Tag Archives: election
A) The EU WILL appoint Juncker if Merkel wants it.
TOWER HAMLETS (Andrew Gilligan)
Helal Rahman, a businessman and former Labour councillor in Spitalfields, says that “several hundred postal votes” in that one ward alone were cast on May 22 by people “who used to live here but have moved out to the suburbs. They rent their properties to eastern Europeans but keep their electoral registrations and convert their votes to postal,” he says. This is, of course, illegal.
Days before polling, the number registered for postal votes in one large council block doubled. Seventy-seven per cent of those votes were cast.
Residents and their families told The Telegraph that Mr Robbani’s supporters blitzed the building, signing them up for postal votes, then returned a few days later to collect the blank ballot papers. Mr Robbani has repeatedly refused to deny it. If you wanted to vote in person on May 22, things were often a little more difficult. Large groups of Rahman supporters picketed polling stations, remonstrating with some voters who refused to take Rahman leaflets. The council has received 20 complaints of voter intimidation.
Please take a moment to digest this provocative article by a Jewish Rabbi from Teaneck , N.J., Steven Pruzansky. It is far and away the most succinct and thoughtful explanation of how our nation is changing. The article appeared in “The Israel National News” in December 2012, and is directed to Jewish readership. 70% of American Jews vote as Democrats.
“The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that Americans voted for the status quo – for the incumbent President and for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility. And fewer people voted.
But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle.
Romney lost because he didn’t get enough votes to win.That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues – the traditional American virtues – of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness – no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate.
The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff. Every businessman knows this; that is why the “loss leader” or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama’s America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who – courtesy of Obama – receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentivizes looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote. The lure of free stuff is irresistible.
The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the difficulty of winning an election in which “47% of the people” start off against him because they pay no taxes and just receive money – “free stuff” – from the government.
Almost half of the population has no skin in the game- they don’t care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being borrowed from their children and from the Chinese.
They just want the free stuff that comes their way at someone else’s expense. In the end, that 47% leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode well for the future. It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence, the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it.
That engenders the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable conclusion that the electorate is ignorant and uninformed. Indeed, it does not pay to be an informed voter, because most other voters – the clear majority – are unintelligent and easily swayed by emotion and raw populism.That is the indelicate way of saying that too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich.
During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: “Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!” Stevenson called back: “That’s not enough, madam, we need a majority!”
Truer words were never spoken.
Obama could get away with saying that “Romney wants the rich to play by a different set of rules” – without ever defining what those different rules were; with saying that the “rich should pay their fair share” – without ever defining what a “fair share” is; with saying that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to “fend for themselves” – without even acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending.
Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to blacks that a Romney victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim to women that their abortions and birth control would be taken away. He could appeal to Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and shipped to Mexico and unabashedly state that he will not enforce the current immigration laws. He could espouse the furtherance of the incestuous relationship between governments and unions – in which politicians ply the unions with public money, in exchange for which the unions provide the politicians with votes, in exchange for which the politicians provide more money and the unions provide more votes, etc., even though the money is gone.
Obama also knows that the electorate has changed – that whites will soon be a minority in America(they’re already a minority in California) and that the new immigrants to the US are primarily from the Third World and do not share the traditional American values that attracted immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is a different world, and a different America . Obama is part of that different America , knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That is why he won.
Obama also proved again that negative advertising works, invective sells, and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never engaged in such diatribes points to his essential goodness as a person; his “negative ads” were simple facts, never personal abuse – facts about high unemployment, lower take-home pay, a loss of American power and prestige abroad, a lack of leadership, etc. As a politician, though, Romney failed because he did not embrace the devil’s bargain of making unsustainable promises.
It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan – people of substance, depth and ideas – to compete with the shallow populism and platitudes of their opponents. Obama mastered the politics of envy – of class warfare – never reaching out to Americans as such but to individual groups, and cobbling together a winning majority from these minority groups. If an Obama could not be defeated – with his record and his vision of America, in which free stuff seduces voters – it is hard to envision any change in the future.
The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy – those very economies that are collapsing today in Europe – is paved. For Jews, mostly assimilated anyway and staunch Democrats, the results demonstrate again that liberalism is their Torah. Almost 70% voted for a president widely perceived by Israelis and most committed Jews as hostile to Israel. They voted to secure Obama’s future at America’s expense and at Israel ‘s expense – in effect, preferring Obama to Netanyahu by a wide margin.
A dangerous time is ahead. Under present circumstances, it is inconceivable that the US will take any aggressive action against Iran and will more likely thwart any Israeli initiative. The US will preach the importance of negotiations up until the production of the first Iranian nuclear weapon – and then state that the world must learn to live with this new reality.
But this election should be a wake-up call to Jews. There is no permanent empire, nor is there an enduring haven for Jews anywhere in the exile. The American empire began to decline in 2007, and the deterioration has been exacerbated in the last five years. This election only hastens that decline.
Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations. The takers outnumber the givers, and that will only increase in years to come.
The “Occupy” riots across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead – years of unrest sparked by the increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and the bounty of the successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution.
If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone. And, sad for the world,
it is not coming back. The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.”
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:
- borrowing – to invest in infrastructure and thus create jobs
- doctors’ salaries – to improve the NHS
- local council salaries – to improve councils
- our EU contribution – to improve the EU
- investment in PFIs to improve infrastructure, along with the doubling of the time taken to pay off the debt
- the size of the Civil Service to speed up and improve the quality of service to Ministers
- the welfare budget so as to abolish poverty
- taxes so as to pay for all the above (an idea filched from President Hollande of France)
- the minimum wage to keep the unions quiet
- MPs’ salaries to keep them quiet – or at least quieter
- the number of government consultants to create jobs and help Ministers reach the right decisions
- 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
- 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
- the BBC grant so as to improve government propaganda
- 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:
- border controls to save paperwork
- 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:
- to reduce the debt through increased borrowing and spending (another idea from our French socialist comrades “Merci, les gars!”)
- to end austerity by increasing growth (see previous article)
- to increase the money supply (and thus in people’s pockets) by printing lots more of it
- to improve the country’s infrastructure so as to increase growth
- to reduce carbon emissions through increased growth
D) Among the Reconciliation and Truth appointments (RATS) will be these exciting initiatives:
- Tony Blair to run the The Listen and Respond Department (LIAR).
- Gordon Brown to oversee the Quantitative Easing Solves Everything Department (QUESE).
- 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.
- 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).
- 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!!
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.
Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson face up in the Mayor of London election campaign, provoking the question on the DT blog of whether KL really is “scum”. Well, in some ways a silly question of course, but semantically speaking I’ve always been puzzled by the word “scum”, which is a perfectly normal phenomenon, is totally unselfish and indeed unfeeling and though a bit unsightly does no harm.
All this is a long way removed from KL of course. Nope – we are going to have to find a better word than “scum”. I mean, which among us does not leave scum after a bath? Except non-workers who lounge about and take three baths a day, thus not having time to build up enough hard-working dirt on their soft skins to leave any scum.
“Pest” would be better, deriving from the French La peste = plague. Plague is surely more appropriate for the Newtkeeper.
“Scab” is analagous of course. Indeed, without a scab you’d probably get septicaemia, so its use as a term of opprobrium for non-striking workers is silly.
Still, Homo Sapiens didn’t get where he is today by not being silly ……
From “The Independent”
“Burma poll marked by threats and low turnout.” The millenium’s most fatuous headline so far. What did the Independent expect? I have an idea; why not start to call things what they are? This is not “a poll” or “an election”, so pls don’t CALL it that. Burma is a police state, among the most corrupt in the world, run by fascist lunatics on the basis of astrology from a bunker in the middle of the jungle. The idea that they would allow any sort of “election” is just silly. But we need a new word for “election”, as its sense has become stretched past breaking-point. What about “non-election”? Sounds simple enough for even newspaper editors. Yes, I can just see it now:
“The Burmese non-election has resulted in an overwhelming victory for government forces who declared themselves delighted with this confirmation of public support for their policies. A massive incalculable % of voters backed the use of force and corruption in the country’s affairs and – in the words of the Prime Minister – fully justified the use of threats of physical violence and/or jail for those not ‘voting’. He added that the government fully intended to build on these results to increase its vote in the next non-election to be held in 50 years’ time.”
Yes, that would do – and save printing ink and paper, too.
Here is the speech David Miliband should have made to the conference following his brother’s victory.
“Unfortunately, despite Ed’s feat in pulling off this election with the help of 9% of union militants whipped up by Dave Whelan and others, it gives me no pleasure to congratulate him on his victory, since it pretty clearly marks the beginning of a long period of opposition for the Labour Party. To understand what has happened you only had to see the ominous sight of Dave Whelan and Bob Crowe racing round the conference hotel shouting “Yippee”, Yippee” when the result was announced.
A model example of “yoof” as I am, I am old enough to remember the last time the Labour Party revelled in its association with the unions. Unfortunately – again – this also marked the beginning of the Thatcher era, when our great party was left flopping around on the shore like a stranded whale for the next 15 years.
And if the sight of the Whelan brigade’s antics didn’t convince you, perhaps you caught the comment of Neil Kinnock, that great example of failed British politicians making their fortune in the feeding troughs of Brussels. Apparently, Neil was over the moon, saying: “We’ve got our party back.”
He clearly means the one that spent the Thatcher years in useless limbo rather than the Blair years of three winning elections. Poor old Blair; we all hate him but he won three elections on the trot. Amazing how exactly this mirrors the Thatcher years. Blair and Thatcher, eh ….. Whatever their faults, they have a certain credibility when compared to Callaghan and Kinnock.
Well, Good luck Ed – you’ll need it. The survival period as leader of the opposition isn’t that long; a bit like a football manager…… I have to say that it hasn’t begun well, with threats of higher taxes. Yes, you may have gently rubbished Brown, but you seem not to understand the depths of incompetence to which he descended, with you as a not entirely innocent participant in the shambles.
I’d advise you to pay heed to Essex man; he won’t take kindly to enormous tax rises to finance a continuation of the preposterous Labour extravagance of recent years. And do get a good PR man. I don’t know who is advising George Osborne, but he hasn’t put a foot wrong yet. “The Labour Party spent £800 of public money on a Christmas tree for Number 10,” he said yesterday. “I think I’ll go down the market and get one for £20 quid myself.”
That sort of folksy responsibility goes down well, Ed. And do keep well away from Dave Whelan ……