Labour and "me me me"

Various people "of the left" routinely criticise Libertarians as being selfish and "me me me", yet I have again heard a Labour MP on Radio 4 today talk about their future and the impact of the coalition in terms of frightening people about what would happen to "their" job - in one example being perplexed why Policemen and women were not voting Labour - and in terms of welfare/pension/services and such. It is all about direct benefits to that person, making that person think in terms of "me me me".

Libertarians are concerned about what property the State might TAKE from individuals, whereas we can see that Labour are preoccupied with scaring people or tempting them with what might no longer be handed over.

"those of the left" again engaging in psychological projection and logical inversion.

They relate to the electorate in terms of "me me me", corrupting them, encouraging dependence and a sense of entitlement that only a Welfarist setup would dare promise, knowing or not knowing the bankruptcy that is almost certain to follow.

They are still thinking in this way, even as defeat is handed to them.

Still, in pure tactical terms it is not a crazy approach, just outrageously cynical and manipulative. Many people will find the consequences of the last 60 years of Welfarism, and the last 13 in particular, come crashing into them like an Atlantic storm. Labour will be there, mark my words, whispering lies into their ears, blaming others, offering false hope, fake rewards and other mischiefs. It will be a second bite at the "Thatcher's fault" nonsense that had supposedly had Mrs T personally responsible for shutting down factories incapable of making things people wanted or were prepared to pay the price for, which, had it not been for Her, would have continued to perform their SOLE function, naturally, of providing employment for the Union masses.

If Labour is concerned about certain provisions and believes "everyone" wants to see it provided, what is stopping them organising it? I would welcome this, for Labour in opposition must operate by consent, not coercion. People will soon let Labour know what they feel is important enough to deserve funding it via the Labour Party or other organisations.

This is precisely what could happen under a Libertarian administration - if people feel something needs to be provided, then go out and organise it. Collect voluntary contributions. I see no reason why Labour could not create an umbrella charity to be a point for people to donate to and Labour in their wisdom then decides where the money goes. This means putting down the "gun" of State compulsion, of the threat of imprisonment that comes with funding via taxation. It could mean setting up Friendly Societies and other mutual organisations.

Anyone with sincere intent, anyone who truly believes that their stance and causes are just and proper should not be afraid of this arrangement. If you think people do not know or understand, TALK TO THEM. Are you so lazy as to rather take by force instead of having the common courtesy to explain yourself and ask, understanding and accepting the fact you may be refused? Or is it you think people so dumb, stupid or selfish that they will never agree with your "higher moral stance" and so should not be given a choice?

I am unsure if those in Labour are ready or able for such introspection, truth and accountability.

Gordon Brown Pretends to Apologise for the Smears

Gordon Brown has performed an act that typifies this Government. He has attempted to give the impression something has happened or is being done, but actually doing it is not on the agenda.

He wants to give the impression of apologising for the smears.

Let us see what he said:

"I am sorry about what happened.

"I said all along that when I saw this first, I was horrified, I was shocked and I was very angry indeed.

"I take full responsibility for what happened - that is why the person that was responsible went immediately.

"I wrote to those people, I expressed my deep regret. Everything is being done to clean up politics in our country. I ensured that there were new rules, so that this won't happen again."

Gordon is sorry for what happened. He is sorry his attack dog was found out, sure. I am certain he is even sorrier that his initial attempt to downplay the story failed and then he had to send his pooch off to the pound. Is he sorry that people were to be and in some cases actually smeared? No sign of that. None whatsoever.

Of course, countless scoundrels caught out are horrified, shocked and angry. Those terms are meaningless in the context he has placed them.

So Gordon takes full responsibility for what happened? If so and we believe his next statement, Gordon should have resigned already. The person who "went" - McBride - did not go immediately, but only left after the damage limitation exercise failed. Two wrongs in that sentence don't make a right, Gordon.

Errors, in this case, matey, follow the log scale.

Then he states about everything being done to clean up politics. That is such an untruth, such a worthless platitude. It is disingenuous pap. If you want to clean up politics, you need to get the State out of so many areas to remove the temptation and point of corruption. Jacqui Smith is still in office, for a start. How can not punishing Senior Cabinet Ministers - No3 in the Government for crying out loud - be cleaning up anything except fat wedges of unearned cash?

There is no need for new rules here just as there is no need for new regulations on the banking industry, expenses or a host of other situations when all that is needed is for the existing rules to be applied properly, consistently and with vigour.

Gordon did not apologise for the lies that were created and then discussed by those he hired. That would mean he acknowledges the acts and thus the fatally flawed culture that operated in No10. This has been my point about this whole affair since it broke - the issue here has never been the lies or the emails, but the culture of No10.

This is not an apology. This is like a crook saying they were guilty of nothing more than being caught.

C4 Finally catches up with Dan, credits the US then brings in Labour "attack sprog" Draper

Well, what could we expect?

C4 finally catches up at last with the Dan Hannan speech. But, in true Fabian style they distort the truth and use half truths, disingenuous piffle and mumble-swerve to try and pull the wool. They even tried to make out that it was the US that alerted them, as if nobody in the UK was capable of seeing it. Nonsense.

C4 brought in Katawaler from the Fabian Fifth Column to make weak rebuffs on minor details and then in the studio we had the Labour "attack sprog" Derek Draper to make snide remarks and continue with the countermeasures.

Still, the cat is out the bag and no matter how much they do this to put off the "party faithful" from realising the butt-nakedness of their bankrupt, dysfunctional ideology called Socialism, many more will have their curiosity pricked and find the speech and cheer to the rafters.

Putting the Collective First

A crypto-grass-roots organisation has emerged to agitate and manipulate - "putting the collective people first".

Putting the obvious comments about the faux-edgy, with-it, urban, retina-busting website aside for a moment, lets just look at what they are saying on the surface, with Thornhill translation for the hard of spinning:

What are we demanding with menaces calling for?

The platform is united by three linked calls: Decent subsidised jobs and public services for the many all paid for by the enemy, end poverty by redefining it and inequality by pulling everyone down to the same level, build a green economy based on subsidy. More specific demands on the UK government are to:

• Create a ‘Green New Deal’ to create jobs in the environmental sector - Translation: Create a Econazi Charter to synthesize fake jobs and thus create costs in the rent-seeking, could-not-sell-otherwise sector.
• Invest in essential services including social housing - Translation: spend other people's money in areas we want to that give us and our mates salaried unemployment and provide subsidised housing for those we decide are worthy while those who work to pay for it live in cramped conditions unable to afford anything larger.
• Provide emergency funding to countries that need it to protect jobs and provide social protection - Translation: distort the economies of other countries to prolong the agony and delay the recovery.
• Tackle tax havens - especially those linked to the UK - Translation: make the globe subject to the same onerous, wealth-destroying, innovation-suppressing parasitical tax regimes, with self-loathing guilt thrown in.
• Insist on democratic reform of the World Bank and IMF - Translation: Force our form of Tyranny of the Majority on Supra-National organisations.
• Make all financial institutions and multinational corporations transparent and accountable - Translation: De facto nationalisation of financial institutions and multinational corporations, making them tools for our ends, thereby riding roughshod over property rights.
• Ensure that poorer states are allowed to take responsibility for managing their own economies rather than having liberalisation measures forced upon them - Translation: support protectionist, corrupt and totalitarian regimes around the world.
• Introduce robust regulatory requirements and financial incentives at national level and push for them at international level to stop climate chaos - Translation: Install a global mechanism for rent-seeking in pursuit of an unproven dogma while denying Mankind the wealth and means to mitigate natural cycles in climate change.
• Commit to substantial new resource transfer from North to South to support low carbon development - Translation: Commit to trying to salve guilt and self-loathing by making the rich poorer and the poor no richer.

Unfortunately, examination of proposed government solutions to date are either piecemeal, or advocate yet more ‘free’ trade policies, likely to only to make the crisis worse for moonbat policies.

Go on, believe it, you know it doesn't makes sense.

Ed Balls, school admissions and the prostrate BBC

I may be mistaken, but I thought I just heard Ed Balls saying, so as to brush off concerns about school admissions and grandstand the "achievements under Labour", that where he lives all parents get their first choice of school.

Hold on, doesn't Ed Balls live in that special enclave where there is that "state" school - as in Grant Maintained and thus a de facto public school paid by the taxpayer* - surrounded by million quid homes. Come to think of it, we the taxpayer even have to pay for the upkeep of that Cooperballs residence!

Why does the BBC let this smug twerp get away with such outrageous statements? I suspect it is because the BBC is chock full of Fabian hypocrites who do precisely the same thing. 

Fact is you can resolve most of the admissions issues if you:

a) Introduce vouchers

b) Remove the need for schools to be beholden or administered via the LEA

c) Enable anyone to set up a school wherever they like

d) Keep the State away from the pedagogy, curriculum and exam boards used and let Heads, teachers and parents sort things out between themselves.

As far as I can tell the Tories are lacking in some areas of their Voucher scheme. Too much central control which will along with other aspects of their plan render vouchers ineffective and result in a drawing back of power to the centre, which is, frankly, what I suspect they really want.

Only one party has the right solution - The Libertarian Party.

* something we all should have via vouchers, but of course, Socialists and all such ladder kickers tell us we have to put up with something else. Hypocrites.

Jacqui Smith: Bare Faced Parasitism part 3

Further, the inestimable Leg-Iron over at Old Holborn's gaff muses the delicious irony that Jacqueboot may well be nailed by the very squeal-on-your-neighbour mentality she and her ilk have been fostering in this country.

In the comments, Mitch adds:

Closed circuit TV pictures of her going there just twice a week would have been the Cherry.

Well, that might be so, but to me the frosting will be far more achievable and certain - her Mobile Phone mast trace.

GOTCHA!

Jacqui Smith: Bare Faced Parasitism part 2

I am glad Ms Smith, the Second Home Secretary, is not off the hook over her expense claims.

Irrespective of the "law" or the "rules", any honest person, anyone with a shred of decency, would know that claiming a rented room as a main home so that one's actual home, owned, containing their partner, children and almost all personal belongings can be declared as a second home so as to gain larger amounts of cash is blatant milking of the system.

The Home Secretary cannot be allowed to escape this. Her behaviour is "conduct unbecoming".

Is there ONE member of the Cabinet that is not an utter disgrace? No, there is not.

Jacqui Smith: Bare Faced Parasitism.

There is really no other word for it.

Jacqui Smith stays with her sister in South London and pays her rent for a room which she now calls her primary residence. 

Her husband - paid £40,000p.a. by us, the taxpayer - sits at what is claimed as the second home. 

The Homes Secretary can claim council tax (IIRC), fit out, repair and cover mortgage interest payments for such a residence.

Anyone with an ounce of self-respect, honour, integrity and professionalism would class the room she rents at her sister's house as the second home.

It is not good enough to say that the claims conformed to the letter of the law. It is just as, if not more important to obey the spirit of the law. 

For such acts and attitude from any public servant is appalling. For it to be held by the Home Secretary is an outrage. She had the bare-faced cheek to demand that only one question be asked on the matter. Pure and simple she cannot cope with reality and wishes to avoid being held to account, to avoid freedom of speech and to manipulate the message. This, our "Home Secretary".

Jacqui Smith should be sacked, let alone be permitted to step down. However, we are talking about an administration that has not a Tesla, not a Weber in regards to the magnetic polarity of their so-called "moral compass". 

New Labour is morally, economically, ideologically and spiritually bankrupt.

Gordon Brown: "No savers will lose money"

In PMQs today.

Depends on what you mean by "money". The £ is falling and the printing presses are being dabbed with ink as we speak, which will reduce the value of each £ in those savings accounts.

Brown is being disingenuous. Again. And again. And again.

And people are comfortable with voting Labour? What planet are they on?

Follow-up to Polly Fetishising

I really have to say a bit more about Polly's statements in her latest article. My goodness, what a mess she is in.

Before I touch on specifics, Polly is irrational. We know this, yes, but what I am saying is Polly is YET AGAIN irrational and here is another example. 

When is she going to realise that the Middle Class is basically the Working Class who have entered the professions or made money or, dare I say the term "bettered themselves" which is what most want to do or did want to do before the entropic influences of the Welfare State and the inverted snobbery leeched into them by the Champagne Socialists and Fabian Fifth Column to "keep them in their place". 

It is Sisyphean task, for as soon as you have moved "working class" people in, they cease to be "working class". Seeing as there are more working class than middle class and very few jobs in the professions overall, you will end up pushing OUT those who have made it before they retire to make way for the next batch of "working class" based on utterly bankrupt, dysfunctional, wrong-headed but oh-so-predictable quota targets beloved of this administration.

This is before we get to the crux that the State cannot "give" opportunities. Opportunities, by definition, are not "given" but "seized". Scholarships are an example of an opportunity seized. The poor-but-bright kid has solid proof of their worth vs. their richer peers who might have got in more by inertia than talent, though to generalise is to also be moronic - many children of Middle Class families are exceptional human beings and have every right to be at the top.

Just as the State cannot "give" opportunities, it cannot "empower" by positive action. Empowerment is, basically, NOT oppressing, micro-managing, second-guessing or interfering. Not controlling, in fact. The State is UESLESS at not controlling areas it is involved in. It is usless at stopping itself controlling more things as it is, let alone being sensible about areas it IS involved in! It is about letting the individual have authority and responsibility over their own future. That is empowerment. That is something the State can only hope to grow by LEAVING PEOPLE ALONE and GETTING THE HELL OUT OF THEIR WAY. It would be appreciated.

Not sure if I want to pick apart Polly's blatherings now, but I will just touch on a few points, one or two of jaw-dropping inanity. And she is PAID to write this? Oh, forgot - The Guardian is subsidised by all those Public Sector jobs...and this policy by Harman is likely to spawn a whole rash of new "equality advisors" and "empowerment czars". "'Polly publishes puff piece' - probe".

First, she says: 

Harman's law is Labour's biggest idea for 11 years

Which basically says the last 11 years were filled with something worse than total hogwash, spite, second-rate class-war obsession and disingenuous blather. Polly has said a truth.

Next, Polly goes on to say: 

A public-sector duty to close the gap between rich and poor will tackle the class divide in a way that no other policy has

Er, dismally? Since when is the Public Sector a tool of social engineering? Oh, yes, we are discussing Socialists here, where EVERYTHING is a "legitimate" tool of social engineering. The public sector is paid to do a specific functional job, not push ideology. The duty of the Public Sector is to deliver the services to the taxpayer, not spend time internally faffing about trying to bend reality into unreality.

Inequality is the root cause of social immobility.

Utter claptrap. Social immobility is caused by many things. With no inequality, social immobility would be universal. Without a difference, mobility is not possible! Inequality is the starting point FOR mobility. How can you rise if you are prevented from being above anyone else? In this is the basis for the utter unreason at the centre of Socialism and why it ends up levelling down and not levelling up. Social immobility occurs when it is not a meritocracy. Period. Race, gender, religion, politics, geography, perceived extant income can all stifle social mobility and this occurs in both directions, as discrimination is what we are talking about here. By preventing someone from the South East getting on even if they have the ability because the quota for the NE has not been reached is a hindrance to Social Mobility. Quotas will NOT help. "Positive" discrimination is still discrimination.

However, politicians of all parties are happiest talking about "opportunity", pulling the ablest up the ladders - without too many questions asked about why the ladders are so steep, and why the distance is so great from bottom to top. It is a great deal less controversial than talk of narrowing the gap itself.

Well, the first sentence is nonsense as I have said above. The issue is to not police the ladders, but let those who can climb them, climb them. The ladders need to be as steep and as long as necessary so those who reach the top are capable for the roles that exist there. They are that long for a reason. Now, some suggest that some can join the ladder half way up because of good education and family environment. Do you think it is better to not try and fix the education and family environment and somehow guess who would have made it up the lower section? How can that possibly be determined. The best way is to remove negative influences on the family environment - Welfarism being one massive example - and fix the educational system by, you guessed it, getting the dead hand of the State out of the way. No, it is not "perfect" by a long way, but it is the least bad way of doing things and the most sustainable. It is also the simplest and cheapest. Fix the causes, not try and mitigate the symptoms.

Labour gets round this by promising to increase the demand for top jobs

I include this as an example of the dysfunctional control-freakery and delusion of Socialists that they can actually sustainably change things in this way. Companies will increase demand for top jobs. The only way the State can is to create non-jobs in the Bureaucracy and QANGOcracy. Note they will then have to "do" something, which will be to interfere in the lives of the population. Pure Fabianism. Ghastly. Damnable. Authoritarianism on the road to Totalitarianism.

The entire premise is wrong-headed. It is stupid in the extreme. It is typical of Harriet Harman, who cannot see beyond her own prejudices and addled thinking. You cannot have the working class making up an equal ratio of the top jobs unless you constantly churn people into and out of the Middle Classes, and thrust those in already down again. It is just a reality. Frankly, I can see this as being a nice way to make sure people only remain in post if they "behave" and are "good little Fabians". It makes everyone beholden to the fickle whim of the State. It is a Fencepost. A way to ensure people can be removed not because they are bad - they can be very good - but because they do not behave. The White Paper provides an easily justified but centrally managed excuse - "make way for the poor".

So let us outline the Fencepost. It is to implant a totally unrealistic and unachievable target/metric that is centrally controlled as an arbiter to the right of employment. First the public sector, then spreading to the entire economy. Of course the system will not work in the public sector, but the excuse will be that it is "just" the public sector and so "must" be widened as all those nasty private sector companies are undermining the "good work". This fencepost will be lined up neatly with another which covers the right to the Public Sector to only give out contracts to companies who conform to their employment or other criteria, which is either in place or on the way as I blog. This other Fencepost lines up with the moves for the State to get involved in more and more aspects of the commercial sector or be an arbiter on greater an greater areas of commercial activity because of its distorting influence and asymmetrical legal power. It is, basically, the new generation of Enclosures, the State being, in effect, Nationalised Feudalism. The Harman plans are like a Feudal Lord dispossessing Yeoman to make way for landless peasants just because the Yeoman has grown from a landless peasant. It is, indeed, "Socialism in one clause" - it is entropic, levelling down...unless you are a good little lickspittle, for the decision criteria is made by the party, not by a huge plurality of independent companies.

It is another Fabian wet dream.

What will the Tories or Lib Dems do with this turd if they got into power? Tinker, I suspect.

The Libertarian Party will repeal this legislation at the first opportunity. 

The Pathetic Cut

David Cameron is suggesting ending income tax on savings for basic rate payers.

Well, is it good? Yes, if it were part of the abolition of Income Tax, period, but it is not, so the if and only if rule applies. No, it is not really "good". DC thinks it might result in increased spending. Fat chance. If your savings grow faster, the temptation to leave them there is greater.

And look at the numbers trumpeted. Far from cutting, Dave is suggesting an additonal £25bln MORE spending instead of £30bln - a cut of £5bln, less than 1% of the entire budget.

Pathetic. It is like a family who cannot afford to go on holiday deciding to take the tube instead of driving to the airport. 

No, Mr Cameron, you have to realise the holiday is over for now.

DC did witter on about "green technology", and that is fine as far as it goes. Not sure I want to encourage rent-seeking, however.

What was even dafter was DC's idea of some kind of independent budget watchdog. What a joke. You can see that it will end up being stuffed with Fabians and other such numpties who will interfere in the budget process and try to dictate the priorities. I suppose this is Cameron's way of getting the departments and the public in general used to the idea that the Government of the day will have no real say over spending for when the EU takes over full Sovereignty. The real key is to have a BoE which has a responsibility to the currency and thus to all those who hold and are paid in that currency - the people - not to Government. The State will then have to cut its cloth accordingly.

A Convenient Lie

Via commenter Jones on a post by DK, we see a roll-back in the all-pervasive power of the Religion of AGW.

As we know, AGW is the Enviro-mentalists Mad Uncle and has been locked up in the attic for a while now. He was used to scare the kiddie-winkies into believing anything and was so effective, a proxy was introduced - Climate Change - which was just as good at scaring thanks to the memory of the Mad Uncle but was far more flexible and needed fewer excuses for when reality did not match the myth. Of course, we have had a changing climate throughout Human history, but such details do not get in the way of rabid religions intent on subjugation, power and control, and that is what Governments, NGOs and flat-earthers covet and crave. It is therefore no surprise that such bodies have seized upon the Mad Uncle and then the proxy with such relish*.

Al Gore is going to have to make the biggest apology in history. I also want to see all those talking heads, all those government ministers line up and apologise, too. No regret - that is a Japanese mumble-swerve face-saving technique to avoid taking responsibility and admitting an error - but an apology and resignation. I suspect that there is going to be an army of people who will soon realise they have been taken for a ride. Suckered in. They will look back on their public pronouncements and realise they have humiliated themselves. The problem is with this digital age, all those statements now exist and can never be eliminated. Youtube and other such sites will be a place where the blatherings can resurface to haunt.

What is worse is that the kids will cotton on and there will be blood. Will they ever believe adults again? I hope the learn that this is a lie caused by vested interests, by those wishing to forcibly collectivise. You should know who they are.

Do we need to prepare for Climate Change? Hell yes we do. Rivers and coastlines. Floods, water supplies, power, navigation, insulation and most of all food production. We need to determine what might well happen and use risk, timeframe and probability-weighting to prioritise our activities. This needs to be addressed first before we ponce about with trying to "reverse" it, which is, frankly, impossible until India and China (and probably Brazil too) adopts technology not even established. 

*If you notice, most if not all the attempts to "control" or "reverse" Climate Change involves forcing people to hand over money, freedom or regress to some antediluvian existence. Preferably all three. The amount of rent-seeking in the sector is colossal.

Another Rumour of Socialist Hypocricy.

As if we needed any more points on the graph, the rumour is that The Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, wishes his son to take over from him when he steps down.

All those years protesting against heredity and "the elite", yet the first chance they get, Socialists slide their bum across to perch. We see them trying to get above the law, in controlling government contracts and pulling power and influence to themselves to gain patronage and control. Basically, they are desperate to have everything the elites they despised had and used.

Fact is, Socialists do not hate elites, they just hate an elite that they are not part of.

Hypocritical Ladder kickers, the lot of 'em.

Back Burner: Internet Provision

Some time ago Labour floated the idea of "free", i.e. taxpayer funded internet connections for all children, i.e. another vote buying activity. This reappeared in the Labour Conference 2008.

The government paying for your internet? Some think that is a good thing, but regardless of your hatred or obsession over "redistribution", there is a massive bear trap awaiting this good intention.

Once the government pays for something, it wants to control it. Utterly. It uses the excuse, not without merit in isolation, that if it pays for it, it should have a say. However, once you begin to have a say you end up with companies vying for the tender, which is a magnet for corruption., You then get poor purchase by the Simple Shopper, who will end up almost certainly with either a cartel or a monopoly. The excuse of control wears threadbare. It is not a good enough excuse for the unintended consequences.

If the above was not bad enough, expect the State to interfere in WHAT is downloaded or accessed via this "free" service. Those who are poor will be limited and restricted in what they will see. There are so many occasions when the poor are labeled "deprived" when all they are are poor or living in a ropey location - the disingenuous use of a word that implies proactive denial is rife and thrown about by "progressive" sorts (another such term used to deceive). However, in this case it will finally make sense. Those who end up with a State restricted yet "free" service - making the escape velocity for those on limited means very hard - will well and truly be deprived for the first time in their lives.

New Labour: Nationalised Feudalism.

Words and Phrases to Detest pt.3: Safeguarding

Where did this ghastly aberration get in?

I suspect it is used when people want to be seen to "protect" or "care" for something but know they, in truth, cannot achieve that, so use this term to give the same impression while promising nothing at all.

It has the whiff of protocol about it. You know, those robotic, box-ticking, flowchart, process orientated narrow-minded, linear sorts of things we encounter when some stupid phone menu, software or, worse still, individual is encountered who cannot understand the difference between what we want - a choice - and what they give - a false dichotomy. 

Not being a denizen of the Public Sector, the term only came to light during the Baby P case in which we now hear the Director of Social Services and Chair of the Haringey Local Childrens Safeguarding Committe or some such cobbled together scrabblefest, Sharon Shoesmith* has been "removed from office".

That is not the same as being sacked. That does not imply being prevented from passing GO and collecting a gold plated pension, expected salary and bonuses equivalent to the next 4 years etc etc. As some people have mentioned, this person is a member of "The Masons for W&ankers", Common Purpose.

We are watching.

* Cobblers, to be exact.

Disingenuous or just ignorant?

We see that a relationship counsellor has been fired from Relate because he would not deal with same-sex couples due to his Pavlovian bigotry religious beliefs.

Tough.

Relate is not a Christian entity and, matey, you should have known full well what you were getting into and so excused yourself from such a role and worked for another organisation that allowed you to exercise your prejudices, er, I mean, religion.

The councillor, Mr McFarlane bleats:

"The issues are way bigger than one individual. Society will be the poorer if we do not balance rights fairly and respectfully."

Yes, the issues ARE bigger than one individual, and not in his favour. It is the freedom of an employer to decide what they wish to pay for, i.e. in return for a salary. His assertion that society will somehow be "poorer" is poppycock. Rights are not some item to be horse-traded "fairly" and "respectfully". Rights exist, are equally applied and some rights are superior to others and take precedent. This doubletalk of "respectfully" is just a cover to say that he feels, incorrectly I must add, that his personal beliefs are superior to other rights, including the right of his employer to determine and enforce terms of engagement. Once you let this sort of thinking worm in, we will see more and more illiberal salami-slicing by religious groups who will begin to try and impose their personal beliefs upon the rest of us. A nightmare. 

His idea is that we surrender our rights and in return he gets respect. Of course he is in favour of such a deal. He can go hang.

Andrea Minichiello Williams, director of some ghastly self-righteous pressure group Christian Concern for our Nation, said: "Mr McFarlane had an unblemished record of service for Relate and was trying to work out a way in which his Christian views could be asserted accommodated.

"It is astonishing to think that in 21st Century Britain we are unable to ensure that people like Mr McFarlane are able to stay within the system. Unless, we are able to achieve this in law then there will never be true equality and respect for all."

Andrea, Mr McFarlane's personal beliefs can be accommodated by him keeping them where they belong. Mr McFarlane can stay within the system if you are able to ensure that he delivers his side of his employment contract. Note how this group is trying to get their beliefs "protected" in Law. Anyone with two unbiased braincells to rub together would, after a brief mulling over of possible scenarios, consider such legislation irresponsible and against the Rule of Law. 

Remember the Polar Kayaker?

The chap by the name of Lewis Gordon Pugh? You know, the guy who wanted to show how the pole was pretty much ice free by setting off on the 30th August?

Apparently, according to Wiki:

The attempt was abandoned on 2nd September, when the team were still in excess of 1,000 km from the North Pole. In his weblog, Pugh confirmed that despite several attempts, they were unable to find a gap in the ice.

Pugh claims on his website that this was the furthest North anyone has ever travelled by Kayak, (81 degrees N) however critics point out that in 1895, explorers using Kayaks reached 86 degrees North, and their expedition records show that one of them swam to retrieve a Kayak, thus exceeding Pugh's trip and preceeding him by 113 years. Pugh has not chosen to respond to these accusations.

So, 100+ years ago with far far less technology, a group got half as far away, for that is what 86N is vs 81N, 500km instead of the lycra'd one's 1000km. Bearing in mind that the distance from the pole at the start of the latest expedition was 1200km to start with brings it all into context.

Just to show you what it means graphically...

Now, that to me says he was more than twice as far from the pole than some chaps in sealskins and straw boaters.

Funny that we did not see this event splashed across the pages. POLES NOT FREE OF ICE would have been a good start, or even "POLES AT WORST HAVE MORE ICE THAN 100 YEARS AGO!!!". I suppose it would have been filed along with the "WWII Bomber found on moon has DISAPPEARED!" headline of the Sunday Sport in its heyday.

Balance? Nah, remember, we are talking Religion here.

Harman: Bare Faced Deception

On C4 news today, Harriet Harman deliberately misled the audience.

Talking about prostitution and people trafficking, she spoke of 80% of women found in brothels are coming, brought in, from abroad. The term "brought in", used in a context of a discussion about trafficking? Well, those 80% are NOT trafficked except in a very few exceptions according to Niki Adams from the English Collective of Prostitutes. I think she would know what she is talking about. Fact is there have been hardly any evidence for trafficking, but then the law currently does not require any evidence, even if the women in question do not say they have been trafficked! Niki says most women rescued from traffickers have been done so by their friends - other prostitutes. Considering even approaching the Police means criminal action and/or deportation, that is no surprise.

To be frank here, I have a feeling that Harman KNOWS the facts. Maybe she has chosen to blind herself to them, for it does not fit the twisted world she has projected onto the inside of her very empty cranium. Or has she? I think she has not yet fully blinded herself, for you can see she used the term "brought in" but half back-peddled just a tad. Maybe that was an attempt to worm herself out of the blatant deception she was performing on live television in a mainstream, prime time interview. I do not know. Regardless of the pedantry, Harman clearly wished to make the audience think that 80% of women were immigrants trafficked in and working against their will, i.e. slaves. That would be a lie.

Her behaviour is such that I would not be surprised if Prostitutes would rather not consort with her, or be seen in her company. Prostitutes make an honest living, if only they were not criminalised. They do not pretend to be anything other than what they are, unless the client actually wants to suspend their reason and reality for the purposes of the transaction. Harman is not gaining consent from those who are the subject of her deception. How can such a person continue to be a lawyer or Lord Privy Seal?

Harriet Harman is known as a stranger to reason, but this new travesty of a law takes the biscuit. Prejudiced is a word for this. Moralistic. Spiteful. Sexist, even. Right up her street.

The Libertarian Party shall legalise prostitution. It will certainly not legalise trafficking, for that is coercion. Prostitutes will be able to operate safely, off the streets in brothels organised as they see fit. With legal brothels containing consenting women, it will be all the more obvious if a place is one containing trafficked women.

Yet again New Labour clings to outdated and dysfunctional dogma. Socialism and, in this case, Feminist spite and unreason.

Rosie Winterton: GOSPLAN advocate.

I sat there open mouthed* while I heard woolly-headed Rosie Winterton blather on about the dire economic situation on "Any Questions" (R4, 14/11/2008). Rosie, in effect, exposed an often downplayed strand in Socialist thinking - that things can be fixed if we find out every detail and micro-manage it. 

Take a read at the following:

ROSIE WINTERTON
Well as I said it depends on if you can stimulate the economy enough to improve the employment situation you have more people in work and therefore you have more people paying taxes now if you can through that get back on an even keel it doesn’t necessarily mean that you have to increase taxes. That is the point; the point is to get confidence back into the economy, to get people back into work

So, Rosie first hopes that increases will not be needed. She is at the tables and intends to put everything on "Red".

DIMBLEBY
OK Baroness Afshar...

...snip...

ROSIE WINTERTON
Jonathan can I come in again. I was in this area on Monday with the Humber Economic Partnership looking at what the situation was and I think this is a very important point. That at this time we do have through the regional development agency a very effective way of analysing exactly what is happening in different sectors of the economy and particularly at a very local level and the reason why I think that is important is because for example here in Scunthorpe I visited one of the companies on Monday where they were supplying smaller supermarkets with food and what they said was that because of the current economic situation peoples habits had actually changed and they were more likely to be shopping locally and what that meant was that for their section of the economy it was actually they were saying that their business was going to be 10% at the moment.

Ah, the Regional Development Agency. Regional Government-in-waiting with a taste for micromanagement, it seems. Rosie thinks that by finding such "information" out - for their "Doomsday Book", I suppose - things will change. They will not. It is a waste of money. Rosie seriously thinks that all this prodnosery is of value. She thinks that by understanding everything she can control everything. She is delusional. Stop taxing small companies, stop interfering in their business and wrapping them up in red tape and they might have a chance. Otherwise, all you do is rob Peter to pay Paul (with a %age for the Government Shylocks).

DIMBLEBY
So this is a kind of always look on the bright side argument is it

ROSIE WINTERTON
At the same time the caravan industry has been suffering. We have some areas but what we need to do is have a very careful analysis of exactly what is happening in different areas so that we can at regional and local level assist those companies that are in difficulties and stimulate others…

There we have it. Intervention. Meddling. Micromanagement. Pathetic. The arrogance is just stunning. Rosie thinks she knows what is best, that each company should be levelled out into a grey soup - the weak propped up and the stars taxed into mediocrity.

What a ghastly fraud she perpetuates. Does Rosie Winterton believe all her hogwash? I suppose she does, but the question is, did she first lie to herself, or has she just swallowed the lies of another? Who cares. Rosie is inviting a truck load of FAIL.

* No, Lionel Blair was not trying to pull off "12 Angry Men".

A good fisk of Blears, except...

Over at The Peoples' Republic of Mortimer there is a good fisk of Hazel Blears' newspeech on blogging.

It covers most of the points I was about to make very well, so I will not bore you with a pale shadow. However, one slip was missed and in fact I do disagree with the posting's view.

TPRoM suggests that Hazel makes reasonable views about reducing careerism. 

I disagree. Blears presents a false dichotomy - Career Politicians or The Beast and other such "working class heroes". What utter twaddle. Tokenistic? Quota-filling? Social Engineering? You bet.

Next, and I would not put it past her, she will be proposing that all the MPs from all parties must conform to some quota system of ethnoclass pigeonholing and if you do not fit the bill, you will not be "eligible" to stand in any constituency, regardless of party.

Do not think that this is beyond the realms of possibility. Do not underestimate the control-freakery, the managerialist mindset and the utter contempt for freedom of these people.