatever else happens, they must make sure the public do not think for a nanosecond that they are responsible in any measure for this mess.

For mess it is.

Hitherto the line peddled by this bunch of mendacious nincompoops has essentially been that all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds: under the guidance of of Our Dear Leader our economy has been built with characteristics of a nuclear bunker and will be able to withstand whatever the problems caused by a lot of foreigners can throw at us.

Now, however, the truth is set out in uncompromising terms.

Given present trends, they [house prices] will clearly show sizeable falls……later this year – at best down five per cent – 10 per cent year on year.

Adding that house repossessions are on the up, that house building is stalling, Ms. Flint observes:

We can’t know how bad it will get.

Now the problem with the so-called “global credit crunch” began, as every fule kno, late last summer and first manifested itself here with the collapse of Northern Rock. It might be thought that at that moment the government as a whole would have set itself to the task of making plans to deal with and to mitigate the effects of the problem. Plainly that is not the case:

But we need to plan now to put in place effective measures against the risk that it does get worse and to prepare for the upturn.

“Need to plan now”? What have they all been doing since September? Why have they not been planning effective measures before now?

The Revealed and Revealing
Document: The Truth that The Numpties
would rather you did not know


The answer, we know, is all too simple. This is a cretinous and incompetent shower who could not individually or collectively change a light bulb, let alone organise a bibulous experience in a brewery. As for governing the country, they could no more do that than touch their right elbow with their right hand.

All this on the day when the Consumer Prices Index went up by 20%, from 2.5% last month to 3.0% this. Wallop:another blow to the pockets of the hard-working British public.

There is a useful account from Andre Lillico on ConservativeHome on how the CPI was adopted by McStalin and has turned into no more than a self-deluding instrument which has led him to believe his own propaganda. Meanwhile the rest of us in the real world, who actually do the shopping and have to pay the real prices demanded by supermarkets, have a fair idea that the true rate of inflation is way, way ahead of that promulgated by the CPI.

On another front Alistair Darling has announced that he is going to raise personal tax allowances for basic rate taxpayers by £600 – meaning anyone earning up to about £41,350 will gain £120 this year. At the moment it is unclear whether this is a one-off for 2008/09 only or whether it is permanent. If the former then George Osborne’s reaction is spot on:

Let no-one be fooled why you are making this statement today – not because you wanted to…. but because this divided, dithering and disintegrating government are panicking in the face of the Crewe and Nantwich by-election.

Quite.

COMMENT THREAD

Powered by ScribeFire.

Gordon Brown: a troubled and
troubling man given to appalling
outbursts of ungovernable temper

Frank Field is, most would think, a sober and sensible individual, unlikely to be given to flights of fancy. His observations on the character of McStalin, therefore, should be taken seriously. Whilst it was almost certainly McStalin who was responsible for stopping Field from ‘thinking the unthinkable’ on welfare reform, what he said of Our Dear Leader has been corroborated on all sides this weekend.

It is this corroboration that enables us to dismiss any notion that Field is consuming copious cold dishes of revenge. Instead he is articulating much that we mere mortals already fear in our hearts and Labour Lickspittles deny implausibly.

Firstly there is the issue of the Prime Minister’s temper. We have had some hints of this of late – the throwing of numerous mobile phones at the wall comes to mind. Of this Field says that he was on numerous occasions the victim, describing Brown as being prone to ‘tempers of indescribable rage……he shouts with rage’. In any person holding a position of responsibility this would be a matter, at the very least, for concern. In the man responsible above all others for governing the country it is an alarming and deeply troubling characteristic, particularly in a man whose finger is on the button of the UK’s nuclear deterrent.

Then there is the evident unhappiness of the man. When he sloped on to the set with Fern Britton the other day, I noted that, the weird applied smile apart, his body language spoke volumes as to the state of this oddball: he oozed unhappiness from every pore. Frank Field had this to say: ‘the awful fact is that he is unhappy in himself…..it is that the Prime Minister looks so unhappy in his own body and it conveys the most dismal message to people.’ So the nation will begin to have this question: is he sufficiently well to withstand the rigours of office? Andrew Marr, of course, asked him to his face whether he was all right. McStalin insisted he was but it was the fact of the asking of the question that was noteworthy, more than the inevitable answer.

Labour Loyalists, most of whom would support a sheep if it happened to be elected leader of the party, continue to swear that they do not ‘recognise’ this view of Gordon Brown, suggesting they have been wilfully closing their eyes to this man’s personality defects for years. But before this man came to power as Prime Minister there were numerous people who went into print to hint at his psychological problems. Yet three hundred and thirteen of the Bovine & Ovine signed their monikers to his nomination papers. Each is individually and collectively reponsible for allowing this man of sometimes ungovernable temper to be let loose upon us as Prime Minister and must, therefore, be judged accordingly.

I have believed from the moment that Brown cancelled the elction in the autumn that he was done for. I hold to that, though I doubt he will be replaced unless Labour goes into a complete panic after a seminal loss at the Crewe & Nantwich bye-election. Who, let us face it, would volunteer to lead Labour beyond the wilderness except perhaps someone like Jack Straw who might be asked to hold the ring until better times return?

In the end it will be the economy that is the stake through his heart. His reputation was built on the notion that he was a prudent steward of the national finances. That, of course, was so much hooey, a fact that is now becoming plian as a pikestaff as we discover that the economy has not been tuned to withstand the hard times. Immediately it is the galloping of inflation that will undo him. He has been keen to use the Consumer Prices Index as his crutch. Meanwhile in the real world inflation has been far above that and for the essentails of life, the things we have to pay for to keep food on the table, a roof over our head and to transport us to our place of work, that has all risen at a rate far above the massaged figures that Brown has tried to gull us with but has ended up gulling himself.

Of this I wrote in December. The smell of death is now upon him: the vultures know this and have begun to gather on the rocks. He is likely to linger until, as Field said, for another two years and two weeks, to wit to the very legal end of this Parliament. Then we can remove him and as many of those who supported his elevation so enthusiastically as we can, flushing them all into the sewer of history.

Tony Blair, meanwhile, will be thanking his lucky stars he got out whilst the going was still reasonable. We have not forgotten him, though: he appointed Brown and allowed him to stay in office ten years. He must bear equal reponsibility for the state in which we now find ourselves.

The destruction of our economy in the late part of this decade will be Blair’s true legacy and thus will history remember him.

COMMENT THREAD

Powered by ScribeFire.

Laocoön was killed after
attempting to expose
the ruse of the Trojan Horse

by striking it with a spear.

In the aftermath of Labour’s humiliation at the polls last week, McStalin has been putting himself about on the broadcast media. And a disconcerting experience it is too. He did a soft interview with Fern Britton on ITV’s Good Morning’. It is worth watching, if only to reinforce the sense that Gordon Brown is, in fact, a rather weird individual. Meanwhile attention begins to focus on Cameron.

The most interesting snippet of the week is a brief but undoubtedly intriguing aside concerning Conservative policy on the EU contained in a Spectator Coffee House session of reader’s questions to David Cameron:


That Pesky Lisbon Treaty

* Will you put the EU constitution, er sorry EU reform treaty to a public referendum? If that referendum rejects the treaty will you withdraw from it? (Mike, 9.27am)
* What is the Tory policy on Europe? (batman, 11.58am)
* What will he do with the Lisbon Treaty if the tories win the general election after it has already entered into force? (Francisco Mendes da Silva, 12.00pm)

Cameron is studiously tight-lipped on this. Any discussion could draw the party into a maelstrom at a time when unity is needed. But one theory, which I have now heard from two Shadow Cabinet members, is that the Conservatives would insert in their manifesto a pledge to renegotiate the terms of Britain’s membership of the European Union and then hold a referendum on the result. It would be a herculean task, which would take years. But when I put the proposal to Mr Cameron, I did not receive the denial I expected.

CAMERON: “These suggestions are options for how to deliver what I’ve spoken about,” (ie, his promise not to let “things rest”) “I am not going to comment favourably or unfavourably on any option like that until we are ready to do so.”

* Please ask David Cameron what he will do about the Lisbon Treaty? and will he give us the referendum he promised? (Elizabeth Elliot-Pyle, 2.53pm)

CAMERON: “We haven’t had the Irish referendum, it is still live in the capitals of Europe, if there was an election in the next few months it would still be possible to have a referendum. What I mean is if the Treaty goes through and it is passed in Westminster and Brussels and we wanted to come forward with our proposals for how we would rectify that and what we want to do about it and we will do that in time in our own time, if it does become ratified by every country in Europe. But I’m a great believer that, you know, my deadlines are to get the decisions right, to think them through carefully, to make sure that the policy works and to have it all in place for the next election whenever that is. Other people’s deadlines are rather different and I have to work to my deadlines rather than other people’s and that’s the only way to deal with it. “


The interesting bit is in the editorial aside to the effect that the Tories may insert a pledge in their manifesto “to renegotiate the terms of Britain’s membership of the European Union and then hold a referendum on the result.”

If true, this would represent a major development. I say “if true” since one has to approach any such offering with the same amount of care which one gives to any assertion of fact made by Gordon Brown, to wit, with a bowl of salt to hand with which to take a pinch.

Until such a pledge appears in print, I believe in it just as much as I believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, suspecting that the Tories are perfectly capable of saying that sort of thing now to garner support from all shades of Eurosceptic opinion and then to back away at the last minute.

Let us, however, take it at face value and as representing something which will happen.

Firstly we must note that Cameron is still refusing to go much beyond the next immediate step in the EU-wide ratification process. Plainly he is looking at the possibility of the Irish refusing to toe the party line which would get him (and Gordon Brown) off something of a hook. Getting a clear statement of Tory policy on the EU is going to be a process of extracting blood from a stone, I fear.

It is the anonymous report of a prospect of renegotiation of our relationship which intrigues. If this happens it represents a very real opportunity to start the process of extracting ourselves from the deadly grip of the great EU python which would suffocate us and thus afford us a chance to avoid the fate of Laocoön and His Sons.

Such a debate could not but encompass the option of complete withdrawal from the EU (otherwise it is no debate at all). It may be that that is something which Cameron has in mind: being inherently suspicious of the real purpose of allowing such a debate to take place, it may well be that the intention is to allow such a debate but so to conduct it that, whatever else happens, we remain locked into the EU, this time with the backing of a referendum which would put the issue beyond us for a generation.

Thus we must begin to work on the argument for withdrawal now to as to be best placed to influence and win the argument and ensure that we are best placed to get a majority on any question of withdrawal on a future referendum.

Now therefore comes the moment when UKIP supporters are going to have to make up their minds. UKIP has no prospect of winning a seat, let alone of becoming a significant force at Westminster. The only potential anti-EU show in town is the Conservative party. We need their votes to ensure a government at Westminster which is committed to holding this vital debate and referendum and thus we must appeal to them to vote tactically at the next General Election. That this would seriously diminish UKIP in terms of votes, there ought to be consolation in maintaining a significant presence in the EU Parliament after its 2009 elections.

If this prospect is a real one, then we must start now to prepare our case for having a withdrawal question on the ballot paper. Our case for withdrawal is a sound one but we shall be faced with all the usual bogey stories and must thus marshal our facts and support starting now. We may only get this one chance.

COMMENT THREAD


Powered by ScribeFire.

Blog Stats

  • 3,807 hits
May 2008
M T W T F S S
« Apr   Jun »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031