Aug 30

Gee when a public figure is assaulted one can imagine a long line of people with grievances and grudges. However when George Galloway is attacked we are at a loss. Who would do such a thing. I know it would be an extreme reaction by anyone but thought I’d list the groups:-

1) Kuwaitis, Iraqi Shia and Kurds

George before his reinvention as a creep on the left was previously chiefly known for being a creep on the left to Saddam Hussain competing he claims with Donald Rumsfeld to get their tongue in Saddam’s crease – as though that reflects well on either. His subsequent berating of a senate committee maybe most fun in the US Govt since Bill Clinton, a Cigar and a lovely girl called Monica but does demonstrate his sleazy alignments even if MI5/6’s pathetic attempts to smear him failed.

2) The Left

George is like a debauched uncle who turns up at weddings and grabs the Bride’s butt stealing the show but not in a good way.

3) Jews, Israelis or as George calls them Zionists

George has been a Gaza chief crier, as I have, but adds extra scoops of Ice Cream to compliment the bitterness breaking out the ‘Genocide’ crack. I guess someone who supported Saddam’s gassing of the Kurds and war with Iran would know.

4) Chris Hitchens’ Ghost

Whatever a ‘drink sodden former Trotskyite popinjay’ is George called Chris Hitchens it. Or Hitch or The Hitch as that drunk’s apologists called him.

In the end after such a saintly life I am bereft that someone would cruelly attack George.


written by reaction \\ tags: , , ,

Jun 05

In the run up to the 1997 Election with the economy stable the savant Brown decided to say he would follow Clarke’s policies. Which he did up until 2001. This he supposed would quieten the so called markets and the press and it was successful. Also whilst the Major boom might have been joyless it was working and certainly not as joy-less as the money/debt illusion boom of the new century.

This based on Balls appearances the other day would appear to be Labour’s policy again. Only this time they are accepting economics no one sane on the right or left would take seriously. A withering austerity that threatens to leave millions in poverty and a society of indentured servitude for graduates and mortgage holders. A society where free expression and thought will be sackable offences.

Why would Ed Balls who pushed massive stimulus 3 years ago, along with kicking out the immigrants, to be leader of the Labour Party now be in favour of austerity? Can we conclude that the master of failed City regulation and PFI fraud is a broken man? A cuckold of Miliband? Having to peddle a line drawn up by the moronic prejudice of  focus groups of floating voter flotsam?

Either way only a few technocrats imposed by Germany on Greece, Spain and Italy with Labour, Liberal and Tory parties in the world now support this economics of Austerity. Whilst I dislike Balls intently and think him a functioning moron nonetheless like Vince Cable you have to wonder if to his panoplia of faults being a gutless self first career creep may be added.

No wonder Osborne sponsored his marathon run. They agree on almost everything.

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

Jan 28

So a week after Labour signal the retreat on the cuts they are made to look like prize buffoons. This week Continue reading »

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

May 20

Why is Diane Abbot turning up for the Labour leadership election? Can all 6 candidates get the 30 odd nominations from MPs without it being fixed in that allegedly pragmatic but actually crypto Euro facist way Labour has adopted?

We have 4 candidates who are Thatcher’s grand children all of whom would be lucky to merely be called creeps. Andy Burnham may be the least well known of them but his behaviour and contempt for human rights is on the record. He offers nothing new except he did not crawl as far up either Blair or Brown’s waste passage as Balls and Call me David.

John McDonnell has also expressed a wish to stand and his voting record suggests he would at least be an opposition or counter point. Albeit with as much chance of winning as I have of beating Usain Bolt.

Which brings us to Abbot.  Abbot is clearly no party groupie. She clearly brings a diversity of sex and skin pigment the rest lack – what a pale bunch the main 4 are from spending so much time in the shade of their master’s bottom. However in years of being on This Week I have never detected the slightest interest in it all. She shows little or no actual ambition.

One wonders if this is merely a reaction, and we love reactions, to an obvious white male wash of the other parties and the Labour party? It’s clear that none of the women in the cabinet under the clown Brown were serious appointments as none is considered leadership material. Caroline Flint was right and may inadvertently have secured a nice job on the BBC covering for Abbot who cannot surely be on a regular TV show and a candidate. So did Abbot decide to fill this void or is it a party trick to pretend it’s diverse?

Another reason aside from visual and rhetorical on diversity issues is that maybe Abbot will stop McDonnell, who will ask far more searching questions of the other candidates, getting the necessary MP nominations. Just to give 6 candidates the minimum would take over 70% of MPs and that surely cannot happen without gerrymandering to ensure that the party is seen to give everyone a chance.

So sorry at present the whole thing just stinks of a Brownian fix to seem right on. Maybe Abbot will surprise me and be effective but she seems to have given up wanting to be more than a voice and a small voice at that years ago.

For me she is a candidate for the Right and the Right On until she proves otherwise.

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

Feb 24

Despite it being pointed out that his words sounded semantic, obfuscational and downright open to interpretation a clearly weak, agitated and swivelling Sir Gus O’Donnell twice stuck to the official wording

had not talked to the prime minister about his behaviour with respect to bullying No 10 staff

Twice the qualification Bullying and no 10 Staff. Not the blanket I have not spoken to the Prime Minister about negative behaviour  with Civil service staff. S’Gus even then went on to embroider his comments about getting the best out of people which is not a sign of mendacity – people telling the truth generally don’t need a story after it to prove it.

Again if he wanted to close the door he could but he did not. He’s either incompetent which is becoming de rigueur or a waste of space. Certainly the idea this absence actually had the stones to warn Brown of anything would appear to be the best defence of himself and his idol.

In a related matter the Prime Minister opted once again for the ignorance defence of his team’s attack on Alistair Darling. So once again a senior New Labour figure believes that it is sufficient to be an ignorant incompetent clown who knows less than people who read newspapers?

I prefer people who are malicious as they can stop. Brown supposedly has no control over his own team – quite an admission for a weak minded control junkie or is it a lie? He claims he’s nothing more than a pathetic figure head for vile creatures he has no control over. That’s his story and he’s sticking to it.

Clearly to become a Sir in this society all one needs is to be proficient in Arslicken and be able to re-use the agreed form of words over and over again even when specifically asked not to.

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