Wednesday, 31 October 2007
Johnathan Freeland has had a go, (hat tip, Tim Worstall) but I do disagree with his conclusions, so this is still something I will attend to at some stage.
I think £50m is outrageous even. It is no good having the brass neck to ask for more and then bleat about your sensitivity and working "for your daughter" and - this really irritate me - mentioning "charidee werg" later, as if a single penny more than £50m is going to make the SLIGHTEST difference to her or that volunteer work excuses a grab at unearnt cash. Fighting over money, on the other hand, is likely to cause her harm.
This "something for nothing" mindset coupled with "I do no wrong and all you are to blame" attitude is reflected in the government and how it treats people.
Tuesday, 30 October 2007
Inaction on pay profligacy
of inane scribblers only embeds child poverty
Labour's failure to face down the forces driving
Tuesday October 30, 2007
When the history of New Labour comes to be written, a great mystery
to idiots like me will be why they did nothing about the unprecedented explosion of top pay that happened on their watch. The findings of yesterday's Income Data Services' annual report on chief executive pay are simply bewildering to idiots like me . Labour's silence on the subject mystifies idiots like me its supporters, most of its venal, self serving and equally idiotic backbenchers and not a few of its similarly "special" ministers.
In the nervous early days, shedding "tax them till the pips squeak" memories, Peter Mandelson was deliberately counter-intuitive
for idiots like me with his louche remark about being "intensely relaxed about my people getting filthy rich". But why has the breathtaking acceleration of top pay been met with the same studied indifference ever since? It took the Tories saying it first for Labour to dare to take utterly token action on non-domiciles, taxing them a nominal £30,000 flat rate.
Here are the latest figures: chief executives in the FTSE 100 have doubled their earnings in the last five years, to average £3.17m - up 16.1% in the last year. In the next rank of companies, FTSE 350 directors' salaries rose by an average of 9.3% last year. Add in bonuses and average pay rose by 20%. Chief executives' pay in the mid-250 FTSE companies rose by 27.2% to average £1.43m. The TUC's
communist leveller Brendan Barber says of these figures: "Top directors have no shame. It beggars belief that they are somehow working twice as hard as five years ago."
Guardian readers, familiar with our financial pages'
excrement excellent annual survey of boardroom pay, are not the only ones to be regularly envious shocked. A Financial Times Harris poll found 60% of the public think the government should cap the earnings of senior executives. A poll of parasitical scumbags human resources managers conducted by Incomes Data Services last month found more than half of them thought executive directors were paid more than they were overpaid and that differentials are too wide between execs and HR Managers . These are the parasitical interfering do-nothings professionals who always fail to see the knock-on effects at first hand.
When pressed, ministers pretend what happens up there in the tiny rarefied group of mega-earners doesn't impact on anyone else
and they are right, but I don't want to admit that cos otherwise I cannot re-visit this tired, self-serving bankrupt stance YET again . It's the politics of envy to even think about it: I it may be distasteful but I'm it's not important. Yet as parasiticl interfereing do-nothings human resources managers know very well, envy pay is about much more than money. The psychology of envy pay is about a sense of covetousness fairness, about accepting a self-determined and aggrandized fair place in the cockroach midden pecking order above all in relation to others. It becomes a problem if we are not at the top raking in the cash year after year top echelons reward themselves many multiples of the essential and unappreciated Guardian collumnists rest.
The IDS report
which I am now conveniently going to use shows FTSE 350 directors' salaries increased by three times their own shop-floor wages. How many years can that continue before my knicker the elastic snaps? Once, all joined the same disasterous, collectivized pension schemes: now it's gold-plated pensions for managers with "unaffordable" closed schemes for staff who have been brainwashed into thinking a pension was "free" .
When boardroom pay leaves planet Earth, the next rank of
Guardian scribblers senior managers feel they deserve to overtake catch up. It's not surprising that with CEO bonuses now worth 100% of salary, Guardian scribblers senior managers reckon they did most of the heavy lifting to achieve national prosperity, social justice and equality it, so IDS finds they are demanding "incentive" schemes. And then politicians middle managers ask if they didn't contribute too. The truth is that none of us them may contribute to a company's "success", which I am going to ignorantly assert with my typical lack of financial awareness is measured in share prices that float myseriously to imbeciles like me up and down. Bonuses that hit an epic £14m last year may drop this year, but not because managers or CEOs are doing their job less well. Sub-prime mortgage lending in the US is hardly their fault. This will show that the "performance-related" bonus culture is nonsense. So why doesn't the government interfere where we closet GOSPLAN communists and levellers say so?
reality we are trying to ignore myth is that executives would flee, but you can count the number of foreigners running UK companies on my IQ your fingers - and the number of Brits running large companies abroad (assert another nonsense ehre) is even fewer: the low productivity of UK Stater sector organs business makes them not in great demand but via taxation we can force pepole to pay for them regardless. But a few mobile high-fliers act as convenient cover for my twisted hatred and envy all. Alas These salaries rise by mutual agreement: every company wants the best people it can afford boardroom pay in the top quartile. This is a pay inflator that will accelerate faster and faster because I, in my naivety think it has no brakes. It accelerates all percieved inequality according to idiots like me , as (insert post hoc fallacy here) the IDS study finds that in 2000 chief executives earned 62 times the pay of their average employees, but now they pay themselves 104 times more.
In that climate, how does the government imagine it's going to nail public pay down to 2% every year until 2010
when I will do all I can to make people agitate for more? That is expected to be half the average pay delete increase as it is less emotive in the private sector while conveniently forgetting the pay inflation and 900,000 extra public sector parasites since 1997 . There will be trouble - and the government should be seen to deserves it if they continue to take such a non-interventionist cavalier attitude towards overall pay structures comrades .
Out of control
Guardian scribblers top pay in the private sector should matter to the Treasury because it infects the public sector and we can't have that. Why is the cabinet secretary now paid considerably more (£220,000) than the Town Clerk of Britain prime minister (£187,000) why why o please? It's a plum prestige job that needs no bribery, and leads to rich jobs for the boys afterwards. Does the Town Clerk chief executive of Bradford need more than the PM? Bringing failed private sector people in now infects failed public pay scales, as lower ranking arrivals on an outrageous £300,000 report to permanent secretaries on a no less outrageous £170,000. (However there is plainly a rare genuine market for head of the nuclear decommissioning authority: oh damn, my caps lock is broken... no one applied for this toxic chalice at £80,000 so it's now been advertised at £200,000). But being director general of the BBC is not toxic: just that the BBC IS toxic everyone wants the power and control over minds it, so why pay a total package of more than me £788,000 - let alone cabinet minister rates for scores of middling BBC managers? (And couldn't they take a pay cut in sympathy with those about to lose their jobs? hahah even I don't believe this twaddle, as I would not ) Sir John Bourn's downfall is a classic example of us socialist hypocrites how private excess makes lefty public people lose their financial bearings.
For Labour to refuse to give any leadership on this is an incomprehensible lacuna
to envy-driven harridans like me : the national psychology of pay affects me everyone. Yesterday the government set up a new child poverty unit: Ed Balls and ...oh dear god... Peter Hain, the two bumbling ministers involved, know their 2010 half-way mark to abolishing child poverty will be missed by miles on its present trajectory so no change there then, otherwise I would not have reams to write and armies of interfering social workers would be out of casework . Barnardo's are joining in - but their director, Martin Narey, wonders what they can do with no extra money like a good socialist. Only 48p a week extra was taken from taxpayers was pissed down the drain that is went to child tax credits this year, distorting the market for subsidising low-paid jobs. The bigger question is this: how can I delude everyone into thinking that Labour could ever abolish child poverty if they dare not (insert my disingenuous, fraudulent, irrational and self serving meme here) face down the underlying forces fracturing pay scales all the way through and accelerating the country into ever greater inequality?
His Grace (hat tip, DK) has put up a very good post on the topic of the Conservative Muslim Forum§ document outlining policy recommendations.
I will not repeat or attempt to duplicate what is a fine post and followup by DK.
Regardless of if the suggestions/demands are rejected or not, the fact is the think tank actually had the brass neck to put them forward. Conservatives be warned, this document should be a wake-up call to you that you have a fifth column inside your walls. An entire section is liable to collapse and crumble, nay, openly support enemies of freedom and democracy. Maybe it is a good trick - handing rope to them - but I do not have such faith in the wisdom of the Conservative Leadership. No sir.
However, I just want to highlight one paragraph which is interesting, even more so that other more open statements. Here it is:
24. The report states "It should be the aim of a Conservative Administration to help bring about the right conditions for a move from a collective approach ledLook at that again. They concur that it is a working definition. They do not say it is something to achieve, aim for, promote or support. They are "content to adopt" the meaning, eh? Why thankyou! Just the meaning. Not the spirit. Not the act. This speaks volumes as to who is behind pulling the strings.
through community organisations to one in which individuals take responsibility
for their role in society and participate fully in it. This is a key aspect of full
integration." We concur and are content to adopt this as a working definition of
§ Why is it they just love/crave/covet terms like this? At least they did not try and pretend to have any legal authority, like the MCB.
Monday, 29 October 2007
"The abusive attitude I endured last November I forgot about and I forgave, but I really do believe that British ministers and parliamentarians should be afforded the same respect and dignity at USA airports that we would bestow upon our colleagues in the Senate and Congress.No, Shahid, the British Ministers and Parliamentarians should be afforded the same respect and dignity that ALL British citizens get. Improve our lot and your lot will improve. That is how it works. As long as you and your kind get special privs and are cushioned, the longer and harsher our lot will be. Your attitude speaks volumes for the ladder-kickers and disingenuous upstarts like you that infest our government at this time.
"Obviously, there was no malice involved but it has to be said that the USA system does not inspire confidence."
Friday, 26 October 2007
I was going to fisk this, and I might later, but I saw an exellent post here which I will share with you below. It sums up my feelings and positon.
The aim of our British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities will be to clarify and explain the obligations which come with rights,"
Dear God Jack, you don't understand what a Right is, do you? Go and read the American Constitution and Bill Of Rights. The rights they enshrine are *protection FROM government* not *responsibilities TO government*. Can you not see the difference? Can you not see how different these modern tranzi rights are, which are obligations on the citizenry and promises of bigger government? Is that beyond you?
All we need in this country is a robust protection from the totalitarian-inclined elitists in power. We do not need, nor require, a list of obligations we should owe the government. You are not our rulers, you are our servants, and we demand limitations on you forgetting which you are- as you have already done.
People, do not be fooled. These control freaks have no instinct for liberty, no concept of what it means. Their only interest in producing this bill is to trap the citizens, forever, in a cage of obligations and impositions, to reduce individual freedom and responsibility, and to change that fundamental of British liberty- the concept that one may do all which is not specifically prohibited. Instead, they would change our society (as they already have, in so many ways) to one in which you may do only that for which you are specifically authorised.
This Bill will be oppression in liberty's clothing, an underhanded tactic to officially make the citizens the property of, and supplicants to, the self-interested elite in power. It will be a licence for them to impose upon every aspect of life, and end forever the principle of the private person. It will be nothing but a charter for social engineering and even greater expansion of the bloated oligarchy surrounding the government with snouts a-troughed.
Let us prepare to fight it, block it, prevent it, until we can throw these prim, miserablist social engineers out of power at the ballot box.
Posted by Ian B on October 26, 2007 4:32 AM and again hopefully. This really does deserve another airing. Posted by Anne Palmer on October 26, 2007 3:35 PM
Thanks, Anne Palmer, for repeating IanB's post. A good, swift, but solid kick in the goolies for Uncle Jack. Top drawer, IanB!
Oh, and just another, in passing:
Your Government is the gravest threat to my freedom since Adolf Hitler.
Posted by Michael Rigby on October 26, 2007 9:55 AM
I originally planned to post on this when "Phase 1" was launched, but I thought I'd hold off until "Phase 2", to see how it went.
They are now pushing the meme "Islam is Peace", but peace is an odd term and actually we know that Islam is actually "submission" and not personal, but collective, and you are only permitted to submit to a predetermined entity and it must the be the same one. It is the same kind of peace that Hitler pushed, i.e. the "once everyone has submitted, then we will have peace" kind of peace.
The videos at the new site are also disappointing in that they contain, almost without exception, only tightly hijab'd women. Not a single uncovered head. Now, it is anyone's personal choice to wear hijab, but to have exclusively rigorously hijab'd women then say this is "moderate" does tend to promote the meme that hijab is both moderate and near universal amongst moderate Muslims. Some may say that is a fraudulent and misleading meme. I have significant difficulty in believing that the group is truly moderate, but lets see how it progresses before drawing final conclusions.
So, on to the underlying aims which are not openly shown on the new site, but previously existed on the Muslims for Britain site...
Regrettably, a group who may be well-meaning, have got off to a bad start with a campaign that the BBC says is an anti-terror campaign. Yes, it could well be anti-terror, but frankly it seems the terror they are anti is not the same kind that most people in Britain would think and ironically appears to have been hijacked along the way.
Lets take a look:
..Whoever kills an innocent soul.. it is as if he killed the whole of mankind, And whoever saves one, it is as if he saved the whole of mankind”This opening has two main issues. First, it is a quotation from the Koran. If you want to foster good relations with everyone in the UK, using a quotation from the Koran is not the ideal way. Most people do not believe it at best and at worst some consider it a man-made terrorist handbook. Secondly, we have the word 'innocent' - alas, to an Islamist (though not necessarily to a Muslim) it only refers to pious Muslims - the infidel is never an innocent to an Islamist. Of course this is a quotation, so hopefully elsewhere the statements can clarify and remove this obvious mumble-swerve.
[The Holy Quran, 5:32]
The Muslim communities across Britain are united in condemning the attempted bombings in London and Glasgow.This is a good start, but who asked them to speak for everyone? "I didn't vote for you".
We are united with the rest of the country at this critical time and are determined to work together to avert any such attacks targeting our fellow citizens, property and country.
Islam forbids the killing of innocent people.Alas, we have 'innocent' again. They are reinforcing the fact that Islam forbids the killing of pious Muslims. It says nothing of infidels, and, by omission, it speaks volumes. I do wonder if many in such groups are sincere, but one or two "moles" push this term so as to get themselves off the hook, as it were, with the radicals and their ideology. Off their hook, but onto mine.
We reject any heinous attempts to link such abhorrent acts to the teachings of Islam.Reject, but is it a valid link? I think there is a valid link. The use of the word reject is interesting, as it does not require proof. A refutation would be better, but that is hard to do.
• British Muslims should not be held responsible for the acts of criminals.Oh...ok, now we have rapidly switched away from anti-terror and are now talking about the Muslim community. No mention that the British community and nation should not be held responsible for the acts of criminals or governments. This is disappointing. The British people are routinely held "responsible" for acts like the Iraq war or the plight of Palestinians.
• We commend the government for its efforts to respond to this crisis calmly and proportionately, and welcome both the Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s and the Home Secretary’s emphasis on the need to distinguish between the overwhelming majority of British Muslims who are law-abiding citizens and a few criminals who seek to inflict harm and terror on our country.Again, focus on just the Muslim community.
• We express support for the emergency services who are working tirelessly and courageously to avert these attacks and ensure the safety of our country.Seconded.
• We urge the media and all politicians to continue to maintain the values of our open society, free from prejudice and discrimination, sustained by tolerance and mutual respect for all.It is not the media that is the biggest risk, but elements inside the Muslim community. You guys are looking in the wrong place. Alas, the statement is about ensuring the Muslim community benefits, not about condemning the ranting and preaching that creates such "home grown" terrorist muppets or might provoke reaction. There has hardly been any reaction, yet what has been done to kick out the troublemakers from within the Muslim community?
• We call on our government to work towards a just and lasting peace in areas of conflict around the world and to take the lead in helping eliminate the injustices and grievances that foment division and nurture violence.If you look closely and squint, you can almost see the words "Iraq" and "Palestinian" in there. Here it is, a coded message, a mumble swerve to weasel out of, to absolve responsibility by saying that, in effect, such acts of terrorism are triggered and excused by other situations abroad. The implicit message of simultaneous blame and excuse is there with the use of "injustices" and "grievances". Hop-skip-jump the aims move rapidly on from acts of terror on British soil, to only Muslim benefits and then dragging in external conflicts and demanding these are fixed "or else".
The unity of our society must be maintained and we must not allow divisions to emerge between us. We must remain friends, neighbours and colleagues, and take Britain forward as one nation – towards a Greater Britain.Seconded. The best way to keep up divisions is to ghettoize, to import non-English speaking religious and "community" leaders and to not face up to the facts. As an example, 8% of imams preaching in the UK were actually born here. Only 6% speak English as a first language and 45% have been here for less than 5 years. This means religious leaders are unlikely to be a force for integration, let alone toleration. It might be a good place to start. Since this came out in June IIRC, not much has been done to sort out the Muslim camp from within.
Alas, this release, though it has a couple of good statements, on the whole is about allowing the Muslim community to not do anything and to put the burden upon the rest of the UK to not react but accommodate. It is a form of passive-aggression. It is inward-looking, self-serving and self-centred. The terrorist acts are being used as a ratchet to further lock in special treatment and the use of kid gloves. It must be rejected.
The grouping have a 3-phase plan.
First is the above, which they say is "Full page advertisements, in the leading tabloid and broadsheet papers have been placed following the attempted bombings in London and Glasgow to clearly state the Muslim community's unequivocal condemnation of these terrorist attacks.".
If you want this to be equivocal, I suggest you guys drop the use of the word 'innocent' and begin to say 'British population'.
The second moves away from the pretense of anti-terrorism "Phase two aims to continue to resonate this message through advertising on bill boards, London buses, and the tube network. Part of this phase focuses on the positive contribution of Muslims in the UK.".
So they will advertise propaganda. I hear a Trojan Horse rumbling up the hill. This has now started with the "Islam is Peace" campaign.
The third is even more direct: "Phase III involves leveraging on the first two phases to engage our diverse communities to further interact constructively working together to fight the diseases of Islamophobia and racism that are a cancer in our society. In order to leverage, maintain, and sustain the impact from phase one and two there will be development of sites called "Café Islam" in partnership with high profile Mosques in the UK. The essence behind these sites would be to have permanent Islamic exhibitions, IT interactive displays and a resource directory set out in a relaxed and easily accessible environment. This is designed to be a mechanism to promote discussion and community cohesion, to improve race relations, and to foster tolerance and understanding of the diversities in our communities.".
Here we have it revealed. The true purpose of this is not to stop terrorism by misled, fanatical crazy Muslims, but to push for a focus on the fake, fraudulent concept of "Islamophobia". The best rejection of this term I have seen can be found here. There is no disease of Islamophobia in the UK. You cannot be phobic of something that is clearly proactively against your best interests - i.e. radical Islamism. This project has revealed itself to be about propaganda hand-in-hand with a determined attempt, in advance of that, to de-fang and neuter any debate or exposure of the flaws and inadequacies of Islam using Islamophobia as the cover. Most people in Britain would rather NOT know if someone is a Muslim or not and would rather not know that ANY religious grouping existed. It is in the British nature to keep religion private and personal. Muslims again want to ram their world down peoples' throats. Bad idea.
If Muslims truly want to foster diversity and tolerance, I suggest they really do condemn the terrorists who act in the name of Islam and ridicule them, too. They need to ensure that the communities will not harbour such people but, rather, denounce and expose them.
The Chinese have a saying "A man must silence his own dogs".
In addition I think it would be worthy to have all Mosques managed by mixed-sex committees. I think the presence of women will severely reduce the scope for radical bearded crazies to sneak in and spread their psychotic, and dare I say it, almost masturbatory poison.
Thursday, 25 October 2007
There also seems to be the suggestion of deportation, but I doubt if all the issues have been sorted out or enough hearts bled over this yet.
The development is sinister and dangerous in my view.
Firstly, it opens up the system to accusations that either foreigners are treated worse or locals worse. Due to the resources available and the limitless energy of the self-loathers, I suspect the State will just make sure that foreign national jails are consistently better. Its easier. Far less 'action groups' and QANGOs out there to worry about. Net result: foreign prisoners will get better conditions and treatment.
Secondly, pound to a penny we will see calls for "Muslim" or "Islamic" jails. Once this is established, these will need to be better than BOTH the foreign AND indigenous jails to avoid yet more moaning. All manner of problems will occur and very soon hop-skip-jump the various "Muslim leaders" will be calling the tune and demanding, well, the end to the demands will never happen. Not only that, the jails will then be considered "political" and "oppressive" and misreported.
The best way is to treat each according to their behaviour and the crime committed. Simple. Forget race, colour, nationality, diet (they should all be on a vegetarian diet, so to hell with the meat aspects), direction of toilets etc and just treat people the same. Best way to avoid any accusations of discrimination - and we know accusation becomes established fact in the minds of many - is to put people in the same buildings and under the same regimes.
As in so many areas, New Labour are imbeciles. They appear to have absolutely NO common sense whatsoever.
Excellent couple of programmes on the topic on C4. First about the disaster that is occurring and the second about a school that demands all kids read by the end of the year.
Pretty simple, I would have thought - why are not ALL Primary School heads demanding that ALL kids read before they leave? That does not need Government guidelines or initiatives, just the Heads knowing priorities - as they said, what is the point of all the other lessons if the kids cannot read?
The show did include a rather fierce teacher who was against it all but then came around. What was good was she did not pretend or excuse it. Plain speaking at the beginning, and plain speaking at the end. It was all about the idea of "not try, but do".
Personally, I would say forget 11, all kids reading when leaving Infants, i.e. at 7. Of course there will be exceptions, but in too many places in the UK the exceptions RULE and the lowest is the common denominator, so demand all at 7 and even after that the odd kid can be dealt with. In so many places it seems it has been "lower your standards, then fail to meet them".
The look on the kids faces when they realise they can read and actually are proud of it and want to show off is terrific, priceless. Another kid saved from the scrapheap.
Before anyone says "funding", it only takes a blackboard and chalk to sort this out, no need for hi-tech electronic boards or "handwriting software".
Wednesday, 24 October 2007
By Andrew Porter, Political Editor
Last Updated: 2:55am BST 24/10/2007
The future of A-levels and GCSEs was
threatened called into serious doubt as ministers petarded heralded a desperate new era of secondary education coupons diplomas.
A major review of all exam courses for 14 to 19-year-olds will now be held in 2013, once the new
coupons diplomas are fully up and running and A-levels thoroughly undermined.
Mr Balls refused
as always to give "any guarantee" that A-levels and GCSEs would still exist following the fit up/whitewash review — a major shift from the repeated worthless assurances given by Tony "Yates had my number" Blair and successive education ministers that both qualifications were "here to stay".
He announced three new
coupons diplomas yesterday, extending the scheme into traditional academic areas — science, languages and humanities - thereby eroding and undermining them in the process.
In all, 17
coupons diplomas will now be offered at three levels pointless, useless and worthless. A "Usless" Coupon, or 'UC' An intermediate diploma in engineering, for example, is expected to take about three days in total a week and be the equivalent of six thousand A*-C grades at GCSE, while a "worthless" Coupon or 'WC' an advanced diploma, to be taken in the afternoon sixth form, will be equivalent to three text messages to "Deal or no Deal" A-levels. The new qualifications will be rammed home phased in from next September.
Asked whether GCSEs and A-levels would survive, Mr Balls replied: "I'm not going to give you any guarantee about
anything whatsoever the outcome of that 2013 review even though our minds are made up." He said A-levels would not be abolished "now but later", but that parents, pupils, employers and universities could ultimately turn coupons diplomas into the most popular McDonalds' Happy Meal courses.
"While I have rejected the call for A-levels to be abolished now, I believe that
coupons diplomas could emerge as the turd jewel in the swimming pool crown of our education system, the qualification of choice for the next decade considering there will be no other choice at a particular school.
In 2004, the former chief inspector of schools Sir Mike
"Gulag" Tomlinson recommended the phased replacement of GCSEs, A-levels and vocational qualifications with a single diploma over 10 years.
The aim was to end the long-held view of
current education vocational courses as inferior to that of the past academic A-levels. But Tony "Yates rumbled me" Blair vetoed the plan and lied to us insisted that GCSEs and A-levels must stay. Teachers, academics, MPs and the Government's own advisers were furious, warning that the divide between ever falling standards vocational and those of the past academic courses would widen.
A-levels have been the "gold standard" of education in England and Wales for years. However, a succession of record results in recent years – particularly in the number of A grades — has led to accusations that the exams have been "dumbed down".
Next: Watson remarks on the lack of manure.
coupons qualifications were attacked last night by another former chief inspector of schools, Chris Woodhead, who described them as a "complete farce" which were too broad in their scope.
"While he draws up fantasy qualifications for 2011, one in
one, two, three, four... five school leavers still can't read, write or count properly."
Alan Smithers, professor of education at the University of Buckingham, added: "The Government has been very clever politically by
pretending to allow allowing them to run side by side so that they can see how it works and basically letting the market decide which is best. Shame it may be school by school so tough luck trying to compare sensibly."
Part of the aim to is
bluff reassure employers that exam results are a useful reflection of a student's ability - fat chance.
However, some critics of the diploma scheme argue that children will have to focus too early, at age 14, on their career choices. It also risks undermining traditional academic subjects, such as philosophy, or languages such as Latin and Greek that have no obvious career attached.
Sunday, 21 October 2007
Gordon Brown: No more power to Brussels
because there is none left
By Bruno Waterfield and Toby Helm in Lisbon
Gordon Brown has promised British voters that he will halt the European Union juggernaut now the issue of the new Treaty is settled
because the Juggernaut has arrived, been unloaded and the drivers are in the cafe having a bacon sarnie
In an attempt to head off growing call for a UK referendum on the
Constitution Treaty, the Town Clerk of Britain Prime Minister has pledged that there will be no new transfers of powers to Brussels “for many years” as the EU has all the powers worht having.
“There is no need for further
governmental institutional changes in Europe, because the EU Dictatorship can do anything it wants to” he said.
want to make you fools believe we be trying to get on with the business of a getting a stronger economy and better environment but we are just tightening our grip.”
lies comments were echoed by the Mayor of France French President Nicolas Sarkozy who agreed that the new EU Treaty would be “the last for 1000 years a long time”.
“I do not say this will be the last Treaty but we have settled the main questions,
and you are all now slaves” he said.
Town Clerk of Britain Prime Minister has committed the UK to a new Constitution “Reform Treaty” to replace the EU Constitution killed off by Dutch and French referendum rejections two years ago.
Mr Brown joined other European leaders at a Lisbon summit to crack open the champagne to toast a new EU
Reich blueprint that, he hopes, the Government can force through parliament without giving in to the valid and totally justified clamour for a popular vote.
“It is now time for Europe to move on and devote all our efforts to the issues that matter to the people of Europe - economic growth, jobs, climate change and security,
while the EU stifles business, destroys jobs, taxes the buggery out of the middle classes and undermines freedom and security” he said.
But shadow foreign secretary William Hague has responded by accusing the Government of breaking its promise
while breaking some of his own.
Instead of strengthening the
Maginot Lines so called red lines, they left them weaker than after the June summit, with utterly inadequate legal protection for the British position as per the plan.
"It is a demonstration of the weakness of these ministers. Their refusal to hold a referendum also demonstrates the cynical and deceitful nature of this government," he said.
"Their actions will only add to the contempt in which they are increasingly held."
Portugal, current holders of the EU presidency and hosts of the summit, had initially hoped that Europe’s leaders would toast the Treaty with a glass of chilled white Alentago wine over a fish supper but talks dragged on past dessert, and midnight, as Poland and Italy haggled over tiny details of the small print until 2am this morning
so securing Champagne as the drink of choice (at everyone else's expense).
The new “Treaty of Lisbon” will be formally signed by all EU
Freeloaders leaders in Portugal’s capital on December 13 before being pointlessly debated line by line in House of Commons next year and entering into force in January 1 2009 a day that will go down in infamy.
But the Government must face down a strident campaign for a referendum on a Treaty that many regard as the old EU Constitution in new clothes
and only a few self-serving lying scumbag lickspittles do not. Oleaginous David Miliband, the Town Crier Foreign Secretary, claimed to hoots of incredulous laughter and derision that demands for a popular vote are based on “scare stories and myths” and that referendums were the “refuge of dictators and demagogues that we hid behind in the 2005 Election”.
“We have a parliamentary democracy. We elect
useless freeloaders MPs every four of five years, the people elect us to do a job. If they like it they re-elect us if they don’t kick us out,” he said this morning , smiling his greasy, crooked smile knowing he will basically get away with that non-sequitur.
“That is where parliament should
get into its new box come into its own looking at the detail, making sure that the questions are flushed into the open and shot and the government held in contempt accountable.”
The Conservatives have pledged to use up to three months of House of Commons debate in the early New Year to rally public opinion, 70 per cent back a referendum, behind a campaign for a popular vote.
But will they really?
Shadow Europe minister Mark Francois said: “In the small hours of the night Gordon Brown has agreed the revised EU constitution which potentially transfers massive powers from Britain to the EU
leaving little left.
"He had absolutely no democratic mandate to do this and we will now step up our campaign to secure the referendum which he promised the British people all along
because we were not the ones to win the "access all troughs" pass from the EU.”
Friday, 19 October 2007
Now Gordon has agreed the EU
Gordon Broan is a traitor in my book, and the ENTIRE cabinet are traitors for not revolting against him.
I shall be switching on track changes of the announcement, shortly.
Thursday, 18 October 2007
Yes, it talk of less quantity but more quality. Good start.
However, the cuts are to be in factual and news. What on EARTH? Or should that be What on Blue Planet?
The BBC places "entertain" as its third role. Educate (Factual), Inform (News) and Entertain (soaps and other pap) is what I recall.
If the BBC is sincere and actually believes in its charter, it could do no better than cancel Eastenders, which appears to do nothing but teach people how to be rowdy, lying, feckless, gossiping, untrustworthy, cheating, violent scumbags. Right where the Sociofascists want the "lumpen illitariat™" to be, I suspect and the reason why I think they will not stop making it, as the creators love to play God and pull the strings and influence social behaviour in their squalid bankrupt experiment.
It could also cut out all the hospital bedding in the early evenings. Casualty etc. What a load of old cobblers. I can honestly say I never watch BBC1 in the early evenings. Ok, so I am often working, boozing or cooking, but when I am cooking (ok, prepping), it is C4 News that is on, not soapy dross. That "One" programme whatever it is seems to be Crimewatch without the crime - and, in my case, no watch either!
BBC, if you are listening, ITV can create mind-numbing, spirit-crushing, vile meme-spreading junk without competition from you, so cut THAT out. MORE factual stuff. MORE science programmes running 1 or 2 FULL hours without repetition. How about a 4hr programme discussing important topics and not in some flaccid namby pamby "daytime audience" way? Cheap TV for sure. No soap star salaries there. In addition to "Have I Got News For You" how about "Have they given lies to us!" which analyses the disingenuous crap we hear from politicians and tears them an new one using archive footage or analysis of their language - e.g. Gordon Brown tried to worm out of the Targets healthcare debacle by replying to Cameron's assertion using the evidence of the report that targets were distracting healthcare professions by saying the Chairman had said that "Targets were no excuse" - "no excuse" does NOT mean that Targets have NOT been causing the problems. The BBC just does not property scrutinize at the moment.
Top Gear is refreshing, mainly because Clarkson can say and do what he wants because the audience want to hear and see him doing it. It is not very PC. Compare it to the cringeworhty Fifth Gear. Vikki looks as comfortable as a cat in a car wash and just as keen to get out, but she struggles on. In a way I admire her tenacity. Her other qualities are not so obvious these days. If you cut Clarkson's salary at the BBC he will hop over to Ch5 or Ch4 and re-create the exact same world of mayhem over there and the BBC will end up with a pathetic wannabe show like Fifth Gear is now. I wonder if
The BBC will end up with Quentin Wilson, the Ken Livingstone of motoring journalists, and we will just have to endure ads interrupting another must-see programme. Might put a bit of a spring back into Vikki, though, if she joined JC.
Wednesday, 17 October 2007
The Central government will be responsible for property taxation. Nice. They know where you live...
I am almost lost for words. I am lost for words. The entire proposal is so wrong on so many levels and is so blatantly a move to creating Regions and for breaking up England.
The best way to localize is to localize right into my wallet. Get out of my way so I can be responsible for deciding where my money goes. The Government should only do things it HAS to do, not what it thinks it CAN and feels it MUST.
We are in real danger from these Sociofascists and the official Opposition are USELESS.
The tip of the iceberg was rumbled in DEFRA's intent, now denied, to change the buying habits of the UK away from fresh milk to UHT. The lights came on and they were found standing around a hole. They denied everything, but we knew then and we certainly know now that that act and now this, is about implanting yet more Fence Posts.
Apart from the control aspect we have people who should know better try and not just excuse it but support it, wrapping it up in the language of science and reason.
The linked article above concludes:
The author, Anthony Giddens, is right in saying that it is at the fulcrum of domination and freedom. The issue I have is with the very last word - "must". The Government can intrude if one person harms another - in fact some can say that is a must and the very purpose of Government and should be its prime, nay, only role. Here we are talking about "saving people from themselves" not because they ask, but because self-appointed types decide for them. Instead of pursuing the line of addiction to bad foodstuffs, Anthony should take a long hard look in the mirror and see his addiction to Socialism. He has his Socialist a hammer and he considers us all nails and is quite happy for other Socialist Hammer wielders to set about us. And he is in the House of Lords. He should be utterly ashamed of himself.
Whenever individuals' behaviour is controlled by habits that they should control, we are at the fulcrum of the relationship between domination and freedom. Government has been reluctant to intrude, but now it must.
As in the case of the Milk debacle, Authoritarianism, control of production remaining in the hands of private organisations but obedient to the State. It has a word: Fascism.
The Devil deals out a visceral response and expresses it better than I could and with more wit.
One can only imagine the poverty of talent that must exist and the desperation and grasping for position and career that results in people like Dawn Primarolo being in charge of anything at all. Are they so short of talent? The answer, I suspect, is yes when you decide to limit your
I see you, HMG. I see the Fence Post going in. We caught you doing it a day or so before and you squealed like a stuck pig in denial but this time you try again, probably because this was planned and you could not stop it. One could imagine that this was part of a coordinated "rolling thunder" of announcements by
This Government is the longest Socialist Government the UK has had...and boy does it show.
Tuesday, 16 October 2007
The Lib Dem leadership is important not in itself, but as an indication of what bunch of scoundrels will be drained of support, so letting the other group in.
As for Sir Ming Campbell, he is a Gent. Well meaning. Alas, that is not really a total compliment. He is too nice for politics, I feel. I do hope he did not tender his resignation in the hope it would be refused - that would have been too cruel given, I suspect, it was accepted without complaint.
It is a sad day on a personal scale, but not on a national one. The Lib Dems do need a new leader, if only to show to everyone what a bunch of incompetent, do-gooding, faux-Liberals they actually are.
Monday, 15 October 2007
Lets hope they do not use it as a lever to get ID Cards, wire taps, taxation or other Statist nonsense in by the back door.
This means we will be expected to switch to that god-awful UHT. Currently 93% of our milk is fresh. We consume fresh milk despite all the inconveniences because it is infinitely better than UHT, which, to me, has one purpose, to both colour and reduce the bitterness of bad warm drinks sometimes passed off as tea or coffee. Fresh milk is better to me because it tastes good. I can drink a pint of fresh milk and sometimes get a primordial desire to do so, but I can barely tolerate 5g of UHT. However, DEFRA wish to change consumer behaviour and force us to go backwards, to accept substandard food and drink in the name of the Great Green God. No, not really, but upon the dogma of that "religion" in reducing our
DEFRA appears to have been infested with that mind virus, the Green Religion of Unthought. This is "Global Warning" - not Global Warming, but the trend now for using the threat of some future as an excuse and cover for, basically, totalitarian, authoritarian or just plain Robber Baronetcy.
What I see, apart from the blatant social engineering, undermining, guilt, bullying, memes, insults and just plain Fascism, is a convenient way to destroy our fresh milk habit and industry. The aim, I suspect, is to turn the UK into a market for ghastly UHT from anywhere in the EU. Right now, European
The UK are tea drinkers. Unlike coffee, tea is almost always drunk with milk and that milk needs to be fresh milk unless you are a self-flagellating zealot who is happy to train your taste buds to accept mediocrity or worse in the pursuit of your
One of the excuses for this issue is the energy used in refrigeration. I suspect this is a bit of a con, really. A refrigerator is just a mover of heat, not a creator of cold. If you chill the contents you are warming the outside. If you want to reduce the amount of pumping losses, then you create more efficient refrigerators using such wonderful devices as Stirling Engines or, duh, put DOORS ON THEM. You do NOT use the PATHETIC excuse of "carbon footprint" to try and destroy an industry which exists solely due to consumer choice (note that) so that the world can bend to fit the prejudices, plans and non-sequiturs of a bunch of imbeciles at DEFRA.
Pound to a penny there is an EU directive at the bottom of this.
UPDATE: The BBC covered this at 1PM today, but just parroted the government
Friday, 12 October 2007
Brown's capitulation to the Tory
Friday October 12, 2007
This was more than a horrible
In 1994 Tony Blair and Gordon Brown purged socialism when they forged the New Labour project: Clause Four was indeed an archaic nonsense. This week Brown and Darling all but killed off
The comprehensive spending review every three years is mightily important. There is no company,
There is a stunned disorientation among Labour MPs
How has Gordon Brown managed in such a short time to shipwreck himself and his party
Start with the character question - politically the most lethal. For his first three months Brown was "the change" the public liked - a welcome no-glitz, slightly clumsy but honest contrast in a celebrity age. But when Cameron threw "phoney" at him in Prime Minister's Questions, it stuck like napalm. He could duck the bottles thrown over his election funk, but "phoney" will stick because his comprehensive spending review smacked of
Inheritance tax is a Labour talisman: it deeply pains
Here is what Brown should have said: "I
It would have dumbfounded
We may have a centrist government, but this budget had good things only a Labour administration would do - foreign aid to be
The black hole at its heart was less the Institute of Fiscal Studies complaint about overborrowing
Because we live in
Time is on Labour's side: mercurial political moods shift at the speed of light. Soon Brown could start to spell out a vision, with more authentic humility
What happened this week accelerates the need for a Turner-type inquiry into tax. Choices need to be aired so people can understand and support a fairer system where the poorest no longer pay a higher proportion than the rich. This much Gordon Brown owes to those he disappointed this week.
Yes, Polly, a fairer system - flat tax as a starter and then abolish the entire mess that is income tax and tax credits!
Some very interesting reactions by the various MPs.
Harriet Harman clearly has the ability to lie shamelessly and parrot spin without batting an eyelid. I think she has had an ethical bypass, I really do.
Ex Lord Chancellor
One chap who I forget (I wish I have their name, as he is someone I would like to buttonhole) did not like to be reminded that the People are Sovereign and that MPs are appointed to act on their behalf and started to get shirty, using the retort "young man" to the reporter. The mask slipped. I would not be surprised if he was involved in granting the Queuejumpers' Charter.
Some did argue about the problem of the law, in that it might actually place the Judiciary above the Elected Representatives and so open the door for misuse and mischief. The comeback was the problem of strong whips who control individual elected representatives to such an extent that they owe their position more to the Party than the Electorate. Another good point raised was the emergence of
The rather gullible MP who took it up was "huffed" rather swiftly by having his slot for putting forward the Bill, erm, lost... If ever there was a warning about the EU and the State, this is it.
For me, I wonder if it should be better for MPs who lie on record, on TV etc. (i.e. prima facae evidence) should be hauled before the House of Lords to be judged, or at least judged to see if they then go on to the High Court. A trigger could well be a number of HoL members. I know this could be seen as self-regulation still, but I do not get a chance to vote for Judges...
Just thinking of a least-worst path here.
Thursday, 11 October 2007
It will be interesting to read the Have Your Say responses (if this happens).
However, we get the boneheaded fact-mangling response from MP for Alyn and Deeside Mark Tami, who says - "As 280,000 Class A drug users are responsible for half of all crime, taking the risk of legalising such a dangerous drug is foolhardy and I would not wish to gamble so much on the health and wellbeing of our children."
Well Mark Tami, what do you think causes that crime? Is it random violence of drug-addled individuals or gang warfare over turf and the robberies performed by those desperate to buy their next fix? Further, have you considered that the reason we have 280,000 Class A users is because there is a criminal fraternity actively selling to them and recruiting new "customers"? Has it EVER occured to you?
Well, Mark Tami might just be unaware of this reasoning. Alas Alyn and Deeside
Getting drugs today is not a problem, they say, so what would be worse if it were legalsed and, frankly NOT made any easier to access, far less likely to be introduced by a
Wednesday, 10 October 2007
If we have flexi terms, this should be counterbalanced by the right to call for a dissolution of parliament referendum.
If we had the threat of dissolution referendae, I suspect those in Westminster will suddenly get the taste for fixed terms...
Monday, 8 October 2007
Monday, 1 October 2007
The State intends to re-enslave the masses and enslave us all to boot, to get everybody dependent on The State.
Socialists are not mad at the rulers for being rulers, just that it is not they who rule. They covet.