Mar 27

Someone asked why Clegg would do it? (debate with UKIP) Well Clegg is an toff but not as venal as Cameron or demented and power hungry as Miliband. However the better reason is he had nothing to lose and he could outflank Labour among the self described intellectual middle classes by being openly pro EU pro Immigrant*. Just as Farage can outflank Cameron in the fear of the furrin stakes.

* I am pro common market pro immigrant BTW i.e. fuck the EU but not as much as all that.

Labour and Tory cannot engage with UKIP as their policies make no sense and they would be reduced to labeling and ad hominem attacks. Like the Tories with varying degrees of emphasis Labour feels it has to appear pro Europe for its corporate backers, antagonistic to Europe for its potential voters, anti racist but against immigrants! Alleged future Labour leader Rachel Reeves ranted at Immigrants on Question Time and just sounded like a nutter. This is why the main 2 will not debate Farage. They have nothing coherent to say on these issues.

Nick Clegg is a vacuum. He believes in nothing and has nothing to say for himself. Farage at least gives the impression he believes a word he says but his message is one whose merits are impossible to judge and of course he is a one man band disowning candidates and his own manifesto dependent on the time of day. UKIP and Lib Dems had a symbiotic relationship here. On the main issues of UKIP they are attacking from opposing flanks – such is the dimension of Westminster left to right now about the difference between Buda and Pest.

Make no mistake in my lifetime no two parties have been as close on policy as Labour and Tory but they dare not explain this or their Plutocratic policies. That their supporters argue so viciously and with such trolling effect shows their [supporters] stupidity.

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , , ,

Jan 02

Why does David Cameron and others make up stats and complaints about new immigrants? Is it because the economic argument is one way. Indeed why do people make specious economic arguments against immigration when they are clearly fallacious or so atomised as to be irrelevant to the subject as a whole? Why do they invent crud like Health Tourism? Now we will charge furriners for A&E a bureaucratic nightmare and is Cameron really suggesting people come here to have Accidents and Emergencies!

The answer is of course the British are ill advised and wrong on everything as a survey showed. It’s why the poor are blamed even though they actually cost less than even healthy pensioners say. That 10s of Bns is given in subsidy to BAE Systems, Train franchises, PFI payments, Banks  etc as Iain Duncan Smith [IDS] tries to scrape a few 100 Mn off the unemployed! IDS a man who lost the leadership of the Tory Party by paying his wife.

It’s why the BBC, Guardian and Mail for all their pretense are state media – The Times does not even try not to be seen as State Media. The vast majority of their output is within the bounds of Polly Toynbee a person who equates support for Rendition Labour with her own goodness and John Redwood a man who does not know the words to the Welsh National Anthem. i.e. a pro Finance corrupt political centre which seeks to monetise at low prices valuable state assets as a sustainable economic policy! Continue reading »

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Jul 19

I detest the Burka it’s a symbol of the ownership of women by men and from all reasonable opinion even the creed of Islam does not call for its wearing.

Most prefer to deal with people whose faces they can see. Then again I am sure when I turn up all 300 pounds of me angry and bull like I am sure people would prefer to deal with someone else.

However much of the objection is from Tory and tabloid sources which views women as chattel or objects at best. It is clearly not motivated by some concern for women or their rights. Indeed given such people it’s hard to imagine they want to look at a woman other then to objectify her as a sex object. Thus we may safely assume that their objections are bigoted at best. As John Cleese would say a bunch of Berks.

The same coalition of Berks actually objects to “Health and Safety” running ranting headlines and spurious articles about the ‘dangers’ of ‘elf [sic] and safety. Many have joined in the ranting demanding instead, one assumes, Death and Danger.  Berks.

Talking of veils and Berks the Tory’s is slipping slightly. All that talk  of caring conservatism reminds me of when I asked a great American what is a Bush “Compassionate Conservative” and he replied same old conservative. Whilst their policies on justice are sense after 13 years of Labour living up to half a line of rhetoric about being Tough on something or other – Labour had tough new policies on hundreds of things most were rubbish. The rest is an assortment of supine behaviour for the benefit of Big Business.

Indeed one wonders if Cameron’s Big Society is an ironic twist on allowing the Food Standards Agency to whither on the vine. Allow the industry to pump us full of fat filled crap short of vital nutrients and packed with salt which makes us eat even more. No chance of a clear traffic light system on nutrients that a harassed working mother could comprehend at a glance. No banning of Trans fats another New Labour failure like failing to clean hospitals.

Of course the biggest berk of the lot is Michael Gove but I rather suspect he is a plot to make his shadow Ed “Bully” Balls look good and become Labour leader. That looks destined  to fail mercifully. Govey today accused Ed ‘Muckspreader’ Balls of spreading  ‘Malicious Falsehoods’ about his plans for education. This may of course be linked to the fact that Gove has not yet produced one piece of factual information about his plans so any comments are false as he changes policy by the hour. A fine pair of Berks.

Britain is already a Big Society dominated by Big Business Big Oil Big Food Big Drinks Big Oligarchs…..

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Apr 21

Jeremy Vine and the so called journalists on Panorama showed why people are skeptical of people who try to bring up the problems of immigration. Their premise was that Britain was full up especially the South East.

This was based on factually: lots of net immigration:  we had the smallest houses and highest prices in Europe (Plus Ca Change?): Roads were slow moving. These ideas were unqualified, un-contexted nor was the historical significance of them tested. A sort of anti intellectual argument based on popular ‘common’ sense.

This was supported by key evidence from ‘experts’

  1. A mother in Barking whose kids lived in a damp slum and who felt immigrants got the housing. Oh and I loved the medically questionable view that all 4 had asthma because of the dampness!
  2. A man who had been commuting from King’s Langley in the slowest manner imaginable for 10 years (no I have no idea why that was significant either bar showing the Tube is rubbish).
  3. A teacher from Manchester who had more students than expected and did not like it.

Bang conclusion the premise they started with – we’re full up and it is getting worse.

Actually the only facts on offer were that net immigration was falling. That employers were filling vacancies with low paid foreign workers who were somehow fitting themselves seamlessly into the Labour market and finding housing in London’s commercial sector without whining about over crowding. That some economically inactive mothers would rather stay in a hovel where they were born than move to better housing in less pressured parts of the country.

I finally  got why Immigration Minister Phil Woolas comes across so sour and angry it’s because he has to listen and answer doom laden questions from mealy mouthed journalist tossers with no mind to reason or accept the probability that trends are temporary. In the 80s these runts moaned about the brain drain now in reverse they refuse to see benefits and demographic needs or even to consider what an aging society with the baby boomer bubble of oldies should do.

There probably are real questions about immigration but Panorama raised none and played to the bigoted moron brigade. Not surprising I guess with Vine and the rest of the lightweights concerned.

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , , , , ,