HYPOCRITES TO THE LEFT AND HYPOCRITES TO THE RIGHT

Ba' heid Boris was never off the news today telling us what a hypocrite President Obama was (incidentally, for agreeing with his (Boris's boss) and weighing in on Cameron's side against Brexit.

The hypocrisy was apparently that Obama would never allow free movement of labour into and out of the United States. (It could be argued of course that within the united STATES of America one can move freely from state to state, find gainful employment, go to college, retire etc, etc. So poor old Florida with its (usually) wonderful climate gets more than its fair share of pensioners fleeing "the snows of New England states" to look after. But it is fair to say that that's splitting hairs.)

So it's a reasonably fair comment from Johnson. It's nothing to do with the American president and in our opinion he shouldn't have commented at all. (I can't begin to imagine what Cameron promised him for his endorsement, but expect us to be at war some time very soon.)

The suit that caused a stoushie (and the President wearing it)

However, when Obama (again at the behest of Cameron) was being equally hypocritical over the Scottish Referendum by advising Scots to stay with the UK (given that breaking away from Britain was a trend actually set by the United States of America), I don't remember Bojo saying a single word against him.

So when it comes to being a hypocrite, let's just say that it takes one to know one, eh Boris?

TODAY IS THE DAY ... LET'S HOPE PARLIAMENT MAKES THE RIGHT DECISION

This blog has from time to time been accused of being 'peacenik' or pacifist.

In my opinion it is nothing to be ashamed of, and I make no apology for it. I'd certainly rather that than be a warmonger.

There are, I have no doubt, times when war is inevitable, but in view of what war does to its participants and to innocent bystanders, it seems that every other possible solution must be addressed before bombs start falling.

That is true of any war. Even in a clear cut situation where there is one enemy to defeat, a clear plan for defeating "him" and a simple exit strategy.

The current conflict in Syria seems to me to be as complex as it can be. 

There is not one enemy. There are a bunch of disparate groups who want to overthrow the Assad regime (as there were in Libya). 

Among them, of course, are Daesh, without a doubt an evil and wicked organisation. But who funds Daesh? And who arms them? Who provides the bombs to blow up Russian Airlines, Beirut buildings, French theatres, Tunisian beaches, and in what way are they allied to Al Qaeda, or Boko Haram, or the group that was responsible for the hotel bombing in Bamako?

What do the other groups consist of? George Galloway talked about them as being a mixture of fanatical Islamists and not quite so fanatical Islamists. Some, as he said, who would only chop half your head off! 

The results of our last escapade.

Cameron talks of 70,000 ground troops who are ready to fight for Assad on our side. But to which groups do they belong? Are some of them people that will only chop of half your head? And I've not heard one other commentator agree that there are 70,000 of them. And one suggested 700 might be nearer the truth. How can we go in to a war situation with such unreliable knowledge about the ground force back up?

And we have to know if it is true that Daesh are selling stolen oil to Turkey (our ally)? Is it true that Saudi (our ally) is funding them? And if it is where does that leave our moral case for being on the same side as these countries which are aiding the "enemy". Could a war be avoided if we insisted on "following the money", and starving the rebels of funding?

And why did Turkey (our ally) shoot down a Russian (our ally) plane for trespassing for 10 seconds over its territory? Are they not supposed to be allies too? Will they shoot down British planes if they make an error for a matter of seconds?

And if and when it is all over... in ten years' time... what will be the settlement?

You see, as I understand it, we want rid of Assad, but our allies, the Russians, want Assad to stay. So do their allies, Iran.

Homs

All of us allies will have to contribute to a massive rebuilding plan for Syria.

Will we be happy to pay for reconstruction under Assad to please the Russians, our ally) or will we bow to the demands of the Americans (our ally) who will may want to replace him?

Too many questions. Not sufficient answers.

Cameron is not a man to be trusted. He seems to feel that it is Britain's duty to keep its place in the world by getting involved. More of less regardless of the outcome. I suspect he worries that America may favour the French in the future if Britain doesn't get involved. Once again, it's all about status and Empire for the likes of him... and his comments to Tory backbenchers yesterday about the fact that those of us who are much more cautious about sending our soldiers to die and to kill others, many of them civilians, children even, are terrorist sympathisers, was him at his revolting Flashman best. 

I'm no terrorist sympathiser Cameron. You on the other hand are a warmonger.

Cameron's really not prime ministerial material and we await an apology form him, although I see he has refused to oblige.

I hope he remembers our warning when the inevitable retribution occurs.

WE SHOULD TRY TO STOP THEM FRACKING SCOTLAND

It's only part of Scotland, at the moment.

I just had an email from Greenpeace.

It seems that David Cameron’s plan to allow fracking firms to drill under our homes has been rubber-stamped by the House of Lords.

But there's something worse: At the very last moment, the draft of the law was updated to allow fracking firms to pump "any substance" under people's homes and property -- and leave it there! 

This makes a total mockery of Cameron’s claim that UK fracking regulations are some of the most stringent in the world. And it clears fracking firms of any responsibility for clearing up the mess they create. 

We all know that neither the government nor the fracking firms give a stuff if your pets are poisoned or your kids start being sick.

The only thing that matters to them is the bottom line, and making a massive profit.

Lord Smith of Kelvin (where have I heard his name before)
wants to bring fracking to Scotland

The fracking industry has already been mired in accidents and mistakes. In April 2009, cattle were discovered dead near a drill site in Louisiana. An investigation later found fracking fluid had leaked from the well pad and run into an adjacent pasture. And in July 2013, US fracking firm XTO Energy was forced to shell out $100,000 in compensation after a spill of contaminated wastewater in Pennsylvania. 

Despite claiming that the UK has tough regulations to prevent disasters like this, the government is now rushing to remove obstacles by pushing through laws that will put the interests of shale drillers before the safety of our environment, our climate and most important, our people.

Mr Ordinary doesn't want to bring fracking to Scotland

Greenpeace has a petition which you may be interested in signing.

Remember the people who are set to gain from this are mates with the likes of Osborne and Cameron. They are not the kind of people who care what happens to your house, your family, your possessions or you if you are anywhere near being an ordinary person.

Sensible countries that give a damn about the environment, or the people who live in it, have put fracking on hold. The Uk of course wants to press ahead as it seems to think there is a massive amount of money to be made, and money is their god. 

Fergus Ewing our energy minister, thinks that the power to issue or not issue licences should be held in Edinburgh, closer to the people, not London where they simply don't care about Scotland, but it's too late for that now. We blew the chance to rule our own country It's a done deal and London has the power.

We didn't vote for this bunch of SPIVs. We mustn't let them frack Scotland.

PICTURE PARADE...

Some cartoons I've found amusing over the last few weeks.... (click on images to enlarge)

HE WILL FIGHT THEM ON THE BEACHES, ETC; WE SHALL NOT FIND HIM WANTING

Cameron will, he says, not be found wanting when it comes to mending Britain’s broken society. It is, he insists, his fundamental aim in politics.

Well, I suppose when your last big idea was the Big Society” (you’ll remember that was, until the holidays, the reason he came into politics), it’s not a bad idea to look around for something else to hang your hat on.

This comes as another day passes with police and Cameron and his minions trading insults. (And parts of the Tory party falling out with other parts).

In a way, of course, the rioters in England have played into the hands of the Conservatives. There’s nothing a certain brand of Tory politician likes better than having a kick at the poor. It’s a breed that they do not understand. Why, they puff, I got on in life; they should pull themselves together, get on their bike, get a job, get over their unfortunate birth, and vote Tory?

Cameron says that to do the job he will bring in a range of new policies (doubtless ill-thought-out, knee-jerk, Daily Mail-inspired initiatives) to stick Britain back together. If his record is representative of what is to come, most of them will be reversed before, during or directly after their implementation, having been found to be impracticable, too expensive, and generally crap!

Apparently he is going to promise to ‘reassign’ policies on schools, welfare, families, parenting, drug addiction and communities, all while saving billions and reducing the deficit (something he has so far singularly failed in his attempts to do without any of this new stuff). Thankfully many of these policies will not affect Scotland...and why should they? It’s not Scotland’s fault he had to come back early from his holiday and his wife is monumentally cross.

In other Tory news Iain Duncan-Smith, one of the huge disappointments of this government, has lectured Boris Johnson for failing to deal with gangs in London. He wants him to harass them on a daily basis...and all with fewer police. Pfffff. Idiot.

Cameron’s new police advisor Bill Bratton (thus appointed because Theresa May stood in the way of him being offered the job as head of the Met... so, no tensions there then) has said that policing has been too soft and sentencing too light. Good points, but, when Bratton ran the New York police, he deployed an extra 5000 officers. Whoever sorts out London’s mess will have to do so with far fewer police, not more. And Cameron’s mistake here is assuming that an American city can be compared with an English city. As Hugh Ord said, Cameron should look to European cities for examples. They are nearer to England than America, no matter how much the Tories hate that idea.

Johnson has said that the reason for the riots was that the police lost control in the first few hours. I think I can see what he is saying, but this is not the reason for the riots; instead it’s the reason the riots escalated so badly. The reasons for the riots are far more complex. But, it is true that once people saw that the police couldn't deal with the totally unprecedented situation, some took advantage of it to get themselves some of the action. It’s hard to see how reducing the funding for policing, and the numbers of police on the streets will assist in efforts to avoid a repeat performance.

However, with the usual amateurism of this government, revisiting the reduction in police funding has been ruled out. Why, in the white heat of the moment, did they not have the wit to say: “We will look at every policy to see what we can do to keep people safe”? Answers on a postcard.

Pic from 2007, when the Tories were hugging hoodies, even if the hoodies weren't hugging back... isn't that assault?

I see Harris has tied himself up in knots across at the nauseatingly named Labour Hame. He has a complained that people are annoyed that the first minister described the riots as English rather than UK. He makes some rather bizarre comparison with the Norwegian slaughter of a few weeks ago, forgetting that Norway is, in fact, all one country and the UK is not. For Tom though, these riots must be British, for we must all pull together.

Well, quite apart from the fact that we ARE all pulling together (and Scottish riot police have been sent to England), he seems to have forgotten how he recently wrote this:

“It’s called “Scotland’s shame” for a reason: sectarianism makes you feel embarrassed to be Scottish. I hate it when the subject is even raised when I’m with English friends because I imagine they must look at us as a backward nation. That is, after all, a logical conclusion: what kind of people still think it’s remotely acceptable even to care about what religion other people follow, never mind object to that religion? What kind of nation still tolerates this kind of mindset?”

Oops.

..........

When is it going to stop raining?

..........

Hugh Ord said this today:

"One of the greatest strengths of British policing is that operational decision-making is conducted not by politicians, but by professional chief police officers who have spent their whole career in policing. While David Cameron today referred to some of the more extreme measures available to us, they are not new, and responsibility for their deployment remains entirely a matter for chief officers. There can be no confusion here at all; it is a fact that we cannot be ordered to police in a certain way but we will be held robustly accountable for what we choose to do or not do.

"As one of only two officers in the country to have ordered the use of water cannon and baton rounds in public-order policing, my professional judgment is it would be the wrong tactic, in the wrong circumstances at this moment."

My current opinion of the police is pretty low, given the Murdoch scandal, and the fact that at least the Met has seemed utterly rudderless over the days of the riots, but I'm in agreement with Ord here. Heaven alone knows what will happen if people start using water canon and plastic bullets. They have only ever been used in North Ireland in the past. And that worked, didn't it?

These decisions must never be in the hands of 'here today, gone tomorrow politicians' with no knowledge or experience of policing. God save us from Tessy may with a water canon!!

..........

A year ago the economy was recovering and the public sector deficit shrinking.

Then Gideon introduced policies to suit the Conservative party’s political funders (banks and multinationals). So has this done any good?

Silly Question. No. Osborne’s plans are a total failure. Public sector debt is increasing (contrary to what Hague told us last week), there are lower tax revenues and higher costs in benefits. Growth forecasts have just been re-adjusted down (to 1.5% this year...they’ll be lucky), there is higher un- or under- employment (ie people working part time and claiming top up benefits), and thus lower living standards.

Brilliant? No? Time for a new chancellor, maybe?

..........

I got the demand for car tax today. Can you believe that it has increased by £10, around a 7% increase. A government agency putting up prices by more than the official lie, sorry, I mean the official inflation figure? What an odd thing for a government to do. What an odd government. But it's another thing to cause people anxiety. Another cost added to people's already expensive lives. I wonder if people like Cameron know that you have to tax the car, or do they have a little man to do that sort of thing for them?

I noticed this comment from Malcolm G on Political Betting. I hope he won’t mind me copying it here. It sums up for me just how completely useless the government in London is. He’s talking about the riots in English cities and Cameron’s (and I suppose other's) reaction to them, dithering about whether or not to come back from holiday:

"It once again shows how inadequate Cameron is and what a pathetic leader he is, no matter what happens he is always behind the curve and forced to act. He seems to have no clue and whilst he can talk plenty it looks like he would have trouble running a bath never mind a country. Having surrounded himself with a bunch of similar types who will have been unlikely to have to even dress themselves so far in their lives never mind understand what is going on in the world, we seem to lurch from gaff to gaff. This lot are useless."

The unfortunate thing for Londoners is that the Metropolitan Police is similarly cursed with leadership you wouldn’t wish on a playgroup.

Cameron’s other great gaffe this week, rather less important perhaps, and one that should never have reached the press in my opinion, was the Italian café incident. He made his order at the bar and asked the girl to bring it out to the terrace. She replied that she was too busy, and he declined to leave a tip (which he was entitled to do if he thought the service substandard). However, ever the PR man, when he heard that the matter had caused what we call a “stooshie” in Scotland (a bit of bother), he went back, tipped her massively and had his photograph taken with her. Awwww. Of course, firstly, it is quite possible that, like in some French cafés, you will only be waiter served if you sit inside; if you sit on the terrace, its self service, so he may have been asking a busy barmaid to do something that was not her job. However, that may not be the case in Italy, at least in the upmarket cafés the likes of Cameron would frequent, and he may have been correct not to tip. If so, why did he go back and do a PR exercise? Dithering idiot.

Two questions on the financial crises in the world, that this economics illiterate finds puzzling :

Firstly, who or what is Standard and Poor? They are one of three credit agencies, so if they downgraded the US economy to AA+, why haven’t the other two? Who is right? On the basis of two to one seems to be that S&P isn’t! Does it have an agenda?

Secondly, if the € is in such a mess, how come it is more or less holding its own against the £?

A FEW RANDOM THOUGHTS ON THE ELECTION...

As we draw near to the next General Election the gap between the Tories and the incumbents is dangerously close. There are those, me amongst them, who think that Cameron is light and most of the shadow cabinet even lighter. In particular I have the impression that if you didn’t nail him down, Osborne would float away.

So we seem to be faced with the choice of the current bunch of tired, idealess, failed, tainted, third raters, or a bunch of untried, tainted, lightweights. Hard choice.

Over the next few months we are going to suffer the most horrific onslaught of politicking from all of them. They will tell us lies, they will jerk our emotions. They will do what they said they would never do by using their families, and in one case already upon us, their family tragedies, to try to show what good men they are.

It will be sickening. Much of it of course will go over people’s heads. Remember that under our system of government around ¾ of the seats in the London parliament are completely safe. They never change hands. After a while even people like me, interested in politics, will turn off. Some of it will be too sickening to watch or to listen to.

In Scotland both the Tories and Labour have told us that it is a two horse race. Either Brown of Cameron will be the next Prime Minister. The SNP, and for that matter, the Liberals are insignificant; they don’t matter.

Not true. They matter very very much. Although our political system is flawed badly (remember Blair had a HUGE majority with around 35% of the vote), it still does matter who you vote for.

I understand that the Civil Service chiefs and Buckingham Palace big wigs have been undergoing training as to how to deal with the prospect of a hung parliament. It looks, at this point very possible that that may be the outcome.

If things really are that close, then votes for the Liberals or the SNP are anything but wasted. Whilst it would be impossible (I think at least) for the SNP to form any kind of coalition with either party, the Liberals certainly could. This could make a massive difference to the way that the country is governed. But it is equally important that Scotland has a real voice in the London parliament. We must show them that we intend to be heard, and that the half hearted devolution settlement, or indeed most of what was proposed by Calman will not do. We can’t do that if we do not have a sizable SNP party in their parliament.

Over the last year the London Parliament has been disgraced by over half of its elected members stealing from us on a lax expenses system. (The unelected part has done its fair share of fiddling too, but there is nothing we can do about them.) There will be a strong temptation not to bother voting, because “they are all the same”.

But we must remember that, even if we all stay at home and the politicians’ families are the only ones to vote for them, we will get the politician with the biggest family as our representative...

A DISMAL CHOICE.... BUT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SCOTS TO SHOW THEM HOW LITTLE WE TRUST THEM

The latest Yougov poll, the last of 2009, shows the Tories with a 10% lead over Labour, and the Conhome Poll of Polls suggest a possible Conservative majority of 48 in the new parliament according to Conservative Home.

But this is not a good result. With the last years of disastrous government; the catastrophic wars; the complete collapse of the UK economy (despite all the rubbish that Brown has spouted about leading the world out of recession and saving all the banks, not to mention climate change), why on Earth aren’t the Tories 20 or 30 points in the lead? Why is there even the slightest chance that either there will be a hung parliament (heard all the lamp-post jokes thanks) or worse still a Labour majority after May?

Is it because despite the fact that almost no one has a single good word for Brown and his hapless bunch of second raters, no one has that much confidence in Dave either?

If you look at what Labour has done, how much different would it have been if the Tories had been in government? Would they have reigned in the greedy speculating banks? Would they have stopped the bonus by results? Would they have seen the danger of the Housing Bubble? Would they have warned us that it would burst sooner one day?

Did they not vote wholeheartedly for both the wars, despite being allowed access to secret information on a Privy Council ‘need to know’ basis? Would they have succeeded where Brown failed miserably at Copenhagen? What would they have done differently about terrorism? Were they not equally culpable in the expenses scandals? Would the really have tackled tax evasion and non-doms?What, in fact, is different about them?

Oh yes, when they get in they will slash public spending. That’s not a lot different from what Labour will do in reality, but the Tories have been honest about their intent. The truth is of course that, just like Thatcher, Cameron will not be able to slash public spending by nearly enough to make a difference, because if he does he will bring public services to a standstill, everyone will be out on strike and the UK will continue its downward spiral. Everyone knows that a Tory government will bring hard times for all (except the super rich) because they told us they would. Labour will bring pretty much the same thing, it was just that Brown was smart enough to lie and tell us he wouldn’t.

It is possible that even if the Tories do get in with a small majority, they will wreak such havoc that after 5 years Labour will be back. Remember Thatcher only got back after her first assault on us because “she” won a war. The only wars that we shall have in the future we shall almost certainly lose because they will be against terrorists, and they never surrender.

There is a solution for Scots though.... Let's show them without any doubt that we have no trust in either of their parties. Let's make sure we have at least 20 members in Westminster come June this year and get another foot on the ladder of independence.

WE MUST PROTECT THE YOUNG FROM THE SCOURGE OF UNEMPLOYMENT

Today’s unemployment figures are horrific.

A total of 2.5 million people are counted as unemployed and the number of people who are "economically inactive", ie on long term sickness benefits, looking after a relative (and saving nursing home places), or who have simply given up looking for work (many of them claiming nothing at all, living off their partners’ earnings) has reached an astonishing 21% of the available population, or 8 million souls. The number of jobs available, according to the Office for National Statistics is just over 420,000. So all those who are shouting for people to get off their lazy backsides and look for work should be aware that what they are demanding is an impossibility. There are an incredibly small number of jobs for an incredibly large number of “economically inactive” people.

That’s a proud record for Labour to have as it limps towards a General Election. And that’s certainly not as bad as it will get in the near future. The banks, for example, are promising further job losses, with over 8000 notified this week alone, but yet to take effect.

Mr Cameron (it's not unreasonable to assume that he will be the next Prime Minister) will face a mammoth task in his first few years of government, trying desperately to find work that people can apply for. Because no amount of talking tough about people on benefit can hide that fact that 8 million people out of work does not go readily into 420,000 vacancies. Tough talking in this case only really pleases the non thinker who believes that if the unwashed just got off their backsides and did a decent day’s work the all would be right with the world, but totally disregards how this might be brought about.

Mr Cameron’s economic team may have many ideas about how to get Britain working again but I’m not sure where he will get 7 ¾ million jobs from.

I’ve worked for years with people who are unemployed, both with Jobcentre and with private companies trying to help people into work, and I can tell you without doubt that unemployment is a tragedy. It ruins lives, tears families apart and causes untold misery. The great bulk of unemployed people want a job. Yes, some of them are unreasonable in their demands, and some of them wouldn’t work if their granny’s life depended on it, but that’s a very small proportion.

Huge numbers are unfit for work because of drug and drink habits, low educational attainments, low intellectual abilities, or a string of dependent children. There are other barriers to getting people into employment, but the biggest of all is the lack of jobs.

In my opinion, given the problems that will face Mr Cameron in trying to make good his promises, he must concentrate on the young. Youth unemployment, that of people between the ages of 16 and 24 is close to 1 million, a record high of nearly 20% of that age group.

It is this age group who must be found work. Of course my solutions wouldn’t be of interest to Mr Cameron, because they involve public expenditure. Finding work for people by building an infrastructure suitable to the 21st century, training young people in trades as they go, building railways, roads, public housing to replace the failed and totally unaffordable private housing, improving public transport and trying to bring Britain up to the standard in these things of other northern European countries is how I would create that employment. In itself it would soak up large numbers, who, instead of claiming benefits would have wages, which, being young, they would spend, creating more work. Yep, it’s a well worn idea. Nothing original there!

I know that won’t be Mr Cameron’s way, given his politics, and I respect that, but, what I know for sure is that he cannot allow a million young people to be idle. If he does they may well be idle for the rest of their lives.

WHO ELSE ARE YOU GOING TO UPSET? NOT THE BANKERS I'LL BET

So far, after falling out over Europe again (yawn), the Tories, such a shoo-in for next year's election, have managed to upset the Incapacity Benefit claimants by worrying them about extremely strict testing and the 50+ because they want them to work longer.

OK, I know there are people on IB who shouldn't be; people on the fiddle, but there are probably a couple of million who are too ill to work but who are worried sick that somehow they won't pass the test of being able to walk 20 steps and get up from sitting down without using arm rests. All so that they can be taken off IB and put on something that pays lower rates. There are no jobs so it's not like they are actually going to be working.

Nice savings Dave. Reminiscent in many ways of the school bully hitting the sick kid in the playground.


Now they've upset the 50+ crowd, the people who are most likely to vote. Oh, they say, people live well into their 90s now. They want to go on working. It’s only fair that they should.

Hello, what world do these Tories live in? They are nearly as out of touch as the Labour lot, hard though that is to believe.

No. They don't want to go on working. Here’s how the situation is Dave. In the old days people had a job for life. As they got older they maybe did a wee bit less than they used to, but they added value to the company with all their experience. They had been “faithful servants of the company” and the company kept faith with them. With very few exceptions these days are long since gone. Jobs are rarely long term, except in the public sector. Many people in their sixties have been made redundant, and no one wants to take them on, so they are on the dole. They desperately look forward to their pension. It, grimly low though it is, means a few more pounds a week.

Many of the working classes are pretty much done by the time they reach 65. They hurt; they have all manner of illnesses. It's all about a lifetime in damp houses often with poor food, too much drink, too much smoke, not enough exercise or too much hard physical backbreaking work, often around chemicals that have affected their health.

In some areas of Glasgow, for example, many are dead by the time pension comes around, but those who aren't are on the dole. No one wants to employ ill people in their 60s. You know, it's not all stockbroker land in these isles of ours, Dave, and some people do live outside the Home Counties of England.

But hey, the IB claiments and the nearly pensioners are an easy target. Probably no one at your conference has these kinds of worries. It will get you a big cheer in the hall and the blue rinses and the colonels, the stockbrokers and the bankers, who aren’t even aware that people like that exist, will be thinking what a good chap that David Cameron is. The bankers in particular have much to be grateful for. Phew!

It reminds me of Mrs Thatcher saying in that condescending way that she had, lips curling into an evil smile "But people WANT to pay for their eye tests".

Bravo Dave.

So, to summarise. It seems that this week you have hit the old and the sick and the poor.... in order to pay for the mess made by the super rich.

Brilliant. Now I remember what the Tories were like and why we wanted rid of them so badly and believed the ridiculous mantra that things could "only get better".