Jan 04

Sir Hector Sants the serial clown who ran the FSA gets something more than just his knighthood for complete weakness and complacency he gets a pay off to put a sinister twist on his incompetence. He will now work for the criminal enterprise that is Barclays Bank.

It seems that with people apathetic or content to slag bankers off at Christmas that now the corruption is naked, open and for all to see.

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

Sep 02

John Rentoul in The Independent does not try to rationalise why Blair is hated. Instead he gives a great insight into why Liberal people dislike Blair and those who act like him. A series of smears of your opponents and then a crude summary of what he thinks is what they think and why. The classic anti intellectualism that reached its nadir under Brown. I assume like Blair playing with Prescott Rentoul’s just trying to get a rise as it’s all he has left (there you see I did it myself spoke for him with a nasty explanation of why he does things).

Rentoul basically accuses people of not listening to reason whilst seemingly smearing and trying to infuriate readers. However I thought I’d answer why I have a low view of Blair.

Truth be told in the devalued world of the internet I guess I am a hater although my distaste for Blair is nothing compared to the genuine visceral hatred I have for Gordon Brown. Brown a man, but not in the John Wayne sense, whose every utterance and action is aimed at self aggrandisment and whose lack of intellect and morality are so stunning it’s beyond my credulity that he was ever allowed to ascend to the leadership. I would not even try to rationalise my distaste for Brown save to say I am grateful we are not in the Euro and now go away and not be heard of again.

However there is a point here deep in our subconscious a dislike so great that you will not listen to a word someone says needs to be addressed. It amounts to prejudice or bigotry at that point. On Blair I think I can justify my view but maybe there is something that defies argument and explanation (Another flaw in Rentoul’s argument if people’s dislike defies argument then it defies explanation! The content that spews forth is a rationalisation not an explanation but then expecting nuance from a Blairite is silly of course).

So to Blair. Why do people like me who consider themselves Liberal (even if we are not in cliques as Rentoul  smears) have such odium for the man who brought us 13 years of non Tory Govt.

  • Liar! Never really phased me. The Foreign Secretary said that the Weapons of Mass Destruction were a myth so anyone fooled was probably wanting to be lied to – after all Robin Cook would know better than anyone else as Foreign Secretary. I pretty much accept the Jack Straw view that it was baloney but we did not see much downside in the war.

    Anyone who had read the news on Iraq over the years would have known the country would have struggled to organise a Barbecue after the Gulf War and sanctions bit. If Parliament wanted the WMD fig leaf don’t blame Blair blame yourselves.The problem is that people dislike liars and politicians have opted instead for the incompetence defence – see MI5 and MI6 claiming they did not know the US tortured even though it was clear when they junked the Geneva Convention in the same bin as the post invasion plan of Iraq and was announced in the media and on Channel 4 news. More on this later.Sadly Blair does seem to want to rationalise it and after 58 excuses and rationalisations settled on how proud he was to get rid of a dictator like Saddam, said the main who kissed the souls of Gadaffi’s shoes.

  • Corruption. It’s become accepted and a part of every day Govt under Labour – I am not talking about financial graft here. Like roping in the nasty little spook Scarlett to the so called Dodgy Dossier and then promoting him it showed a preference for fawning subservience and broken men who would do their bidding over anyone else.This was repeated with Sir Ian Blair who made a victim of himself in someone else’s murder. He was then wheeled out as required to support even more ludicrous draconian nut case policies.
    It was this aspect of the wars that needled me.The military also were paid off. Their incompetence and waste in procurement brushed under the carpet. Indeed the Govt took the hit over Helicopters for Afghanistan from the clowns who’d wasted more than enough money to provide them. The laughable scenario where we bought helicopters and tried to penny pinch on the software rendering them unusable.
  • Incompetence. This became the New Labour ethos. No one lied they just knew nothing. MI5 even this year as it’s revealed Blair and Straw actively had a hand in determining the rendition and “interrogation” of British subjects denies it knew anything about it. MI5 denies it read newspapers or watched Channel 4 news. No one turned marginal intelligence into the 45 minute claim it was a lack of responsibility and ignorance. Every failure was greeted with a I do not know.Blair and Campbell preferred to waste resources on an inquiry which no one believed to prove he had produced a load of crap without lying just by being foolish!
    PFI ruinously expensive and we are paying for 30 years, thanks.
    How hard was it to ensure under no circumstances that we did not torture and beat people to death in Iraq? Especially given the preferred explanation of why we were there, to free them from torture and murder. Indeed all we do is spend masses of money buying people off, denying and pretending it did not happen.
    Most successes were stroke of the pen and delivered by legislation never by management. Minimum wage.
  • Death Toll. If I had a critique of the under rated Major Govt who laid the platform for Brown’s moronic economic management in this decade it was this why did they not clean the hospitals? Yet we had Milburn’s red alert, foundation status etc etc legislation and more legislation, PFI, NHS Direct,  etc, Yet why did C-Diff and MRSA stay a slaughter of thousands of people up to when in 2007 Alan Johnson the new Health Secretary said it was unacceptable – not sure he did much about it either! The seemingly pointless shift to Foundation Hospitals in some regions alone is said to have killed 100s. Talk to doctors and it’s the dirty secret.
  • Rhetoric Led. They understood the media hence you have one Baby ‘P’ or Bulger and everone is sacrificed to be seen to be doing something. However as noted you kill 100s in the health service and it’s not an ongoing story just a day of embarrassment.One came to wonder at the nadir under Brown if policy was someone would come up with a line of rhetoric then develop policy from that without an inkling of goals, problems to be solved or strategy (Tough on Crime being so obvious I will use it anyway!). Just pass rafts of legislation and bore interviewers you have acted.
  • Achievement Not Important. The aim of policy as the grim Asylum policies of the last few years was the generation of facts to show ‘that policy was working’. Anyone who has ever worked corporately can tell you what happens when there is a focus on numbers they move in the right direction – in the US all crime reduction miracles happen except murder as you cannot re-classify murder albeit Blair and Brown probably could.To reduce Asylum numbers and increase deportations the Home Office decided to go after and lock up families – rather ignoring the demographic reasons for immigrants! Thus the Coalition had a nice open goal of no longer detaining children.
  • Internment. Possible the most fascist and illiberal policy I can think of any Western Govt contemplating was 90 day internment. It smears the entire Labour party who seriously contemplated it. As Ministers and advisors it taints for me all the serious leadership candidates. The sad fact is no one has been held for 28 days even.There are only three reasons for wanting this on the statute books. One some sinister scenario none of us can comprehend or want to and they do not want to explain to us why they want to hold people in limbo for 90 days. Two that it was manifest incompetence and they had no idea what they wanted. Three rhetoric led they assumed a frightened population who are not strong on individual liberty would want it and decided to play the tough on crime Joker. None of these reflect on more than the fascistic bent of those coming up with the Policy.
  • Other Illiberality. Up and beyond a mere fault. CCTV does not solve or crucially prevent much crime but we can say we are doing something – people do not have number plates visible at all times sadly. ID Cards, where are your papers mein herr.

I could go on but the theme is this an obsession with perception not achievement. Of nothing being beyond the Pale if they thought they could sell it. So one could argue in a roundabout way Rentoul is right to say people resent winning elections. However that is not true. I think it was with the Tories still so unpopular they could barely scrape power in 2010 after 13 years of expensive incompetence that Labour had an amazing opportunity. The finances of the Clarke/Major years had begun to pay off the manifest incompetence and economic mismanagement of the Thatcher years. Yet what did they achieve that is lasting? That they achieved little but did it in an insulting stupid and illiberal manner I cannot see as anything to praise. The wars just add to their reputation of incompetence and led by tomorrow’s headlines.

I actually owe a great debt to Blair and Brown. Whilst I will never match the complex sophistry of self serving rationalisation nor the social intelligence of Blair I certainly have lost an inferiority I once felt of people with better grammar and Oxbridge education. That they should have bent their intelligence to polarising anti intellectualism shows what you cannot learn in education and the cloistered confines of The Law and The Labour Party.

In the end it’s the base Sun reader anti intellectualism that did peak under Brown when Alan Johnson 19 years a Postman had nothing to say on the Postal dispute and decided to mock science in the Commons. However the dye was cast.

Blair is a great Prime Minister in the way these things are measured but like Thatcher longevity is not the same as good or even competent. I’d take Major over them tomorrow and the next day.

Sadly their best policy may have been treating addicts with drugs to help the natural fall in crime. For some reason they never trumpeted this as its not one that makes for good rhetoric and would require nuance and explanation.

Contrary to Rentoul’s analysis for this liberal Iraq actually stands out in a positive sense. I believe the Straw position it was done in the national interest and that was to stay allied to the US. It was not done to sell Labour. It is a measure of the missed opportunity that a war conducted with such poverty of thought for Post Invasion Iraq did not cost them an election win in 2005.

They would have won 3 elections doing more good.

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

Aug 03

Nothing earth shattering in the “Five Days that Changed Britain” documentary just that a lot of people were slow to see what amazingly this website fore saw immediately after the election and especially after Cameron came out and proposed a deal.

The documentary did highlight one thing that stills dogs politics. Labour were utterly incompetent. Despite having no chance to win the election for several weeks they had not prepared for a Coalition agreement. Even if they had got 20 more seats they would have been unprepared and unable to negotiate. This is a sign of what I have felt for a decade that Labour could produce rhetoric, legislation that evolved from rhetoric but there was no understanding. No thought. No analysis. No insight. No preparation. Worse that they had no insight into the damage they have done in the first 9 years of the new century. That they do not feel a need to change. They may write new slogans on placards but an emphasis again on slogans not content and analysis.

The worrying thing is that the dynamics of a coalition and  the cuts could lead to a seemingly unreconstructed Labour Party back into power. Whilst I cannot support the threatened cuts which seem too far it is surely worse that this party obsessed with just throwing one liners at problems and having no real depth gets back. The damage such self justifying incompetence and authoritarianism could do in another 5 years from a position of debt and lower growth is unthinkable.

If Labour cannot prepare for something in their own interests then who with any insight could suggest putting them in power even if one agrees with more with their shallow placard statements.

Oh and those who felt Brown  left with dignity were wrong. He like a petty child took his ball home with him rather than fulfill his constitutional duty. From pompous prig to self regarding self important clown in 13 years.

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , ,

Jul 06

It’s tempting to refer to Osbornism as Thatcherism revisited. Indeed so divisive is someone who won popularity and hated contests at the same time that both sides claim this as a positive for their position. The sad truth is that Thatcherism was 12 years of total incompetence. If re-structuring was achieved it was caused by North Sea Oil and latterly the lower pound, EU membership and the resultant inwards investment not to mention a world growth spurt.

Did selling off BA, BP and BT etc make them world class companies? No but commercial pressures certainly made them leaner and in BP’s case meaner and lower down. Still at least with the Gulf of Mexico fresh in our memories no could associate the now mostly US company with US corporate ethics with being British? No one would be that stupid and ill informed? Advertisers made a lot of money out of BT and BA certainly. In the end privatising has saved future generations from pensions and redundancy and forced difficult decisions on workers. You can quibble at the price the Govt got and whether the individual share owning boom it encouraged has done more for con-men than people’s wealth but really at worst it is no harm no foul.

Council Housing sell off. Selling off council housing is a disaster. It has created debt and a lending bubble. One of the real dangers of a house price crash is that the British have built huge personal debts  on assets in a bubble. That house prices are only sustained on for many near zero interest rates should be a warning to the current Govt about cutting too hard too soon. Many of the houses have been sold to people without the wealth to maintain them as well. Whilst some can take a paper profit and leave renovation to someone else many got left with negative equity and a crumbling house. Much of the reasoning against immigration when it is spelt out by barrack room boors like Warren Mitchell’s alter ego Ed Balls is around the lack of housing which has become a cover for an overall lack of housing – immigrants tend to have a very small foot print living in areas and with personal space few of us indigenous folk will do. Councils were forbidden to use the money to rebuild new council houses and created the housing shortage and asset bubble we have now. When Liverpool council alone defied this lunacy they were stripped of office. Far from liberating people it has led to debt and a plowing of whatever wealth people accrue into an asset bubble. Arguably it has contributed to problems in education and child delinquency as more and more couples both work to pay for even a small house.

Falklands. You can take it or leave but a competent Govt would have seen the Argies coming and scared them off. After all one sub sunk their battleship and could have taken out half their fleet. We are still involved in a turf war over resources and now have a stack of dogma and no go areas to prevent a sensible resolution. Certainly we can thank someone their bombs did not go off or the loss of life would have been more. One could argue relative to Iraq and Afghanistan this was a credible operation well run at minimal cost of lives and equipment. Indeed the conversion to Foundation Trust status by 1 health authority killed more Britains so by New Labour standards a roaring success.

The Economy. I’ll accept the economic landscape changed and had to change. Since we were not going to become a Socialist society a sort of Soviet plus state was unsustainable. However the economics of the 1980s were cretinous. What coherent policy has the £ go between $1.06 and $2.47 in the space of a few years? If Britain was able to survive it was because we had oil to sell. We were self sufficient in energy. We grew our own food. However it did not create the dynamic export industries that Osborne thinks will happen now.

To cope with the unemployment that her Govt created they decided to buy off some sections of the poor by putting them on incapacity benefit. Now Osborne and the Thatcher loving media try to present those people as spongers and shirkers. Again a short term answer of such staggering stupidity that New Labour must be gutted it was not their idea.

The Lawson Boom, The Poll Tax, Tracking the German Mark and other manifestly insane and poorly thought out policies I’ll leave you to think about.

Thatcher’s biggest successes dependent on your point of view were

  • Union Legislation achieved by branding the working classes of Britain as an enemy to be squashed and allowing us to be openly beaten up by Police – the legacy is a distaste of the Police that goes beyond just the working classes.
  • The most unequivocal success and one the Tory Party will not mention is the creation of the single European Market and the negotiation of the UK’s rebate. Things that Thatcher’s rhetoric imply she respectively opposed and won. The rebate the British failed to bite the arm off of what was actually on offer with Thatcher using harsh rhetoric to angrily demand what was already on offer!  On the Single European market she gave away 90% of what Right Tories complain about. In addition for all their anti Euro nonsense she tied us to the German Mark! Which resulted in Black Wednesday and the genuine event Tories can trumpet the stewardship of the Clarke Major Govt, truly the only competent one of my lifetime.

The point is not about Thatcherism but that Osborne must know that what Thatcher did has not made Britain dynamic. If anything we are in a worse position than then with Oil no longer significant, importing food, importing energy with massive personal debt. You can trace every thing except the Public Sector deficit to Thatcher and that is only because of the Clarke Major years. If people want to celebrate that as a success or repeat it than they are in denial.

In conclusion one hopes that George Osborne is serious about his economics and not a Thatcherite. She must be the most over rated Premier of my life time. The damage she did took from 1992 to 1999ish to sort out only for Brown Blair to squander that legacy in hubris and put us in a worse position with Public debt and the scars of Thatcherism still with us.

Make no mistake as backward and rigid as the UK economy 1980 was it had slack and scope all of which has been used up by the Thatcher and Blair/Brown Govts to no good end.

The Thatcherism party is over and the problems are still here to greater degrees.

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

Jun 22

There is some good news in the world the Greggs opposite where I type has closed. The benefits to this in terms of public health are probably not as good as one would like. I am sure it is because newer and cheaper forms of premature death are available to the Eastenders viewing types as well as the more discerning bad eaters. The point is almost everything comes with good and bad.

Thus George Osborne will start cuts and one can hope that they really do slash the NHS admin budget in half by culling Authority Managers and the internal market which has and kills 1000s every year. The pursuit of Foundation status alone has led to slaughter in some districts as financial controls at the bottom and greed at the top took hold. However savings come at a short term price of pay offs and re-organisation. The NHS is not up for cuts merely savings to subsidise the above inflation rise in the price of health goods.

Other areas are not as flabby as the NHS. They will represent a real choice. I am of the opinion that some cuts are necessary but except for redundancy should not fall on the wages and pensions of public sector workers who earn less than 20,000 a year or maybe as much as average wage.

Where I probably would be a lone voice on the left is that I am happy for the cuts long term. Darling can prattle about the sustainability and the need for less depth in cuts and he is right to an extent but personally I am happy if they go further. I take the Osborne view that our economy cannot keep growing on IOUs to China and the financial markets.

Darling and Labour’s credibility is dashed by the level of structural debt – the difference long term between what they spent and raised in taxes in even the good times.  This is manifest incompetence. It is also why their complaints about cuts have no credibility. It was a short term electoral device to spend money to create a dependent culture and then use the threat of losing that illicit spending to gerrymander votes. It was a giant Ponsi scheme that would have led us below Greece in a beggar thy neighbour world. As said before if the Govt was not so happy to delight in the rhetorical advantage it would and should be looking at prison for Messers Brown, Balls and Mandelson. Consider that a few thousand in expenses has led 3 MPs to court what about Billions of gerrymandering waste?

The problem I have is that the other reason our economy makes no sense and is biased to the South East and requires public sector jobs as a regional subsidy is of course the City of London. It’s wealth addition to the economy since 1990 was apparently wiped out in the last few years as the rest of us paid the debt. However it’s influence raises the currency and inflation not to mention creating a housing asset bubble in the South East. It stifles exports as we try to leech a percentage off transactions and money flows through the capital.

The point being if Osborne’s view is to fundamentally re-structure the economy and not to be Thatcher in the 80s stumbling from one economic incomptence to the next and genuinely make Britain pay and be sustainable in the long term I can support re-balancing to a degree. Even going further than is strictly called for.

It may impinge growth and cause a double dip but frankly so what? Growth as currently achieved is at the expense of the long term. It is based on asset bubbles so people feel wealthier as their house is worth more and other factors. With Europe deflating it would make no sense for the UK to keep reflating as aside from  more debt what would we achieve long term? The party has gone on so long (since 1991 arguably) that whilst we bid up prices of our houses in the UK and managed to avoid enjoying life it has to be paid for whether we enjoyed working 45 hours a week and never seeing our kids to stand still and go backwards or not.

Britain continues to rack up Balance of Payments deficits and Fiscal deficits even when the economy is growing. Does Osborne really feel there is some massive entrepreneurial flair that is going to come forth and fill that gap alone? Or is he like Thatcher hoping to rely the world picking up as in the sustained 80s boom? Or Brown in the 90s? Does he have any more solution or just pain and ideology?

The real reason I am in favour of this is that in some years time someone will have the opportunity to do what Brown should have done. Not just  spend money to produce rhetoric to produce votes but to make a sustainable difference in people’s lives.  Better still both opposition parties to that genuinely progressive alternative will be tainted by the cuts.

Here is the agenda for the next but 1 leader of the Labour  party to re-build the economy around a strong sustainable quality public sector not hung up on internal markets. To not have a Health Service we cling to like Flotsam from a sunken ship but one we can stand proud on.

Sadly Burnham, Balls, Miliband A and Miliband B have no agenda just rhetoric. Their opposition to the cuts will be Manna from Heaven for the Coalition. Quite why Labour have not made Darling leader as he is the only one effectively challenging the cuts and had already taken steps to come back from Brown’s folly land is beyond me.

Nonetheless the next but 1 Labour leader will have a chance and he will be able to thank Mr Osborne just as Brown was given a straight flush which he folded by Ken Clarke.

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

Jun 01

People like to credit the Israelis with being very efficient whether it’s the Mossad or their armed forces or their airforce. Certainly relative to who they faced in the past in Egypt and Syria they may well be. However I think this is a position based ironically on racism and the supposition that Israeli = Jew.

Racism is really an expression of inferiority so most stereotypes try to juxtapose dark skinned people with athleticism not intelligence. Thus thinking sportsmen like Ledley King and Orlando Hudson are assumed to have the quality of speed they do not. Jewish people with conspiracy, usury and an association with getting on in life not on merit.

Israel uses excessive force is to me beyond question – no more than the USA. Its forces seem to act in the nastiest way fueling their hardest enemies and quieting moderate voices in those communities which seems self defeating long term. I suspect this is partly encouraged by the weak and venal politicians that sit at their head – people like Shimon Peres who is laughably called a man of peace and Benjamin Netanyahu. Almost all seem tainted by financial corruption in a way that would have them thrown out by a less frightened electorate. Yet these mercenary weaklings clearly do reflect a large strata of society as they and their ilk keep getting re-elected.

In the Lebanon  they terrorised the whole of a country that is at best a loose confederation. Victimising all for the actions of an uncontrollable sect. They destroyed vast amounts of infrastructure and did little damage to their alleged targets – indeed Hezbollah claimed a great victory and were strengthened whilst their local rivals put down. You could argue the policy was a success in keeping a Lebanon divided and broken for the forseeable future but economic progress there hardly made them more dangerous long term to Israel.

In Dubai to kill one eminently replaceable man they exposed 26 operatives and failed to make it look like a death from natural causes. Incompetence on a vast scale combined with the over kill – they should have just shot him it would have been easier. They also took for granted that the British and Germans etc would cry a few crocodile tears about fake passports and move on – correct on that one.

In Gaza last year why attack the UN? I guess why target the UN and Red Cross in Lebanon? I’d like to put it down to either incompetence or paranoia not blood lust as the starting point. The scale of the damage again bore no relation to what could possibly have been the scope of any mission bar to destroy and hamper as many people and lives as it could. Hamas was unaffected and now has relatively even more power in the region. Again they hit everyone bar their enemies from what one can tell from a distance.

Thus to intercept some ships with people who would be hostile to them they went in and at the first sign of trouble shot to kill – the ratio of wounded to dead makes any other suggestion hard to take. Even the British military after Bloody Sunday could turn up to a riot situation and only kill by means of Rubber Bullets. Again why such an over reaction? Why such contempt for human life? Why such poor planning if you did not mean to kill going in? Incompetence? Blood lust? Again they may not like these people but they were not their enemy. It is not beyond a half competent armed forces, one would like to think Israel sent their best, to take a ship of ‘activists’ –  civilians with no fighting experience – activists is like the insurgent label the US uses after butchering civilians.

As said yesterday the Israelis do have security concerns and whilst from our perspective they seem to take a sledge hammer to their house to kill a fly I think this stems from insecurity. Not wanting to appear weak in any way and a smattering of incompetence.  The only people who have been helped by their actions over the last 4 or 5 years are Hamas and Hezbollah.

Nonetheless I guess what did these civilians think Israel would do? Respond minimally? Avoid bloodshed as a first resort to any sort of resistance? Even I expected this. One should not make play of the International Waters rider for 2 reasons: we know where these ships were going: we know International Law is a load of shit anyway which is what the powerful pull on the weak but are never subject to. This is an atrocity but as I said we get monthly reminders of the UK’s depravity even if much of it is mostly carried out by our allies with our full support. To me this is in a legalistic way not necessarily murder albeit they probably did not have to shoot more than one person or indeed anyone lethally to put down these protesters.

I can’t say that Israel is not acting to some degree in its short term interests and it clearly views any attempt at compassion, understanding and thought as a sign of weakness. There are anti Semites out there but most people who detest Israel do so for its lack of humanity not the prevailing religion within whatever borders you like to acknowledge. After all some of the soldiers could easily have been Druze who make up 9% of the population and do serve (not sure if there is any restriction on where they serve mind).

Israel puts me in mind of the Monty Python sketch where Cleese gives a guy a Banana and says “Attack me with that banana” and when he does Cleese shoots him.  It acts provocatively to the Palestinians and their supporters and then shoots them.

And finally I just do not see what strategic aims showing you can be inhuman to an enemy that is grateful for that shows. Hamas, al Queda, Hezbollah and every loony fringe in the Islamic world must welcome the continued overkill from the USA/UK and Israel. At least Israel’s positions and actions have some root in genuine fear.

BTW I am assured that Israel will be cleared of all wrong doing in its upcoming internal inquiry however some procedures may change slightly.

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

May 19

Two men who plotted to kill thousands of Britons in a terrorist atrocity cannot be deported because it would infringe their human rights, a court ruled yesterday.

Al Qaeda operative Abid Naseer and his accomplice Ahmad Faraz Khan were planning a ‘mass casualty attack’, probably against shoppers at the Arndale Centre in Manchester over the Easter holiday last year.

This is the Mail’s response to the weak minded judge who decided to act as judge and jury on a deportation case, yes a deportation case not a trial or hearing.  As I said yesterday there is no evidence. The above is ridiculous since the nature of any plot is unknown how did they plot to kill 1000s? It’s almost impossible to kill 100s given 9-11 is next to unrepeatable.

So how does the Mail know? It does not.

It could not prove Mr Naseer was an al Queda operative either. We have a comment that an innocuous email sent to what we are told was an al Queda operative using a wedding as a metaphor for an operation that apparently did not involve weapons or explosives! A plot that has left no evidence only supposition which a pathetic judge passed on without any proof.

My point to: the security services: this despicable weak judge who cannot make a judgment without pandering to the morons who read the likes of the Mail: anyone so gutless to fear this: any silly Tories wanting to be all New Labour and depraved: is this. A plot to kill thousands would surely leave more trace than emails. I mean you probably need to have 5 truckloads of explosives Oklahoma style and be very ‘lucky’ to kill 500 anywhere in the country.

That the Mail would fall for such an obvious attempt to obfuscate for another 11 arrests to no charges after a buffoon was caught showing off papers to the TV news is not a sign of its establishment position. More it suiting its desire to push an agenda of anger and fear of Muslims on its readers. It must be an awful but very addictive place to be that angry and hate filled you’ll believe such obvious nonsense from the Judiciary and Police trying to cover up for bungling incompetence compounded by a total lack of evidence.

I have no idea why so many Britons find peace in screaming about their country being lost. Sadly it does seem that we have become the mental weaklings of the world and accept CCTV, no rights, stop and search etc etc. It’s only when it’s speed cameras we discover a desire for liberty!

There is a paradox. The state security apparatus has shown itself to be incompetent – or preferring to appear that way for political reasons. Yet people are happy to believe any leak at a time when they seemingly do not believe a word said in the political system which runs it.

The Cappa as to why these allegations are false is that if the security morons thought he was a threat but said he was not he could have been deported. There was no value in them demonstrating he was a threat other than to scare the public to keep accepting more and more draconian laws. An interesting time for it to happen as the Tory party cries into it’s beer that it accepted human rights and liberalism in its coalition.

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

Apr 28

My issue with Brown getting into a car still miked up calling some old bigot an old bigot is not that he did that.

Hell how many of us have left a meeting and used industrial language about someone who we did not like.

My issues are:-

  1. That he has so little self awareness that he has the mike on him.
  2. That he does not confront the old bigot’s views and patronises her. For all his education he does not have any arguments to defeat some 65 year old who does not know what a bigot is.
  3. Worst is that he as so called Prime Minister and so called Leader instantly blames an advisor for him meeting ordinary people. Honestly does he take responsibility for anything he does? Is he saying he is a mere toy to be played with by his advisors?

The repercussions should be severe for the Labour party. This man’s unsuitability and child like personality have long been known about. Yet acolytes and sycophants have denied stories about Brown being a petty little boy who has never grown up. They blamed others support for Blair for honest and now seemingly mild critique that this broken fool did not have the personality for leadership. He mocks the 300+ Labour MPs who did not have to but backed his leadership bid – given many clearly did not support him ironically a clue to their inside knowledge of his vengeful nature. They are all shown as liars and fools by this single episode.  Quite how any of the MPs who backed him and denied what was transparent before today can ever be taken seriously again is beyond me.

Those who may be smiling are Geoff ‘Buff’ Hoon and ‘Patronising’ Hewitt who led a coup against this wreck of a Prime Minister. Miliband and the rest of the PLP are shown as gutless cringing creeps who thought of their ambition above the party and the working people of this country. Hoon and Hewitt they at least tried to save the Labour Party from being led by a childish, narcissistic, psychotic  self aggrandising twit.

“Fools,” said I, “you do not know
Silence like a cancer grows
Hear my words that I might teach you
Take my arms that I might reach you”
But my words like silent raindrops fell
And echoed in the wells of silence

This man and the Labour MPs who backed him for an easy life may have sentenced the working class to a Tory Govt intent on making the poor pay so they can inherit a lot of money tax free.

Labour had 13 years and yet like Brown all it seems to have wanted to do was enrich itself and have people bow and scrape to their goodness. Are they any more the party of the working class than the Tories?

Brown is back to chasing the pity vote? Could this be a deliberate strategy? Sadly its is not this country is led by a fool.

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

Apr 14

Why do the political parties all want to enforce trusts, participation, elected officials and representations on us we have not asked for?

IMO it’s so they can further the politics of denial. Thus when things go wrong they can act like jack booted alpha males being decisive sacking people and demanding action when things go wrong. Like the Baby ‘P’ thing hold an inquiry sack loads of people and pretend that means you’ve acted and give a damn about the individuals involved.

I just do not see a general demand from the populace for more trust statuses and other meddling gimmickry that have become metaphors for action by our political elite.

It’s a tacit admission by Labour and the Conservatives they cannot run the country and you should take that into account when voting.

In health we just want clean local hospitals and to be seen in a decent time window.

written by reaction \\ tags: , ,

Mar 24

In the same way that stating a sane opinion about recreational drugs or even prescribed drugs will get you shouted down. It does seem anyone sane who suggests that spending cuts should start at the big spenders like Health runs the risk of Opprobrium.

The Health service under New Labour has been well funded and people paid a lot more for the same work –  in Doctor’s cases less work. Yet we still have the mass slaughter of mis-prescribing which only makes the news if it involves a foreign doctor especially if he is an ethnic minority. For all the money spent cleaning has not been improved making a mockery of all the extra money and obfuscational lexicon of Trusts and Foundation Hospitals. C-Diff and MRSA should be virtual history.

Even if we cannot reduce the health budget we should be looking to get it to deliver better. If that means ripping up the innumerable bureaucratic bodies of middle class managers who seem to improve nothing but their salary then so be it. Ring fencing anything merely ensconces the lazy and flatulent structures and will inevitably lead to front line services suffering at the expense of huge salaries, pensions and pay off to the incompetent and non essential. As we see with corporates the first target to cut is the lowest paid and productive workers terms and conditions which would be a mistake in the many dirty Hospitals.

Another source of saving would be to re-negotiate the PFI contracts which guarantee returns of up to and beyond a ludicrous 30% to Brown’s money-men friends in the City. Maybe this is legally impossible but leverage can always be found by asking for the letter of contracts and threats of greater inspection.

A free service which has spent a fortune on IT should not need the hundreds of bureaucratic bodies and authorities it has. It’s an arcane bag of things not part of a developed structure or even an evolved one. More a non structure caused by the continual meddling, re-organising and gimmick cult of New Labour i.e. Foundation status, Trusts, ad nauseum…

We need a new deal on health. That doctors will provide more for their vastly increased salaries and not out-source to questionable foreign locums flying in for the day.

Most of all 13 years after it was an obvious priority we want the hospitals cleaned. Now.

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