Labour’s Manifesto Leaked!!!

EXCITING NEWS!! Our mole in the Labour Party’s CREEPY (The Committee for the Reelection of the Party) has managed to get hold of a draft copy of the party’s manifesto for the 2015 election.

This is dynamite stuff so I promised faithfully I would not publish it. However, as we all know a promise is not worth the paper it isn’t written on in politics, and in any case circumstances have changed since I made the promise (namely that now I have the info and before I didn’t), so here we go.

It seems the PET (Party Election Theme) will be DOUBLE OR QUITS, since apparently lots of things are going to be doubled. It was felt this would be a sufficiently catchy slogan to seize and retain the attention of voters.

And in a stunning move there will be a major reconciliation of the warring tribes within the great movement, bringing back on board some who had jumped ship and others who had of course been pushed off it.

This is apparently how it goes:

A) The following will be doubled:

1. borrowing – to invest in infrastructure and thus create jobs
2. doctors’ salaries – to improve the NHS
3. local council salaries – to improve councils
4. our EU contribution – to improve the EU
5. investment in PFIs to improve infrastructure, along with the doubling of the time taken to pay off the debt
6. the size of the Civil Service to speed up and improve the quality of service to Ministers
7. the welfare budget so as to abolish poverty
8. taxes so as to pay for all the above (an idea filched from President Hollande of France)
9. the minimum wage to keep the unions quiet
10. MPs’ salaries to keep them quiet – or at least quieter
11. the number of government consultants to create jobs and help Ministers reach the right decisions
12. the amount of land sold to foreigners to build houses to rent to native Brits in a vast extension of the “Buy-to-let” policy, with the hope of doubling tenants and reducing home-ownership by half during a single parliament
13. the cost of energy through the doubling of the number of operational coal mines – this is calculated to double the country’s fuel self-sufficiency safety factor and of course will put the final nail in Mrs Thatcher’s coffin
14. the BBC grant so as to improve government propaganda
15. the airspace devoted to convincing the public that the Tories are incompetent toffs (some had argued against this on the basis that everyone knew it already and that all our politicians are incompetent but the only case to be resolved was which lot were less incompetent than the rest)

B)    Some things however will be abolished:

1. border controls to save paperwork
2. the armed forces to save money (and the risk of a coup)

C)    The main govt aims will be based on growth. The party is particularly pleased with the brilliant idea of increasing spending while simultaneously reducing the crippling debt through the anticipated massive increase in growth. Growth in fact will be the party’s new mantra. With this in mind, the following policies will be pursued:

1. to reduce the debt through increased borrowing and spending (another idea from our French socialist comrades “Merci, les gars!”)
2. to end austerity by increasing growth (see previous article)
3. to increase the money supply (and thus in people’s pockets) by printing lots more of it
4. to improve the country’s infrastructure so as to increase growth
5. to reduce carbon emissions through increased growth

D)    Among the Reconciliation and Truth appointments (RATS) will be these exciting initiatives:

1. Tony Blair to run the The Listen and Respond Department (LIAR).
2. Gordon Brown to oversee the Quantitative Easing Solves Everything Department (QUESE).
3. Peter Mandelson to run the Socialist Millionaires United Group (SMUG) – this will convince the people that Labour has nothing against millionaires, as long as they are socialists.
4. David Milliband to run the How to Lose elections Gracefully (HOTLEG) Advisory Group, which it is hoped this will be of particular on-going value to his brother (Gordon Brown is said to have lobbied unsuccessfully for this particular job).
5. John Prescott to be Roving Troubleshooter (ROT), as usual punching above his weight, difficult though this may now be – he will be known as SUPREME ROTTER.
   David Blunkett was also offered a post but apparently declined on the basis that the country did not want – as he said – to see the blind leading the blind.

All in all, this is a stupendously exciting package to put to the voters in 2015. I bet you can’t wait!!

 

Owning your Own Dwelling

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/constructionandproperty/10050205/Foreign-home-buyers-easing-housing-crisis.html

So, let me see if I have got this right.

Posh houses in London are bought by foreigners and let to native Brits.

That is it, right? And how far can this process go? Until we are all tenants of rich foreigners as we become poorer and they richer?

This seems to be a system remarkably similar to what happened in the early Middle Ages. And it is supposed to be good news?

The funny thing is, even cavemen had – as far as I know – their own cave. Ditto with American Indians re tipis and Africans with their mud huts. But advanced Britain has to have much of its population living in someone else’s property!

There will be NO social justice until NO INDIVIDUAL – foreign or otherwise – owns TWO or more places to live until EVERY native Briton owns ONE dwelling.

The current system is completely  rotten and immoral. The hilarious thing is that many paid up true British socialists are also multi-propertied owners at the same time as they rail against the evils of capitalism, prompting the weary old phrase: “You couldn’t make it up.”

Have a good day, especially those luxuriating in their own properties while millions of their fellow-citizens struggle to pay the rent.

 

GOOD NEWS OR BAD???

TERRIBLE NEWS FOR THE GREAT PEOPLE’S PARTY

Rumours of the Labour Party’s Central Planning Office blowing a fuse have been swirling around the ether since latest British manufacturing production figures were released.

It seems that contrary to endlessly-repeated predictions of the total collapse of manufacturing along with the rest of the economy (rumours primed by Labour since the first years of Mrs Thatcher of course, even though manufacturing was higher at the end of her period than at the beginning), British manufacturing growth is holding its own and set for an increase even as that in most of Europe still declines. This is because Britain’s share of trade with the rest of the world is increasing while the EU atrophies into a total bureaucratic meltdown – apart from Germany of course, whose high-tech machine-tools and automobiles are still rising in demand.

Labour IT wizards have admitted that there must be a glitch in their algorhythms and are furiously working to fix it. Of course, any improvement in the economy is a disaster for Labour, as they thrive best when the economy is collapsing, both when they are in AND out of power.

On the technical front, one IT insider confided that they may have given Osbourne too high a negativity rating. This should apparently have been minus 100 and not minus 10,000, a rating given because he is an upper-class toff. “In future,” admitted the technician, “we may have to set this variable according to actual performance rather than a person’s social origin. But to be fair, nobody expected a toff to have a clue, and so this has taken us all by surprise.”

Still, analysts assume that Labour is working on some sort of spin to explain to the people why this improvement in manufacturing is in fact a purely spurious and completely temporary delusion and the figures do in fact on the contrary predict eventual disaster. Meanwhile the Labour Economic Planning Department is still proposing extra borrowing and spending to “create jobs”, and thus like its soulmates over in France demanding an end to “austerity” and a new spending splurge to “boost growth.” It remains to be seen whether the British public will buy this breathtakingly-daring economic cunning plan, which is one which the Germans – so far – have resisted. The astonishing thing is that all those countries now in an economic death spiral because of too much borrowing and debt are proposing to indulge in yet more borrowing and debt. This must either be extraordinarily clever or totally insane, and the jury is still out on that one.


NOTES FROM THE PRESS:
A) “Just days after receiving a Queen’s Awards for Enterprise to mark its exporting performance, the company said it will expand its Stoke-on-Trent production facilities, with the creation of 230 jobs.

Its sales rose 6pc to £70.2m last year, helped by fast growing sales in the US, Asia and South America. More than 80pc of its turnover comes from overseas.

Kevin Oakes, chief executive, said: “We sell into more than 130 countries. I have no doubt that’s largely because we manufacture in the UK. Our overseas customers see a real value in the Made in England backstamp. It’s not just about the quality and design, it’s about the integrity of the business as a whole – the service we offer and the fact that we stand by our products and our values.”

B) “Thursday’s promising manufacturing output figures may have come as a surprise to many, but not John Nollett. The managing director of £19m turnover Pailton Engineering, which was founded in his grandfather’s garden shed in1969, has long been a cheerleader for the prospects of British production. Even when politicians were, as Nollett puts it, “pushing manufacturing to one side thinking it was dead”.

“I own a German manufacturing business and an English one – I see [similarities] between German and British skills. And ours exceed what they have – even if they’re better at marketing themselves.” “

 

What is “A Socialist”??

A True British Socialist

- A true British socialist is one sufficiently well off not to have to bother about the economic meltdown he or she brings about through the utter and incompetent misuse of money taken from people who create it (usually lumped together with yawning sneers as “capitalists”).

- The true elite British socialist is a great thinker, usually in some posh part of the country such as Hampstead, where he or she is surrounded by like-minded people, almost all of whom have never done a real job such as postman, check-out assistant, dustman, farmer (unless country gent) or bog-cleaner.

- Having thought at great length on behalf of the plebs (for which of course the latter should be eternally grateful) and after a formative passage from prep to public school and then on to Oxbridge the true socialist is now well-equipped to set about his self-anointed task of bringing his country’s economy to its knees on behalf of his less-privileged fellows.

- Once the inevitable collapse of the economy has been accomplished but after a brief period of delusional voter-bribing euphoria during which it is announced that bust and poverty have both been abolished to be replaced by perpetual boom then he or she then retires to his or her Hampstead (or Scottish) retreat or indeed his or an oligarch mate’s yacht in Monaco and sends best wishes to the plebs left behind while blaming it all on the incoming government and of course Mrs Thatcher.

- Of course, not all true socialists are effete and idle thinkers in Hampstead. Some inhabit leafy rural towns and villages well away from the problems created by their gurus. The archetypal true British socialist has a very large income wrenched by the sweat of his or her – or often someone else’s – brow and wisely invested in a large property from which he or she can rail against the unfairness of non-socialism while refusing the overpowering temptation to exile him or herself to a foreign true socialist paradise such as Cuba, where the people are dirt poor but rumoured to be deliriously happy even though those trying to escape are locked up as lunatics and/or traitors.

- (The fact that the world’s vast army of economic migrants is busting a gut to get into Britain rather than Cuba is a bit puzzling, but no doubt there is an explanation for this that no doubt you have to be a true British socialist to explain. This is apparently called “socialist dialectic”.)

- Finally, a true socialist is of course someone who sneers at anyone with a contrary view, labelling them “clowns”, “fruitcakes” or indeed “idiots”. In this respect true socialists are no different from idle, effete, over-privileged capitalist tossers such as David Cameron and Ken “I’ve never-been-right-before-and-I’m-not-going-to-start-now” Clarke.

CYCLES: As we all know, life is a succession of cycles: the nitrogen cycle, the menstrual cycle and the bicycle, to name but a few, and the British political cycle is no different:

- The true socialists are voted into power and get on with doing what they do best.

- A weary public eventually gets fed up with spin, debt, poverty and chaos and votes them out.

- A nasty, vicious, capitalist right-wing bunch of utter toffs replaces them – aided and abetted by moronic Liberal-Demopratts landed from another planet – and sets about putting the damage right.

- This involves a certain amount of pain and sacrifice, though not by the true British socialists sending goodwill messages from their yachts, Scottish castles or indeed leafy East Anglian enclaves, or indeed the House of Lords.

- The (it must be said) fairly moronic and long-term suffering but short-term memoried British public soon gets fed up with living within the country’s means and votes the true British socialists back into power, thus completing the cycle for another round of the same game.

- The top former true British socialists who ran the country into the ground get made Lords and/or sent to Brussels as Commissioners or in Blair’s case no doubt made eventual World President and roving Chief-Pontificator to the Masses, or rather to select groups of capitalists who pay him 50,000 GBP a session to hear his pearls of wisdom.

- A (so-far) minority of the British public is a bit tired of this repeated game and would like a complete change but is of course (see above) labelled as “clowns”, “fruitcakes”, “racists” and numerous other choice phrases from “The Over-Privileged Left-and-Right-Wing Tossers’ Book of Brainless Personal Insults” by the afore-mentioned over-privileged and self-appointed and righteous dinosaur political parties who are the willing players in the endless cycle described above. As far as this goes we are reminded of the immortal phrase of the delectable Miss Mandy Rice-Davies: “They would say that, wouldn’t they.”

- However, in true Greek-hubris style it seems that the “clowns” have had the latest – if not yet the last – laugh, which of course is entirely appropriate.

PS Concerning “clowns”, it is rumoured that the UK branch of the Worldwide Clowns Union is taking the Tories to the ECHR on the basis that – clowns or not – they have as many rights as anyone else, including those illegal immigrant criminals guilty of GBH and other serious offences who cannot be exported owing to their human right to “have a family life”. No doubt the dinosaur parties would like to see the right to vote removed from all those designated (by them) as “clowns”, but this will be fiercely resisted by we clowns and our growing army of supporters. HA, HA ……

PPS Capitalism: a system whereby people who don’t want to be poor beg, borrow, earn or inherit money and use it to create wealth, some of which they are happy to give to the rest in the form of taxes but also in the occasional donation (see “Bill Gates Foundation”).

Socialism: a system whereby people with no idea whatsoever of economics take the capitalists’ money and distribute it like confetti until their country’s economy collapses, at which point they blame it all on capitalism (and Mrs Thatcher)

 

The Truth about Thatcher

The brainless, drivelous bile snarled – or rather vomited – out by the terminally-brainwashed is staggering. No, she was not a saint, but a balance is called for. When she assumed power, Britain was in a shambles: dying industries, debt, inflation (which had reached up to 25% under Labour), unions thinking that THEY ran the country, excessive state interference and all the rest, culminating in the “Winter of Discontent”. By the time she left, things had been to a great extent put right, AND she had saved helpless British citizens from brutal fascists.

As for the miners’ strike:

- Each ton of coal dug in most of the mines closed had to be subsidized.  It was cheaper to import coal.

– If a country is willing to subsidize ONE sector of the economy then why are not ALL workers entitled to a subsidy to “protect” their jobs? If MY private company is not making a profit, it goes bankrupt and I have to look for another job, although I get some dole and other benefits to help. I always failed to see why miners seemed to consider themselves a special case. We are ALL “workers”, including non-miners. I would in the private sector not expect other workers to subsidize me. Why should I? And in any case, someone has to EARN the wealth. We can’t ALL be subsidized.

– The reason why the miners thought they were special is also tied up in their leaders’ political beliefs: they  did not believe in free-market economy but in a “socialist” one, and I am sorry but that path only leads to ruin as was seen in the USSR and elsewhere – and was increasingly evident in Britain until Thatcher arrived.

– A subsidy is money that if used to prop up a failing industry cannot be used elsewhere, either for investment in new technology, improved infrastructure or in welfare: education, health, pensions and so on.

– Given that it was cheaper to import coal, to continue subsidising it in perpetuity would be akin to making the mining industry part of the social services, forever dependent on benefits.

– No country can do this and thrive. No one sector of the economy deserves to be kept going on the backs of other workers whose taxes subsidize it.

– Thatcher was democratically elected THREE TIMES by the people, and you either believe in democracy or you don’t. As it happens, I do, however imperfect it is. The miners’ leaders did not believe in it. They not only failed to ballot all their members but were willing to break the law. You may not like the law, but one cannot pick and choose which ones to obey. Or if you do, that is anarchy.

-  SCARGILL’S AGENDA: Scargill’s stated aim was to defeat (by illegal means) a democratically-elected government. For this alone, he had to be defeated, and ONLY Thatcher could have done it. Had she not succeeded, then Britain would still today be in thrall to the unions, endless strikes, increasing and increasingly-pointless subsidies, “Spanish practices”, falling productivity, declining industries gone the way of the once-magnificent British car industry and so on, and inevitably impoverishment. And with impoverishment comes fascism, because then the people get angry and you need an iron fist to control them. ALL socialist dictatorships have been ruled by an iron fist. ALL OF THEM depend on physical, military might to stay in power. NO THANK YOU SCARGILL.

- And please note that NO WESTERN DEMOCRACY has followed Scargill’s agenda. They have ALL privatised most of the “commanding heights” of Old Labour – they cannot all be wrong. Even the Noo Labour Party does not want Scargillism ….. hardly ANY of Thatcher’s reforms were rolled back by subsequent Labour governments. Apparently, the only people wanting a return to WilsonoCallaScargillism are in the Socialist Workers’ and/or Anarchists and “Class War” Parties, the ones smashing up Brixton and Bristol and now planning to disrupt her funeral.

As has been pointed out HERE, anarchists should applaud Thatcher for reducing state interference in people’s lives. AND after her you didn’t have to wait three months for a black telephone designed in the 1950s.

Thatcher’s error re the miners was to carry out her policy too fast and with excessive inflexibility, but as I see it whatever she had done would have provoked riots by those who had a non-democratic agenda.

As for MT in general, there is a hysteria of hatred on the part of the usual suspects which is both moronic and indecent. She did NOT “destroy manufacturing”. When she left, British industrial output was HIGHER than when she arrived. She destroyed a number of failing industries and regenerated the economy of Britain which had been driven into vast inflation and endless industrial disputes by the Labour Party.

What is needed even from those who hate her is some balance. She has received astonishing tributes from world leaders of all colours, shapes and sizes AND from the vast majority of the British people who elected her THREE TIMES.

HOUSING? Many thousands of ordinary working people got onto the property ladder thanks to her. IMHO anyone renting their dwelling is always a second-class citizen: forever at the whim of landlords, unable to feel master in his or her own house, unable to leave anything to the kids. She tried to improve on that, and succeeded. It is true that after her not enough housing was built, but to blame her alone for this is stupid. May I remind you that the last Labour government’s principal housing policy was to favour the odious, loathsome and disgusting policy of “buy-to-let”, which is no more than encouraging fat landlords to profit from poorer people’s homelessness.

THE FALKLANDS: She also stood up for democracy and freedom, including in the Falklands. No other bastard would have saved the Falklanders who – let us remember – were invaded by fascist colonialists. The idea that Spanish-descendents who butchered South American Indians and stole their land have a right to the Falklands is hilarious. People should read the history of those islands. Even Gorbachev acknowledged the role she played in the dramatic developments in Eastern Europe.

As for the cost of her funeral etc, she saved Britain over SEVENTY BILLION QUID by demanding and getting an opt-out from the EU budget. Let’s contrast this with Labour, which – in the few days AFTER losing the last election but BEFORE handing over the keys of the moneybox to the Tories – SIGNED AWAY yet MORE billions to Brussels. And when they finally DID hand over power they admitted: “There is no money left.” You could not make it up.

“There is no such thing as society.” As usual, she was quoted out of context. What she meant was that a strong society is one where individuals and their families work hard to improve their lot, thereby simultaneously improving “society”, since successful people pay more tax which helps to pay for the weaker. The idea that the state owed people a living was anathema to her, but is of course the ingrained mindset of the cretins dancing on her grave. NO SOCIETY can thrive without individual hard work, thrift and morality, which is what SHE grew up with and which coloured all her political beliefs. What a contrast to many in recent generations whose main thought is what the state should do for them.

WELFARE: Did she abolish welfare? RIDICULOUS. It was maintained and later grew under her government and since then of course has ballooned to insane proportions. If she were seeking to “destroy” industry and/or welfare and/or the working classes, then she utterly FAILED. What she did destroy was the disastrous, venal and undemocratic power wielded by irresponsible unions with an openly Maxist (= fascist) agenda.

Let’s have some balance …..

 

Crisis? What crisis?

Why don’t politicians tell the truth?

You can blame Osborne if you like, but the British public also has to take some blame. They didn’t protest while Brown was pursuing his moronic borrow and spend binge and at the slightest sign of “austerity” they whinge even more.

“Cuts”? The “cuts” are insignificant compared to what is really needed. VAST sums have to be cut from benefits and indeed from most other areas: quangoes, advisors, consultants, H&SE, the EU and so on.

Otherwise we are finished. Why are politicians unwilling to do this? Because the public A) understands nothing about national economics (despite knowing you can’t endlessly spend more than your income) and B) expects a magic solution and therefore C) Any government doing what is really necessary (which is going to be VERY painful) will be politically punished, and in the UK’s case involve handing back power to the very same party that caused the problem in the first place.

The British (and above all Scottish Labour Party voting fodder) public will vote Labour in at the next election in the hope of the latter, and things will get WORSE.

It is not looking good, but it will be even worse elsewhere, in France for a start.

 The bizarre thing about about this crisis is the endless stream of ministers and unelected morons in Brussels claiming the crisis is over or improving whereas MUCH worse is yet to come.

 

The Queen’s Question

“Why did nobody see it coming?”

Many DID see it coming, especially those involved in it.

So your question, M’am, is indeed naive.

“Why didn’t anyone do anything to prevent it?” would be a better question, to which the answer is:

- Those creating the problem were doing too well out of it to give a toss.

- The THREE THOUSAND people working for the FSA are presumably idiots – one has to ask what their point was – or is. Or did one or two raise doubts and then get told to keep their gobs shut?

- Gordon Brown studied history at university and had not a clue about management, finance, economics or indeed much else.

- His fawning acolytes, including the fairly odious Balls, did nothing either during thirteen years of binge, boom and humungous bust. This total failure  was a combination of not daring to stick their head over the parapet, being cowards (the same thing) and incompetence.

I have my own question: “What % of the truly guilty have been punished in any way?”

To which the answer is – at a guess (and probably vastly inflated) – 4%.

 

 

The Lurcher ….

I will not lurch – yet …..

I read this morning that some Muslim women medics are refusing to bare their arms in accordance with the new NHS guidelines about preventing the spread of MRSI & e-coli. It is apparently against their religion and culture to bare any part of themselves apart from their face. And it seems that they are “getting away with it”.

What is Cameron doing about THAT? Or must people’s risk of picking up lethal infections in hospital increase even more than they are already? Will people die on the altar of lunatic PC?

One bit of good news: Theresa May intends to take us out of the ECHR. Fine, but I’ll believe it when I see it.

 

Eastleigh

Clegg is SOOOOO irritating. Let’s review the facts, shall we?

- the Lib-Dems lost 14% of their vote and defeated UKIP by a paltry 4%
- the outgoing MP was a criminal (a liar perverting the course of justice)
- the party leader is a liar (about covering up some party big-wig groping the totty)
- the country is in a shambles, with debt and immigration going up, the lowest % of home ownership in 30 years, thousands of rich foreign mafiosi and poor developing-world immigrants taking over London, the NHS killing people, NO decision about LHR, energy running out, inflation threatened, welfare out of control and so on …..

Instead of beaming about how clever he is Clegg should be more humble and promise to do better. “Humble? Wot, Me?”

Pity about the missing 4% – UKIP winning really WOULD have made life interesting.

So, Cameron will stumble on, with the Cleggelian ball-and-chain in tow. But at least a ball-and-chain kept schtumm instead of imitating Coco The Clown (sorry, Coco …..)

 

CLEGG -> “SPEND; SPEND; SPEND ……….”

“Some of the Coalition’s initial cuts in public spending may have harmed the economy,” Nick Clegg has said.

A) The word “may” could indicate a probability of as little as 0,000000000000001 in a thousand trillion, or indeed much smaller, so it is essentially meaningless.

B) Is it just me or are these people both stupid and wilfully malevolent?

Of COURSE cutting public expenditure means less economic activity by the state, but THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE. Or rather the alternative is:

• to spend more, but we have no money, which means

• to BORROW more which means

• to increase the debt

• to pay more interest

• to lose more credibility

• to have our credit rating cut

• to pay more interest on ALL borrowing

• to get into a death spiral of debt, interest payments and face the SAME choice of ….
  

• EITHER cutting expenditure OR borrowing more

• … at which point we return to the beginning and start over

• And “NO”, printing money is no answer, as that would lead to hyperinflation PLUS economic collapse

Previous governments have CATASTROPHICALLY overspent and overborrowed. Clegg’s insinuation that there is some easy way out of this is IDIOTIC.

But then, what else do we expect from him. He may or may not recall that the current French President (BEFORE being elected of course) attacked “austerity” and promised to “change things”, but as SOON AS HE got into power he had to apply the SAME austerity programme as the dreaded Sarko. If he hadn’t, France’s borrowing costs would have gone throught he roof leading to economic collapse, vast inflation and massive social and economic misery (and it’s BAD ENOUGH already.)

There is no quick fix to DECADES of UTTERLY INCOMPETENT, COWARDLY and indeed CRETINOUS mismanagement of the economy. Quick-fixes will ONLY make things WORSE in the long run – as if of course people like Clegg could be bothered about the long run.