Cracks have started to appear in the coalition, and indeed in the Tory party, with Dr Cable, Michael Heseltine and Ken Clarke among the first to verge on the sceptical about Cameron’s more Thatcher than Thatcher stance. (Can we buy him a handbag?)
Some newspapers too, have been critical, both here and in America, but Mr Cameron’s treating backbenchers to dinner at his stately pile (well, ours really) must have paid off, because his stock has risen within his party. (They must have broken out the good wine.)
Sometime rival for his job, Giant Haystack, has said ...in the parlance of the playing fields of Eton...that Dave “played a blinder”. Perhaps less surprisingly William 10 pints Hague, who apparently was there in Brussels with his boss, said that David had done the right thing for Britain. George Gideon Osborne, who never seems to me to have mastered the idea of at least attempted guile, said that nearly all the City was pleased.
[Note to George: There are people who don’t actually work in, or have contacts who work in, the City. You know, ordinary people, who don’t stand to gain millions or even billions from this, who might be, erm, less than interested in the pleasure or otherwise of people who have 3 or 4 private jets of different colours... to go with their suits.]
Needless to say the English natural antipathy for the French has been greatly magnified by Napoleon’s snubbing of Canute Cameron, when our man was silly enough to think that the wee emperor advancing on him, about to shake and be friends. The little one was instead heading to shake with anyone who was not Dave.
 |
| Andrea Leadsome (I think) |
My favourite French-hater comment is from the once fragrant Andrea Leadsom, of the Fresh Start group of Eurosceptic MPs, who wrote in a piece for The Sunday Telegraph attacking Le Petit Nicolas: “Sarkozy commented that the EU shouldn't accede to Britain’s demand because it was 'deregulation that largely got the Eurozone into this mess’ … what utter rubbish!"
Oh lord help us... where has she been?
And lord help Dave too. Because nothing is all good or all bad in the world of politics. He was warned that the minute that the Eurosceptics got a sniff of blood they would be after him for a referendum. I thought that they would let him enjoy his “victory” for a few days, but it according to the Sunday Telegraph, plans are already afoot.
Serves him right.
I rather like the idea of someone on the PB blog who described Cameroon's episode in Bruxelles as something out "It's a Knockout".
ReplyDeleteCameron arrives as the Captain of Team Eton/Oxford/Knightsbridge and immediately plays his Joker in the first round.
He loses and the whole team leave the game in a fit of petulance. Cameron comes home and claims a "moral victory"
The man is an Homme de Paille, even more that Sarkozy who has at least guiley civil servants to keep his game up.
Oh brilliant description, Wolfie...
ReplyDeleteWho was his joker, Willie Hague? Oh no, sorry, that was his JOKE!
It's been a good laugh though. Seeing the 'impartial' BBC going mental at Dave for daring to stand up to the marxist EU. Dusting down the dotty heseltine and wheeling him around BBC studios to hear him back the corrupt EU was a crime against humanity.
ReplyDeleteIt's been a bad week for the biased BBC. The global warming scammers in Durban have been ignored and the marxists in Brussels have been temporarily stopped by Dave their nemesis.
I don't think Dave has stopped anything, Monty. They go ahead, Dave stands alone looking somewhat sad and unloved, except by Boris, who will probably give him a bear hug.
ReplyDeleteAnd then they will come for him, his back benchers shouting "Referendum, Referendum. Referendum..."
But he really really doesn't want a referendum.
And he's stuck for another 3.5 years with Nick's lot joining the pro-Europe Tories, and he can't just call a general election and count on the fact that Ed is less use than a lame polo pony...
No, in the heady days of power, when he still had time to go for the Botox injections, he agreed (and put into law) a five year parliament... arghhhhhhh. There is no way out.
What will he do?
My advice would be to jump from somewhere quite high. La Tour Eiffel peut-être?
I didn't see the South African thing, I was newsed out by the time they got to that, and something more entertaining was available.
Like I said Tris. Dave only 'temporarily' stopped the marxist EU. He'll be back on board once his 'skeptics' have swallowed his fake anti EU rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, I see. You meant he's stopped them poking their non Britannic noses into the English government's affairs... Sorry Monty, I thought you meant he has stopped them doing what they were going to do, which of course he hasn't.
ReplyDeleteHe has to be firm with the EU because the City demanded it, and it doesn't do for a Tory prime minister to upset the bankers, seeing as they provide loadsamoney (ours. as it happens) for the Tory party.
In fact between them taking huge bonuses out of the bail outs, and paying their shareholders dividends that the phenomenal losses didn't really justify, and their contributions to the Tory party, no wonder there isn't any money to lend to small businesses and home buyers and the government has to do it for them.
Funny ol' world with the Tories huh.... Laugh a minute
It's all the parties that are keen on the EU though tris. Even worse under an SNP government as they're more pro EU than the rest of them.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good article about the global warming scam and the EU scam..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8947796/Frozen-Planet-gave-us-beautiful-images-but-an-unbalanced-picture.html
Yes. I know.
ReplyDeleteI'm quite pro Europe myself. I mean there are many things that need changed about it, not least how much it costs, the fisheries policy (and that they don't provide a black bag for that bloody woman's face), but there are many good things about it too... and I know. I've worked for projects that have benefited hugely from the funding. And these projects have benefited thousands upon thousands of people in Dundee...(and across Scotland)
OK, you will say, but we paid that money in and more. We could ahve just spent it ourselves.
Yes true, but we would never have had that money spent on the things it was spent on had it come from London, and even in some cases Edinburgh. London's spend on poor people is always niggardly, and although Edinburgh's is better, Brussels is even better. It means that jobs can be done properly, and not in the half arsed way that the UK tends to do these things.
As for the Global Warming 'scam', as I've said many times on here, I'm not clever enough to understand what causes global warming, although I'm perfectly willing to accept that many of the people who blog or who read this one have studied it and are talking from a scientific understanding. So I'm not putting down what they say, any more than I put down what David Attenbourgh says.
it's just that I don't know, so I don't make pronouncements on it one way or the other.
I know the climate seems to be different, but whether that is caused by China burning fossil fuels or whether it is caused by natural cycles, El Niňo or La Niňa, or even by God, or Allah, or all the gas that comes out of Prince Andrew when he's had a few... Aucune idée.
So, I leave it to the experts and just rant about things I know a bit about like David Cameron is an arse. :)
You don't need to be a climate expert to know that it's all a scam tris. Just read the Climategate 1 and 2 e mails or Montfords book ' The hockey Stick Illusion'. There's no dispute. It's all facts.
ReplyDeleteThe EU has sucked trillions out of the UK. £320Bn in lost fisheries revenue alone.
3 million immigrants have come into the UK totally legally and taken all of the non skilled jobs previously done by our workers ( fruit farms, veg factories, drivers etc). They have driven down wages as they live in rented accommodation with dozens to a house and they send their wages and benefits back to eastern europe. Locals need a higher wage to support themselves so stay on benefits.
FAO: Poster "Monty"
ReplyDeleteRe: "It's all facts"
Really? Kind of malleable things these "facts" offerings "done and dusted and move along for there is nothing to see here.Simple(s)..." renditions of the "immutable" re-hashed.
You may well be right, sir, but this choice of phrase tends to make me antsy (too many innocents condemned via the same assumption, and too much jiggery-pokery has contrived to conceal its essential false nature under this flag of convenience).
However, am in complete agreement with you that the science investigating this purported phenomenon be rigorously impartial.
Best wishes for the oncoming festive season
David
FAO: Poster "Monty"
ReplyDeleteRe: "It's all facts"
Really? Kind of malleable things these "facts" offerings "done and dusted and move along for there is nothing to see here.Simple(s)..." renditions of the "immutable" re-hashed.
You may well be right, sir, but this choice of phrase tends to make me antsy (too many innocents condemned via the same assumption, and too much jiggery-pokery has contrived to conceal its essential false nature under this flag of convenience).
However, am in complete agreement with you that the science investigating this purported phenomenon be rigorously impartial.
Best wishes for the oncoming festive season
David
O/T
ReplyDeleteI had been searching my computer for this info and have eventually found it.
Maybe someone can point out where I am going wrong.
If the UK in 2005 produced 1,870,000 barrels of oil per day in 2005 and there are 158.7 litres of oil in a barrel then that equals 297,143,000 litres per day (1,870,000x158.9)or 105,782,908,000 litres per year (297,143,000x356) and the UK charges $1 of taxes on every litre of oil and the current exchange rate between the dollar and the Pound is 65p per dollar then that amounts to £68,758,890,200 per year (105,782,908,000x0.65) going into the UK treasury.
Isn't that considerable more than we get from the Barnett formula? Surely I've made a mistake somewhere?
http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=UK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_(volume)
http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/data_graphs/333.htm
http://www.x-rates.com/d/GBP/USD/graph120.html
yes, the production areas have already been signed over to the UK Treasury
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteThe point I'm trying to make is that we are given back half of the oil revenues as pocket money, but, what about the revenues from:
Gas
Whisky
Manufacturing
Crown estates
Fishing [once we get out fishing rights back from the EU]
and all the other taxes we pour into the UK treasury. If this is the case then the GERS report is a complete fabrication designed to con the Scots out of their money.
Gedguy
ReplyDeleteI think you are on the right track, but have assumed that all the oil extracted is "petrol" and all is consumed in the UK by cars so all the tax you calculate goes to London.
There is a tax on well extraction, which Muppet Alexander upped for older wells but I am not sure what the tax per Barrel is. Then from that there is refining and production of different fractions so, the quantity of car petrol would be much lower.
Gedguy
ReplyDeleteUK Oil Production Lowest For 28 Years
UK Oil Production (M3)
crude oil classifications
Approx 47% petrol 23% diesel 30% others per barrel.
Monty, David
ReplyDeleteBut that's the problem. You say that your information there is fact. Now I don't dispute it, because my Standard Grade in Science renders me incapable of doing so.
You (and by that I mean "one) can look at statistics, and some of them you may be able to understand, but we all know that statistics can be made to show more of less what you want them to.
I expect that there are equally compelling statistics on the other side.
We know for example, that some people on one side of the argument fiddled their statistics. Did people on the other side do that too? I don't know and I'm not well enough informed to know. And without undue modesty, I'm not clever enough to make myself informed.
You (one) might take the lead from people you respect, but largely I don't' KNOW any of the people putting forward the arguments. Indeed the only one I do know is Attenborough, and he says there is climate change.
So, please excuse me if i don't take any part in the climate change debate.
There seems to me no doubt that the whole Scottish block grant is a con.
ReplyDeleteAs all tax goes back to London, most of the money finds it way in some for or another to London.
Wages for the public sector, tax and national insurance; VAT spent in shops; money spent in the UK-wide supermarkets with the headquarters in England; excise duty, road fund; tv licence.
I know some of that money is re-spent in Scotland (new stores, tv production, etc) but it's a fraction of what comes out of the economy.
In a proper country all the revenue would stay here. The income would would be reinvested in THIS country, not elsewhere.
Monty: The freedom of movement works both ways. In the more prosperous economies of the union there are many skilled jobs (and unskilled jobs), Germany needs more labour than it has, as do Holland, Austria and some of the Norse countries.
ReplyDeleteIn Holland for example,there was a desperate shortage of welders and fabricators (I know about LMI, working in that business). Lots of welders from here (Dundee) were finding work in Holland. The trouble for them was that while they could work in the factories without speaking a word of Dutch, their girlfriends/wives, looking for office or shop jobs, couldn't. The Dutch take a generous view of these things, but, most companies want staff to be able to at least answer the phone in Dutch. So they end up coming back here and getting, by comparison, lousy wages and terrible conditions.
But if people are prepared to make an effort to learn the language, at lest a bit, they can get work abroad.. So it COULD be a two way thing. Look at all the young people who get jobs in the resorts in Spain for the summer. They get jobs in the "English bars/Clubs" because they don't have to learn Spanish to do that.
As for benefits, Monty, well, it depends on circumstances. But if you are single and under 25, even the niggardly wages in the UK should be better than being on the dole. Plus there are no benefits now if there is a working partner.
ReplyDeleteHousing benefit is about to be cut for the under 35s, sickness benefit will be cut off after a year (so tough if you take longer than that to die). None of it is generous.
Most of the people who live high on the hog on benefits do so because they either work on the side, or have some other fiddle going.
Probably single parents are the most likely to do well out of the benefits system.
I'm not saying it's perfect but in and of itself it's not incredibly generous, and if you have family you could, in most cases, be earning (and getting in-work benefits) to the same or better levels.
There is an element of laziness and there is also an element of criminal activity.
As a recruiter, I know that employers want eastern Europeans because they have excellent work ethics, few colds, flus' headaches,sore backs, rare hangovers, and none of them seems to have an endless supply of grannies who have died in the night!
Most of the admittedly few factories in an area like this employ mainly Scottish labour, and many of them have always paid minimum wage, regardless of the cultural identity of the employees.
Max Keiser: Crazy Cameron suicidal with knife in Euro gunfight!
ReplyDeletetris
ReplyDeleteOnce upon a time many years ago working on a site an elderly woman turned up looking for one of the painters.
As was explained to her by by another painter very sympathetically
the person she asked for had gone home early as his poor mother had died that very morning.
Really she said news to her she being his mother.....
Laugh we all nearly died from it after the poor woman had gone.
Err the painter never returned so we didnt get to hear his side of the story
cynicalHighlander & Lupus Incomitatus
ReplyDeletePage 124
http://www.opec.org/opec_web/static_files_project/media/downloads/publications/ASB2005.pdf
In 2005 there was 1.87 million barrels of oil per day coming out of UK waters. According to the figures shown the tax on a barrel is $100.2. Put the exchange rate at £0.60 then multiply it all together and you should get the tax per the year of 2005.
1870000x365x100.2x0.6=£....
Work it out yourself because I don't believe the figure. If the figure is true then the UK will never let us go; ever.
cynicalHighlander,
ReplyDeleteI been a fan of Max Keiser for a while now. He really hates the banks.
Max is good Ged. Exposing the banking scams. It's a shame he believes in the global warming scam though.
ReplyDeleteNice piece there tris will link back to you from my little thoughts on it...'buy him a handbag' excellent any particular colour or would it have to yellow to go with the stripe down his back!
ReplyDeleteJimmy,
ReplyDeleteI became suspicious of the figures when the world's leaders decided that it was a good way to bring in an extra tax. Putting that aside for a moment if the world is heading towards non-polluting sources of energy and Scotland is trying to position itself to take advantage of this movement then I can only see it being for the good of the Scots. It will bring us employment and help our balance of payments in an independent Scotland.
Bring it on!
Ged..
ReplyDeleteIt would be great if we could rely on renewables but sadly they will ruin us in Scotland. Making up fake green jobs costs 3 useful jobs. The billions spent on windmills etc is all wasted as we still need 24/7 back up from conventional power stations. As we're not planning to build enough coal fired power stations as our current number are decommissioned then we will rely on imported energy from nuclear France. This is what happened last winter when our windmills managed 0.2% of our power during that long cold snap.
We're pushing to reduce our CO2 emissions despite CO2 being a harmless gas and despite no sign of global warming since 1998.
Even if we were warming up the planned spending on renewables will result in more folk freezing to death as they try to subsidise the renewables sector out of their energy bills ( £300 extra a year according the latest govt figures).
The 2008 Climate Bill comnits the UK to spending £20Bn a year for the next 40 years 'fighting climate change'. There's no way to fight climate change. It will always change. We've had ice ages and warming periods in the UK long before we arrived and this will continue long after we are extinct.
The 20,000 delegates partying in Durban at the latest greenfest will add another £6Bn to our bill. This money will be paid to the 3rd world and will also fund the removal of steel companies and other 'polluters' from the West to the East ( Tesside closed and the mills are now open in India ).
Ouuuuch Niko...
ReplyDeleteHow incredibly embarrassing...
Nom...
ReplyDeleteThanks... Yes, after reflecting on the possibilities, it seems that
you're right and yellow is most suitable for him.
I'll look over at your place...
Ged. I can certainly agree with that.
ReplyDeleteGlobal warming or not there will come a day in the future when we will run out of oil, but we'll still need fuel...if not to heat our homes, at least to cool them.
Even if that doesn't happen, if Scotland can make work out of it and boost the economy, it has merit.
If we can be world leaders, so much the better.
LOL I see that you don't agree with me Jimmy!!!
ReplyDeleteI take your points on board too... but there isn't an easy answer to anything complex is there.
As I say, I'm not going to get involved in a "is there, isn't there" argument. Because I'm not a climatologist. :)
Just to stir the pot up a bit, there is a theory that oil is not finite, certainly in the way we think of it.
ReplyDeleteIt is postulated that the oil is created further down in the Earth's layers and only escapes through fissures up into the spaces where it accumulates.
I do not know the state of this theory but if, even remotely, true, would turn the World upside down.
Chew on that one.
Nao chonce cobba.
ReplyDeleteUs Ozzies've got used to wokin apsoide daown. Not gunna chiange fr blaady poms.
Hmmm... poor attempt at Australian.
Lupus Incomitatus That was started by the Russians I believe for political gain a number of years ago which has been quietly dropped as being realistic.
ReplyDeleteJOE
The graph on pg 25 is interesting and backs up why the UK will delay Independence by any means for there own extended survival.
OOPS being unrealistic
ReplyDeleteThanks CH
ReplyDeleteI just read it somewhere, sometime and stuck it in the back of my mind without feeling the need to really investigate.
Never mind though, it all helps to pass a quiet Sunday between reds.
tris..
ReplyDelete"I take your points on board too... but there isn't an easy answer to anything complex is there"
Yes there is tris. Stop all renewable projects apart from privately funded local projects ( islands etc where there's no alternative).
Use the hundreds of billions saved to provide warmer housing or upgrades for older houses via insulation etc.
Re open the coal mines ( 300yrs supply in Scotland). Commission coal and nuclear power stations. Push faster with the shale gas in South Lanarkshire where there are hundreds of years of gas available.
Oh and stop funding all the global warming brainwashing of the population and sack all the greeny advisors etc. Sorted.