New Balls!

"iTalk" has been at it again - a full blown attack on George Osbourne in the Daily Mirror. Let's look at what he had to say :

What matters most when times are hard is whether the government is trying to shield you from the storm, or leaving you to fend for yourself.

When Osborne or his Lib Dem lackeys say: “It’s all Labour’s fault, we inherited a mess” .... what they’re really saying to the British people is: “We’re not ­responsible: don’t ask us for help.”

Well, that's all very well, Binky, and it makes a nice soundbite. Where was your government when the shit was hitting the fan? Oh, out spending money we hadn't got because you emptied the coffers. You created this mess. You were responsible or we would not have the scale of problems we have, so to accuse the coalition of not trying to sort it shows a distinct lack of grip on reality.

And "LibDem lackeys"? That's just downright insulting. Name calling is the last resort of an immature mind.

The Tories say that because Labour was not tough enough in regulating the banks, the economic crisis is our fault.

They forget that every time the Labour government tried to tighten regulation, it was the Tories who protested we were strangling enterprise with red tape, and David Cameron who accused Gordon Brown of being The Great Regulator.

There goes that grip on reality again. Labour destroyed regulation of the banks. Balls himself was the very man calling for a 'light touch' in dealing with financial regulation. The regulation Labour tried to tighten was on small and medium size business who were destroyed by a sea of red tape. It was this red tape that Cameron was referring to, not the banks. Labour let the banks get away with murder. In fact, the first thing Tony Blair did when he left office was to join the board of a merchant bank.

The Tories want you to believe Labour spent too much money on services like schools, hospitals and the police, and that is why we have today’s budget deficit.
That way they can justify drastic cuts in those services in order to bring down the deficit, and say it is all Labour’s fault.

If you define 'too much' as money we don't actually have, then that's exactly what Labour did. Cutting spending and raising taxes is the only way to reduce a structural deficit.

Cameron has been forced to match some of Labour's spending plans in some areas because this is a COALITION, Ed. The LibDem 'lackeys' do actually have some say and are actually more left wing than the Conservatives. It's called prioritisation and compromise, something you seem to know little about.

When the financial crisis hit, we were badly affected by the loss of tax revenues from the City, and we had to inject huge sums of money to protect people’s mortgages and savings and stop the British banking system from collapsing.

On top of that, we cut VAT for a year, introduced the car scrappage scheme, funded apprenticeships and job ­creation schemes, and subsidised mortgages – all to stop people losing their jobs, homes and businesses.

That is what caused the deficit, not spending on schools, hospitals and the police.

You didn't regulate the banks properly, then you had to bail them out. The money you threw at the economy was to buy votes. Spending actually did make the deficit worse. That's not even economics - it's called basic housekeeping.

Every time they take an unpopular decision, the Tories say the same thing: it’s not our fault, we inherited a mess.

In reality, they inherited an economy which was beginning to recover strongly, with unemployment falling, interest rates at historic lows, and the public finances better than the Treasury’s forecasts

Actually, the Coalition say that we need to sort it out. The economy was recovering, but not strongly and interest rates at historic lows has crippled the very people who have the disposable income to boost the economy - people living on their investments. It has also helped inflation to rise. It appears we learnt nothing from the Japanese experience of punitively low interest rates.

And just because the public finances outperform the Treasury forecasts doesn't necessarily mean that they are performing well, does it?

The Labour Party has a responsibility to stand up for millions of Mirror readers across the country who are already being hit by rising unemployment, rising inflation and the rise in VAT.

Bank lending has strangled investment and caused job losses. That includes the banks you bought and then failed to control. Low interest rates and taxes introduced by you have cause infation to rise, coupled with the false readings in the figures when VAT went back to 17.5% - and let's not forget that you were intending to raise it to 19%. Oh, and then there's those fuel tax rises you introduced. They had no effect on inflation, did they?

You can read his full article by clicking here, but in the words of the song "You say it best when you say nothing at all"...

Easter is coming!

Once in a while, it is good to unearth a story that reveals the true meaning of the christian religion...

Scottish artist Ian Moir has come up with a great way to commemorate Good Friday - he plans to parade a dead rabbit through the streets of Dunfermiline while dressed as a jester and then crucify it!

This is aparently to highlight the "crass commercialisation of Christmas and Easter" and is, of course, nothing whatsoever to do with tasteless self publicity.

Needless to say, the good and the great are up in arms :

Father Michael Henesy said: "I think it will offend a lot of people. It's trivialising the crucifixion.". I shouldn't think the rabbit's too keen either, Mike!

An animal charity commented : "Using the carcass of an innocent rabbit does nothing to encourage reflection about Jesus's message of love and compassion." This is true. It's the exact opposite - but that's the whole point.

Scottish SPCA Chief Superintendent Mike Flynn said: "It is totally tasteless." But nailing a bloke to a cross is OK?

Mr. Moir replied, "It's unfortunate that Christmas and Easter have more to do with boosting the economy than with the birth and death of Jesus. Although I am not a Christian, I find myself repulsed by the rampant commercialism." I think the point is that Christians are even more repulsed by it, aren't they? Well, if not, they should be...

Well this might be offensive, but I could suggest something worse. How about force feeding chocolate to a live animal until it bloats itself to death? Oh no, hang on! - That's called giving the kids Easter eggs...

"Oh, yes it does..."

Take a good look at the above picture because it contravenes the Geneva Convention!

"Oh, no it doesn't..." I hear you cry. Well, sorry but I'm afraid that it does!

Take a good look at Nurse Poltis - that's the one on the left in case you can't work it out for yourself. The Red Cross emblems on her uniform were changed to green crosses after the British Red Cross informed the theatre it was breaking the law and could face prosecution.

Unauthorised use of the emblem violates the Geneva Conventions Act 1957.

The British Red Cross said it had contacted the Pavilion Theatre over the use of a red cross on the nurse's costume in the pantomime.

All I can say is that it's a shame they've got fuck all better to do...

Forest Chumps

Back in October, the government announced rather ill concieved plans to sell off vast tracts of forest under it's plans to 'substantially reform' the Forestry Commission.

This is a bloody silly idea because - as was discovered when the Scottish parliament came up with a similar plan - you might raise some capital initially but this all leaks back to the new owners. What is effectively happening is that the new owners have the right to chop down all the trees and profit from the timber whist at the same time having access to public funding in order to plant new ones! In fact we are likely to dish out more money to the new landowners than would ever be raised from the sales.

Just to prove the point, the Forestry Commission does occasionally sell off land. One such sale resulted in proceeds of £60,000. The new owner immediately applied for money under the English Woodlands Grant Scheme and was awarded £55,000 to plant new trees. And, of course, he can apply for further grants in the future...

The Forestry Commission is, in fact, a bargain. Last year it raised £75m from the sale of timber, thus costing the taxpayer a net £15m to provide miriad essential services such as tree sciences (e.g. research into potentially devasting diseases like Dutch Elm and Royal Oak), and regulation and licensing of the private forestry sector.

This idea was not thought through properly in the rush to cut the waste out of quangos, and makes no economic sense. It should be scrapped immediately.

Rotten Boroughs: Lancashire County Council

Hat tip to the Moose for highlighting the balmy scheme by Lancashire County Council to reduce the speed limit in residential areas from 30 to 20mph across the entire county by 2013.

The response to this hair brained idea is, to say the least, unfavourable. But that doesn't seem to worry the council who intend to implement it anyway at an estimated cost of £9 million - so it is good to know that in these times of 'all in it together' and spending cuts that this quantity of money can be just flushed unnecessarily down the toilet.

Perhaps the honorable councillors of Lancashire should have had a word with Ken Livingston. When mayor of London, Ken had a policy of "encouraging councils to make a wholesale switch from 30mph to 20mph, amid evidence that the slower limits could cut accidents and injuries by half."

But the policy was scotched when Boris Johnson came to power. Boris said he would support 20mph zones in residential areas where local people wanted them. But because of "finite budgets", priority would only go to areas with a high number of accidents - especially those involving vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians. The Green Party attacked his decision, claiming it would cost " hundreds" of lives.

Scare mongering it seems runs rife in this idea. In Lancashire, councillor Tim Ashton says he wants speeding in built-up areas to be ‘as taboo as drink driving’ in a bid to halt the thousands of people killed or injured on the region’s roads every year. Only, as the Moose quite rightly points out, 702 deaths in 2009 is hardly thousands and a lot of those weren't caused by speeding.

Then it gets worse. Apparently, LCC wants to appoint vigilante groups of local residents and arm them with speed guns to help enforce the limit. Councillor Ashton says “I think there will be a huge amount of support for what we are doing but if there are critics I will take them head-on."

I suggest he should read his post bag and stop being so bloody arrogant.

It's a daft idea, the ratepayers oppose it and there's no money to pay for it...

Fast track policemen

Police minister Nick Herbert has come up with the most hairbrained idea of the year so far - and I reckon it will take some beating...

Apparently, the idea of making all new recruits join at the lowest rank of constable is no longer "fit for purpose". The daft bugger told a national conference: "The service needs to be open, more representative and diverse. It needs to attract the brightest and the best."

At the moment, all coppers undergo the same basic training and spend a year as a probationer or beat copper. In other words, they learn the realities of the job by starting on the lowest rung of the ladder. The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) opposes a change and says there is already an accelerated promotion scheme which can fast-track graduates and others with experience outside the police.

Many years ago - more than I care to remember in fact - I was interested in joining the fraud squad. I was told that I would have to undergo basic training and enter as a constable, but it was made clear to me that I would soon gain promotion in view of my professional qualifications. There was no question of avoiding the basics. It was made very clear to me that I would have to start at the bottom - and I felt this was as it should be!

Commerce in this country started to go down the toilet when managers were brought into the organisation with theoretical qualifications but no experience of either management or the basics of the business. If we do this to the police, then the quality of this organisation will also suffer accordingly.

A review of police pay and conditions is due to present it's preliminary findings next month. In the interests of maximising relevent experience, the government appointed not a former senior police office, but Tom Windsor the former rail regulator.

'Nuff said...

The Missionary Position

They say that travel is good. It broadens your horizons, Opens up your mind to other possibilities and enlarges your carbon footprint. All this works from me!

As my regular reader will know, I have nothing against God. Indeed I believe that the great sky fairy is looking down on us from on high and pissing himself laughing at all our various ludicrous ways of worshipping Him. Nowhere is this more fascinating in its manifestations than in Polynesia.

Take for example Tahiti, the island which epitomises what I euphemistically brand the "ABC" tour - "Another Bloody Church". There is one on every corner - and two on some. Every domination imaginable is here in spades.

In the 19th century, the European missionaries arrived here bigtime - especially the Catholics. They found a happy, contented, sexually liberated people and so naturally felt bound by God and the Pope to put an end to it as soon as possible and impose their own special brand of guilt ridden prudishness.

The amply endowed dusky young maidens who were running around half naked in the tropical sun were immediately forced to wear clothes covering them from neck to toe. All their Gods were abandoned and their way of life destroyed forever. Ironically, all this happened because their religious legends foretold that one day a pale stranger would appear bringing the word of God to the islands and, of course, when the Europeans came, they assumed the prophesy was being fulfilled.

As I said, God must be looking down pissing himself laughing...

Absolute Balls

Frankly, it beggars belief that the Mighty Milipede should appoint as Shadow Chancellor the very man who, under Gordon Brown at the Treasury, played such a major part in the economic woes currently bestting this country.

Ed Balls is a disaster waiting to happen. But does this matter to the Milipede? No, not at all it seems. The Labour Party is already hailing this appointment as a return to the combatative politics they long for after being crushed at the last election.

The fact is that the Milipede has no policies - at least none he is prepared to admit to. So far - and I may be proved wrong - his strategy seems to be to take the party back to the bad old days before 'New' Labour. This is, of course, what his masters at the TUC want from him - a return to power for a Union movement which has been losing control ever since the days of Thatcher and the miners' strike.

So where does Balls fit in?

Balls is a bruiser in some ways reminiscent of John Prescott but with a little more grooming. He's quite happy to get stuck in and likely relishes the idea of having a go at George Osbourne. The problem is he lacks depth when it comes to economic policy - amply proved by his contribution in the last government - and he's not a particularly eloquent speaker.

If he was an Apple product, he would likely be known as 'iTalk' Balls.

And the Milipede needs to remember one thing about Balls - Rotweillers have been known to bite their masters as well...

Papal bull

Take a good look at the picture on the left. Apparently, this is what a Saint looks like...

On 1st May if all goes to schedule, Papa is going to beatify his predecessor, Pope John-Paul II.

Now, I am the first to admit that the last Pope was a great improvement on the bloody fool they have in the job at the moment, but is he a saint?

Well, according to the nonsense that the Catholics Church uses to decide on sainthood, the deceased person needs to have been responsible for a proven miracle in order to be beatified.

Luckily, the late John-Paul has already performed his first post death miracle :

The case involves the healing of a French religious sister from Parkinson’s disease. Sr. Marie Simon-Pierre was diagnosed with an aggressive form of the disease in 2001. Her order prayed to John Paul II after his death for help. After writing the Pope’s name on a piece of paper one night in June 2005, she reportedly awoke the next morning cured and was able to resume her work as a maternity nurse.

Conveniently, you will note that this miracle was performed within the confines of the church itself. The cynical amongst us would, of course, say that it would have been more convincing if it had been performed on ordinary Joe Public - but, then again, even Jesus didn't appear in public after the resurrection, so there must be a precedent there.

Even more conveniently, the beatification ceremony is expected to brings hundreds of thousands of believers to the Vatican - so good news for the coffers as well, then...

Never before has a Pope beatified his immediate predecessor. And the usual five year waiting period has been waived as well - although, of course, it is difficult to understand why a miracle is not allowed to happen for the first five years? Perhaps God has a probationary period in mind?

John-Paul's papacy was not, of course, without it's problems. He presided over a massive cover up of sex abuse by members of the priesthood during his 26 year reign. But this is OK with the church who say his life isn't a "score card" on how he administered things, but more of a recognition that he led a "saintly life" - whatever that means!

Yet again, God must be pissing himself laughing at the way 'his' church carries on and I suppose the biggest question to be answered about all this nonsense must be...

...at the end of the day, what does it matter anyway?

The Milipede's judgement

Is it just me that finds the Mighty Milipede completely unbelievable?

On Thursday, his shadow Chancellor resigned from the shadow cabinet. Whilst undoubtedly a likeable fellow - well, for a politician anyway - he was certainly behind the door when God gave out the economics degrees. Luckily for the Milipede, Alan Johnson gave him the perfect 'personal reasons' excuse to give him the chop.

Then he replaces him with a Brown clone. This is apparently good judgement.

On Friday, here is the Milipede again. This time he is crowing at the resignation of Andy Coulson, Cameron's communications director. This is because of the phone hacking row at the News of the Screws. Apparently, allowing him to stay on calls Dave's judgement into question.

So let's understand this clearly. When the Milipede appoints the wrong man, this is good judgement but when Cameron allows a man to stay on - innocent until proven guilty - this is bad judgement?

To my way of thinking, this is double standards by any stretch of the imagination...

Queen leads by example!

The royal family has always believed in setting an example when it comes to a national crisis - just look at the way they led from the front during the blitz!

So Buckingham Palace announced today that in the true spirit of "we're all in it together", the queen is to take up employment.

"One is only too aware aware of the problems facing the country and in particuar the ordinary working man," she said in a statement. "One wishes to show you all that no work should ever be considered beneath one."

Her majesty, pictured here in her new uniform, will be donating her wages to the government to help pay for her grandson's upcoming wedding.

In a reciprocal gesture, her employers have agreed to provide the wedding breakfast.

Cat must do Jury Service

Just to make the case that the law really is an ass - in the States, a tabby cat has been selected for jury service.

Apparently, this is because his owners registered him on a Massachusetts state census form - in the pets section as required by law. This resulted in the cat being called for jury service.

It then gets dafter, because the court refused to believe that this was a mistake and insisted that Sal attend on pain of a fine, despite the fact that they got a vet to write a supporting letter confirming that the cat was a 'domestic short-haired neutered feline' and not human.

So her owners Anna and Guy Esposito wrote to the court asking for him to be disqualified from service because he doesn't speak or understand English. According to the Massachusetts judicial branch website, US citizens who 'do not speak and understand English sufficiently well may be disqualified.'

However, the request for the cat's exemption was refused by a jury commissioner and Mrs Esposito was told that Sal 'must attend' Suffolk Superior Crown Court.

She said: "When they ask him guilty or not guilty, what's he supposed to say - meow? Sal is a member of the family so I listed him on the last census form under pets but there has clearly been a mix-up."

If Sal's application for disqualification is denied, the cat is expected in court on 23 March.

The Dear Gill letters (5)

Britain's first lady seems unhappy...

I just can't tell what it's been like the last week or two - it's been so absolutely frightful. Everybody is up in arms about the changes that we are talking about making to disability payments. Dave is so upset. Anyone would think that we don't have any feelings about this at all - I mean after all we went through with our lovely Ivan, how could they be so heartless? Politics really does suck sometimes!

And if that's not bad enough, we're being forced to give votes to criminals. I mean, I ask you! What's the point of that? Dave's really not impressed. Sometimes the law really is an ass - and don't get me started on European law - I mean who runs this country anyway? Is it Dave or that awful von Pompy person? Or maybe it's old Merky? Or maybe it's just nobody any more. I just don't know what's what these days. That bloody Heath has done more damage with the stroke of a pen than Hitler ever did with all his bombs and stuff...

And the Milipedes are at it again! First they say that we are going to quickly and forcing things through without thinking enough, now they say we are backtracking and going too slowly. Dave's seething between you and me. I mean, it's not as if Red Ed's even got any policies of his own - he just rubbishes ours all the time! It's back to good old schoolyard games - yah! boo! my party's better than your party! It's pathetic. Still, Dave says he's so easy to put down with a one liner that he's beginning to enjoy it. "A chancellor who can't count and a leader who doesn't count." Classic. I came up with that one myself over a midnight feed!

Fancy old Chaytor getting sent off to chokey eh? Lock 'em all up and throw away the key I say. It's so pathetic really - like fiddling the petty cash. And Illsey faking his council tax - I mean that's not even ambitious fraud really is it?

And, of course, we had that silly by-election. Dave's got to face that dreadful Miliband person again and wave it all away like it doesn't matter - not that it does really as far as I can see, but then there's that dreaded male ego thing again, isn't there. They just can't bear to lose. It's so infantile, isn't it? I reckon our kids are more mature than some of our MPs.

And to top it all off we were up half the night waiting for the result. Well, Dave was anyway. I told him straight. I said "You know you won't win, so you might as well go to bed." Well at least I didn't have to get to see to Florrie - so I suppose men are useful for something...

And VAT? Well, the only VAT I'm interested in is a Vodka and Tonic so let's do lunch soon and we can spend some of the fees you've been making defending Chaytor and the rest of them. Bet Cherie wishes she'd got in on that one! Toodle pip,

Red Ed can't make his mind up

Last Saturday, Ed Miliband made a major speech to the Fabian Society which warrants close scrutiny not least of all for what it tells us about the man himself.

It seems that the trouble with the Mighty Milipede could be that he simply can't make his mind up...

Having accused the Conservatives of making no effort in the Oldham East by-election on order to favour the LibDems, he went on in his speech to say that "David Cameron became the first Prime Minister in recent years to campaign in a by-election." Sounds a little contradictory to me, Ed...

Then he went on to call for Labour to show "a willingness to reach out to others beyond our party at the heart of the way we do our politics" having just slagged off the Conservatives and LibDems as a "coalition based on political convenience rather than values." Seems to me like you calling on your own party to do exactly what you are condemning.

And then there is his comment that Labour's "managerialism took us away from the instincts and values of the broad progressive majority" whilst at the same time attacking the coalition government for decentralising decision making.

"Of course I am proud of the achievements of our last Labour government" he goes on to say, but then again admits they were guilty of "failing to properly regulate the banks, ignoring concerns about economic security".

Mr Miliband says of the country's woes "it was the crisis that caused high levels of public borrowing" but then goes on to say "our economy was too vulnerable to the crisis because we were too reliant on financial services", the very financial services that Gordon Brown as Chancellor and later as Prime Minister derugulated!

But for me the best statement in his speech was when he said : "when we you see some of our leading bankers constantly threatening to leave the country, trying to hold the country to ransom and thinking only of themselves, it makes me angry."

Well I'm sorry Ed, but when I see rampant left wing socialists manipulating the trades union movement in order to try to bring down a democratically elected government and, what's more, to use your words "trying to hold the country to ransom and thinking only of themselves", then it makes me absolutely bloody furious!

And the word 'hypocrite' springs readily to mind...

Why petrol prices are so high (2)

Nothing like a bit of scaremongering to sell newspapers...

I was horrified the other day in the supermarket to see this headline on the front page of the Daily Mail : "£70 to fill up with petrol: Families hit by yet another stealth tax and soaring oil prices."

Apparently this is due to the escalating price of oil (True - it hit a 27 month high of $98 a barrel this week) and George Osbourne's forthcoming budget increases.

This latter is patently untrue. Nobody, except perhaps the government's innermost circle, knows what's going to be in the budget. But this doesn't stop the Daily Mail. Oh, no! "Petrol retailers have written to George Osborne urging the Chancellor to abandon the next automatic ‘escalator’ rise in fuel duty in his Budget, which will see up to 5p a litre added to the cost of fuel."

At this point I would like to point out that the Fuel Price Escalator in question was actually abandoned in 1999. It is true to say that increases have been applied in sucessive budgets, but it is patently untrue to say that it is 'automatic'.

And the claim of 'up to 5p added'? Well, I take that with the same pinch of salt that I take when I look at adverts offering 'up to 50% off' because, let's be honest, bugger all is 'up to' whatever figure you want to highlight!

But this doesn't seem to matter to the Mail. "The cost of filling a saloon with a 50-litre tank will soar to about £70" Frankly, I don't think that will worry anyone who can afford a car with a 50 litre tank. I filled both my cars this week and neither of them took more than 36 litres. Still, it makes a nice soundbite.

But the thing that irritated me most about this piece of scaremongering non-news is the headline that describes this as a "stealth tax". I find it hard to understand how something that hasn't happened - much less been proposed - can be described as stealth, especially when it is trumpetted two months in advance on the front page of a national newspaper.

My conclusion must therefore be : If you want real news, then don't buy the Daily Mail on a slow news day...

What's in a name, Benny?

The old Ratshitter has been poking his nose in again...

Apparently Benny is not happy with the names we are giving our children and is telling us that we need to go back to selecting proper Christian names which "bequeath an unmistakable sign that the Holy Spirit will allow the person to blossom in the bosom of the Church."

Well, ignoring the fact that it's actually fuck all to do with him what we call our kids, let's have a look at some of the names that have fallen into disuse and a few examples of good, solid Christian names.

When was the last time you met anyone called Hephzibah, Amminadabs, Zipporahs or Habakkuks? Or how about Abbos, Etheidwithas and Leocritas? Amazingly, all these were once quite common...

I have a grandchild due next week, but I don't think my daughter will be using any of those. Pappa is also apparently not impressed with "such profane appellations as Brooklyn, Peaches and Princess Tiaamii."

Perhaps these papally recommended gems would be more appropriate :

1. Jezebel, the Queen of Israel, later became shorthand for a fallen woman, a name perhaps attracting a degree of notoriety?
2. Nebuchadnezzar was king of the Babylonian empire. His exploits, which are recounted in the books of Daniel and Jeremiah, were praised by Saddam Hussein, to whom he was a hero.
3. Dorcas, a faithful female disciple "full of good deeds" whose death prompted much weeping, according to the New Testament.
4. Philemon, the recipient of an epistle from Saint Paul in the New Testament.
5. Gomer - no, not Homer! - was the wife of the prophet Hosea. 
6. Methusalah, the oldest person named in the Bible, said to have lived until he was 969.
7. Achsah was the daughter of Caleb, who offered her in marriage to Othniel in the Old Testament. 
8. Wilgefortis. According to a story dating back to the 14th Century, Saint Wilgefortis took a vow of virginity when she was promised in marriage by her father. Following her prayers for help, she grew a beard and moustache.
9. Zipporah, wife of Moses.
10. Radbod was Bishop of Utrecht around 900 AD.

There's a few crackers there, eh Benny? But if you think my forthcoming progeny is going to be called Wilgefortis Etheidwithas Radbod or Achsah Zipporah Jezebal then I reckon you might be sorely disappointed! I'd rather it was called Brooklyn or Peaches - or alternatively stick a red hot needle through my eyeball!

So who says the Papacy is out of touch with reality, eh?...

Bye-Election bollocks...

There's nothing quite like a good old fashioned bye-election to get people talking complete bollocks - so let's take a good look at some that's been spouted over Thursday's bun fight in Oldham...

We all know that Labour held the seat. "The party's share of the vote increased by 10% to 42%" Well, yes it did but let's not forget that turnout dropped from 61% to 48%. These figures translate into a Labour vote of 14,718 compared to 14,186 in the general election. Not quite so glowing then...

"Senior Labour figures hailed the result as proof of public "anger" over issues like the rise in VAT, tuition fees and cuts" according to the BBC. But hang on - weren't Labour promissing cuts, an increase in VAT to 19% and an increase in National Insurance?

Andy Burnham said that the result was a "good reward" for Mr Miliband who he said had "led from the front" on issues such as VAT. Er - 19% VAT under Labour...

Let's not forget that Labour have held this seat since it was created in 1997, or that the LibDem share of the vote increased.

But then according to Yvette Cooper - the aptly named Mrs Balls - "They obviously did quite a bit of swapping votes between them, but look at their combined vote together it does show quite a significant swing away from the government parties." However the combined vote for LibDems and Conservatives is higher than Labour's.

Conservative Party co-chairman Baroness Warsi said it was "inevitable" that the party which started in third place would see their vote "squeezed" in a bye-election - true but how come that didn't happen to the LibDems then?

The other thing that I found interesting about this result is that we are so concerned about global warming and the environment, that both UKIP and the BNP got more votes than the Green Party. But then Oldham is not exactly countryside...

At the end of all this hoo-hah only one thing is certain : Whatever the result, no party will ever admit to losing. And that's certainly true...

...because under the current system, the only losers in elections are the voters!

Rewriting the classics...

In Orwell's '1984', The Ministry of Truth was responsible for re-writing books to fit in with the current political system.

Many of Orwell's predictions have come true - most noteably our surveilance society - but now Newspeak is coming to this country, slowly but surely pervading our lives.

I first noticed it when they removed the golliwog from the labels of Robertson's jams because it was "offensive to black people". What tosh! Like many children of my generation, I grew up with a golliwog doll. I loved him. He never once called me white trash or honkey.

The golliwog was, in fact, invented in 1893 and appeared first in a book by Florence Upton in 1895. In this book he was a hero and there were no negative connotations attached to him at all. It was Enid Blyton who displayed him as a mischief maker and caused him to be seen in a new light. So, bye bye Golliwog!

It seems that Miss Blyton has a lot to answer for in the exciting new world of Newspeak, because next we lost the goblins out of the Noddy stories. Apparently this was because they were always pictured with 'jewish characteristics' and this was also considered religiously offensive.

And so it goes on...

The latest victims are apparently to be the classics of literature. Just the other day it was announced that Huckleberry Finn was to be editted to remove all the racist language from it. Hang on, tho' - wasn't this language considered normal in the context of the time it was written? Wouldn't removing it from a classic somewhat dilute the content?

Worryingly, this trend is set to continue with other great works and I am forced to question whether it can ever be right to re-write a classic just in the interests of political correctness.

It seems Orwell was right - unless of course we decide to re-write '1984' as well...

Votes for prisoners

The government seems to be caving in on the issue of whether prisoners should be allowed to vote.

The right to vote was taken away from prison inmates under the 1870 Forfeiture Act, and the ban was retained in the Representation of the People Act of 1983. Prisoners on remand awaiting trial, fine defaulters and people jailed for contempt of court can vote

Both this government and the previous Labour government has been fighting this issue since 2005. It has been under pressure from the United Nations as well as legal pressure from the European Court of Human Rights. The UK's position is that if a person is removed from society by placing them in prison, then they should not be allowed to take part in society by voting. To me, this seems perfectly logical and reasonable.
 
Convicted axe murderer turned legal eagle, John Hirst, said "I'm going to celebrate for the 75,000 prisoners who will be getting the vote. That includes murderers, rapists, paedophiles - all of them will be getting the vote because it's their human right. You can't start moralising and saying which ones can and can't vote."

Well I totally disagree with you Mr Hirst. In fact, every time I hear bastards like you crowing it is usually followed by the words 'human rights'. I'd like to ask you how you feel about the human rights of the woman whose head you split in half with an axe?
 
It is time that this government grew some balls and politely but firmly informed the European Union Fourth Reich that this is sovereign country and that our laws take priority within our own borders NOT yours. This country is ruled by a government elected by it's citizens NOT by an unelected bureaucracy in Brussels.
 
And can Mr Cameron please explain to me exactly how - short of a declaration of war - the EU Reich intends to fine a sovereign country for non compliance with external rulings?
 
Tell them to get stuffed - it's our inalienable human right!!

Music for the Royal Wedding

News just out that Leaping Lord Lloyd-Webber of Lambourne is a bit pissed off about the Royal Wedding. Apparently he expects to be asked to compose a special piece of music for the occassion, the fucking arrogant little twat!

He's probably also not too pleased to find out that geriatric has been musicado Paul McCartney has been invited to play at the Palace at the reception party. Well, it was never going to be Ozzy Ozbourne was it?...

I dunno - first a second hand ring and then a second rate rocker!

Anyway, as we are trying to keep the costs down, I thought it only fair to offer my musical services to the happy couple free of charge. Here's my suggestions for my set at the nuptial gig (original artists in brackets) -

• I'm Not in Love (10cc)
• Every Day I Love You Less and Less (Kaiser Chiefs)
• Don't Marry Her (Beautiful South)
• Only Love Can Break Your Heart (Neil Young) 
• You're Gonna Lose That Girl (Beatles) 
• Nothing Lasts Forever (Echo & the Bunnymen)
• Smack My Bitch Up (Prodigy)
• I Knew the Bride When She Used to Rock and Roll (Nick Lowe)
• Grounds for Divorce  (Elbow)
• Heaven Knows I'm miserable now (Smiths)
• 50 ways to Leave Your Lover (Paul Simon)
• Marriage is for Old Folks (Nina Simone)
• A Punchup at a Wedding (Radiohead)
• William, It Was Really Nothing (Smiths)

...and to round off the evening, a medley of ...

• A Cunt Like You (Whitehouse)
• Too Drunk to Fuck (Dead Kennedys)
• It's All Over Now (Rolling Stones)

Any other suggestions?

Your home as an ATM

A load of old bollocks has been spouted recently on the Biased Broadcasting Corporation about how the current generation regard the so called 'Baby Boomers' who turn 65 this year.

Apparently the youngsters resent the boomers because they have been able to get a cash rich retirement by cashing in the equity in their houses and thus are now spending their kids inheritance.

Furthermore, they resent the fact that we had a house price boom and they haven't got one of their own.

Well, I'm here to set them straight.

Let's compare 1965 with 2005 with regard to buying your own home :

1965 : There are a limitted number of building societies who lend mortgages in order to buy a home
2005 : There are hundred of lenders. It's a competitive market.

1965 : Don't even think of asking for a mortgage unless you have been saving with this society for 2 years
2005 : How much do you want?

1965 : Have you saved at least a 10% deposit?
2005 : Would you like a 110% mortgage or perhaps something larger?

1965 : How much do you earn? How much does your partner earn?
2005 : Please fill in the self certification form.

1965 : This is the rate you pay
2005 : Who is offering the best deal?

1965 : It is generally accepted that married couples will need two incomes to afford to buy a house
2005 : Single people regard the right to own a home as an inalienable human right!

1965 : I can't afford a house here, so I'll have to move further out to a cheaper area
2005 : I should have a right to buy a house in my home town!!

Now I am the first to admit that since the credit crunch, things have got tougher. But just think about it - it's still easier than it was in our day to get a mortgage BUT why the hell do you think that you have a right to be able to buy a home were you have always lived without sufficient income to cover the mortgage and without having to save a deposit?? Get fucking real, will you?!?

Here's the reason we have managed to build up the retirement fund that you resent us having - it's because we didn't use our homes as a cash point machine. Let's illustrate this with a simple example :

You buy a house for £200,000 on a 120% mortgage of £240,000
You spend the £40,000 surplus on supplementing your income, buying a new car, eating out every night, buying designer clobber and going on holiday
After 2 years, the house value has risen to £240,000, so you remortgage at £280,000 and use the surplus £40,000 etc,etc.
After another 2 years, your house is worth £280,000, so you remortgage etc, etc.

And that, in a nutshell, is why you will never be able to do what we did. You cannot accumulate equity in your home if you are continually remortgaging and spending it to subsidise your lifestyle. You can't have the money AND spend it...

We never had that option and whilst house prices are depressed, neither do you. Which is why some of you are in the financial shit - so listen and learn, get a grip on reality and stop wingeing about us!

Eastenders guilty of realism!

Just in case you have been hybernating for the winter and therefore are not aware of this - there is one hell of a row going on about a plot line in Eastenders...

Now I am the first to admit that I am not a regular viewer of the show, but it seems to me that this is a case of the BBC being hauled across the coals because it is guilty of injecting excessive realism into its script - not something that as far as I can see they are often accused of!

Over the years, there have been several real life cases of distraught mothers who have lost babies snatching infants and passing them off as their own.

I am not condoning this behaviour in any way, but these women are in deep psychological trauma over the death of their child. As a man, I cannot possibly imagine how this feels, but I do understand how it could mess up their minds sufficiently to take the action they do.

In Eastenders, the character loses her baby to cot death and then swaps it for another baby who has been left unattended over the road. It seems to me that the only thing implausible about this is that a parent would not recognise their own baby - but let's ignore that.

The outcry has been such that the actress playing the snatcher, Samantha Womack, has decided to resign over the storyline. Apparently the crew were overcome with emotion whilst filming the scenes, and filming stopped for an hour before they could carry on. So, it seems, that is where the realism stopped...

To the BBC I say "Well done for using your program to highlight an important issue."

To all those thousands of people who wrote in to complain, I say this "Get a life. This is fiction. It is not real."

Since the programme was aired, calls to the Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths (FSID) charity have increased by 500%. You can access their website by clicking here.

New Global Warming video

If you thought that 10:10's video blowing up little kiddies in the classroom was scary stuff, then take a look at this one...

Charles & Camilla to dance on ice

Exciting news that Charles and Camilla have been secretly recorded practicing for an appearance on the BBC's "Dancing on Ice".

The pair are apparently great fans of the program and have agreed to take part in the next series. Charles said, "It's been going frightfully well apart from when the silly old trout crashed into me and we both ended up flat on our arses. Haw, haw..."

Camilla said, "It's nearly as frightening as taking a shortcut up Regent Street in the Rolls! I wasn't sure I had the legs for that short skirt, but then Charles told me that if Ann Widdecombe could do it, anyone could. I just hope that we don't end up looking like a pair of fools..."

Sorry, dear - I'm afraid it's a bit late to worry about that...

Giving Aid to India

Over the next three years, we will give £825 million in aid to India.

Let's look at some statistics :

There are 203 recognised sovereign states in the world.

India has the 4th largest economy in terms of purchasing power whereas the UK is 6th.

The Indian economy has grown by 7.2% since the financial crisis, whereas the UK has managed 2.8%.

Economists predict that by 2020, India will be among the leading economies of the world, and they're pretty much on their way there now it seems.

In addition, it seems that India can afford a space program. It currently has 20 nuclear power stations and is building 4 more. It is a member of ITER - the project that is building an experimental fusion reactor. India has nuclear weapons and indigenous sources of uranium.

To sum up, it seems to be doing everything we are doing and in many areas it is doing more and performing better.

So why exactly, Mr. Cameron, are you giving them £825 million of our money when it seems that they ought to be giving it to us?

Autochugger has arrived...

Expect to see this soon on a cash point near you.

I heard on the BBC Breakfast News the other morning that some bright spark is suggesting a tie up between charities and Cash Point manufacturers which will 'give people the opportunity to make charitabe donations whenever they use a cash point'.

I can just see it now. 'This machine is sponsored by XYZ charity. Please make a donation in order to proceed further'. No donation, no money. Simples init?

Brilliant! So we spend a small fortune modifying all the cashpoint machine software to provide this 'opportunity' then we have to shop around the town to find the cash point that's sponsored by a charity we would actually be prepared to donate to.

This is a perfect example of wooly thinking that permeates throughout 21st century life - use the money that's collected in order to collect more money.

Here's a better idea - save the money and give that to the charity instead.

"Vat's the way to do it.."

I have become very angry over the last 24 hours listening to the absolute bollocks that has been peddled by TV news (ITV and BBC for a change) about yesterday's increase in VAT.

Let's look at some of the quotes that have been shown in interviews with politicians and on the street vox pops :

"My business will suffer because the increase in VAT will leave people with less disposable income" - absolute bollocks. It will have no effect whatsoever on disposable income as it is a tax on spending not income. Nice scaremongering though.

"I'm worried about the increase in food prices." This from a student. As there is no VAT on food, the only reason I can think of for believing this - apart from the fact that he may possibly be a brian washed leftie that believes Milipede propaganda - is that a student's version of food comes across the bar or in takeaway wrappers. That's not real food, mate, so it doesn't count. Learn to cook!

"We're no going to be able to go out down the pub with our mates or eat out when we want. It's not fair!" I think that just about sums up the out of touch with reality element in this country.

"A family on £25,000 a year is going to be £396 a year worse off." Now what the fuck do you base that on? Needless to say the calculation is not explained. As VAT is on spending not income, exactly how are we able to make this comparison? Lies, damn lies and statistics...

"It hits the poorest families more than the rich." More bollocks. It's nonsensical to look at the effect on earnings as it is a tax on spending. If I earn a million quid a year and spend sod all, then there is no VAT. Ditto if I earn fifteen grand. More accurately, you should look at the effect on spending power and not income. When you do this, it actually hits the richest worst.

"Comsumer groups warn that businesses will put up prices by between 5 and 8 per cent not just the 2.5% VAT element." Well for a start the actual increase is less than 2.5% because it's on the NET figure not the figure that already includes tax. Furthermore, if this is the case, it is called PROFITEERING and that is fuck all to do with the VAT increase - it's just opportunistic greed!

Miliband says it is the wrong tax at the wrong time. He refuses at all junctures to answer the question "What would you do instead?" This is because the only viable alternative is National Insurance - and that really does hit the poorest worst because it hits their wage packets and employers' wages bills.

He also conveniently forgets that the last Labour government tried to raise VAT twice but the move was blocked by Gordon Brown. And the perpetrator of the idea was - er - Ed Miliband.

One word of common sense came from a pensioner : "We've all got to pull our horns in 'cos we've got no money. Labour spent it all. Anyway, we've managed before and we'll do it again"

That last one was on the local news. I'll bet it doesn't make the nationals...

How to solve bankers' bonuses

OK - let's cut through the bullshit...

Here's the problem : how do we solve the problem of bankers paying themselves fucking great bonuses whilst at the same time allowing them to carry on paying themselves fucking great bonuses?

Simples, init? This is how we do it :

The income tax rate at £100,000 plus is 50%

Employer's NHI contributions run at 12.8%

Corporation tax is payable on profits at 28% - which incidentally is too low!

What we do is this - we make bankers bonuses non-deductible when calculating corporation tax and subject to employers' NI whether they are paid in cash or not. This means all bonuses over £100,000 will return 90.8% to the country.

Frankly, we could put large company corporation tax back to 40% (which is where it was under Gordon), and leave small companies paying 20%. Then the taxpayer would get 102.8% - which is much more like it! So a £1m bonus would mean the recipent still gets £372,000 but the exchequer gets £1,028,000 in tax and NI.

Also this takes CT from big companies that can afford it and gives incentives to smaller companies who are stifled by it. So a boost for the economy and job creation as well...

So there you go Vince and George! Problem solved!

Got the balls to go for it?

Pete Postlethwaite

So,
Farewell then
Peter Postlethwaite.
You never got
The Oscar
That you deserved.
But that was only because
They couldn't spell
Your name...


Very sad news. A great actor whose presence on the screen will be sorely missed.

The Dear Gill letters (4)

The insider girl's view of number 10...

Happy New Year to you and yours! Since my last letter we have had such a great time. Really wonderful for Dave and I to spend some quality time together without some frightful politician sticking his oar in all the time.

I said to Dave "Look, darling, the house isn't sitting so just let Nick get on with it for a while. He can't do too much damage while there's nothing to vote on!" and it's been luverly. Just laying back and watching the telly and playing with the kids. Heaven!

Talking of the telly, did you see Vince on Strictly. Nick was a bit peeved when he found out he was going to do it, but Dave said "No. Let him have a bit of fun." Actually, I think it was just to let him lay back a bit before those awful banker people land on him like tons of the old proverbial. I mean, I ask you. What's wrong with making a few quid in bonuses anyway? I think people are just jealous, but to be honest we don't begrudge Vince a good rollocking after those silly remarks he made about nukes! I mean, darling, why can't he just grasp the principal of collective cabinet responsibility - or as Dave calls it, doing what you're damn well told!

Hasn't the weather been simply frightful? Dave says thank God for devolution! Can you imagine the flack we would have got if there hadn't been a Scottish minister to take the fall? After all, they can't be silly enough to expect us to be sympathetic when they couldn't even elect one single Tory in the whole of Scotland. Serves the haggis bashing lefties right as far as I am concerned - just don't tell Dave I said so! Last thing we need is a referendum on independence. It's bad enough having to have one on voting!

Maybe it's just as well that we couldn't go to Thailand in the end. I mean can you imagine us stuck in the first class lounge at Heathrow for three days? At least with Chequers, there's always a convenient RAF helicoptor available if we're really stuck. Might even get that dishy Wills to fly it for us!

And, oh Sweetie! Don't they make such a delightful couple? So photogenic - that Kate's a real stunner. Even nicer in the flesh apparently. As Dave says, you just have to see these people for real these days what with all the airbrushing in the photos and stuff. Dave says he doesn't even want to think about touching people up after the stick he got during the election!

Still, new year - new problems. Dave's wondering how he can let the LibDems win the by-election without being seen to let them win and without getting a load of flack from the Milipedes for 'losing popular support'. I mean, we know we can't win it but we have to be seen to try. I said to Dave "For God's sake keep your distance from it, or you never know what the those dreadful student and lefties will cook up."

Anyway, better close. Perhaps we can do lunch once your hubby's loverly big bonus comes through? You can take me for a spin in his shiney new Porsche! Toodle pip!

Get real, Rowan...

Will no-one rid us of this turbulent priest?

I am well known for my views on organised religion and the Catholic Church in particular, but when I reviewed the patronising and out of touch remarks made the Archpisspot of Cunterbury in his Christmas sermon, then the words of Henry II just seemed to come echoing back to me!

So, in the interests of evening things up with the Kafliks, lets take a look at what the man in the teacloth had to say for himself :

"Faced with the hardship that quite clearly lies ahead for so many in the wake of financial crisis and public spending cuts, how far are we able to sustain a living sense of loyalty to each other, a real willingness to bear the load together?" Do what, Rowan? Exactly how much are you and your church contributing?

"We can and will as a society bear hardship if we are confident that it is being fairly shared." OK, Rowan, I'll give that one, but then you go on to say "...no interest group or pressure group is able to opt out" - well. apart from the Church of England that is.

"God, it seems, knows that whatever limitation and humiliation our human freedom lays on him, we cannot live without him; and he accepts everything for the sake of our well-being." So exactly what exactly is He doing for us - and incidentally Rowan I notice that on your website you have demoted the Allmighty to lower case 'he' which I would have thought was a little disrespectful? He is accepting what and doing what for us exactly? Please do tell, because I see no sign of it.

And please don't lecture me about how the rich need to contribute more than the poor. I have always maintained that incremental taxation already achieves this. If I earn £30,000 I pay 20% tax on it so why should I pay 40% if I earn £60,000? Why should I pay four times as much for earning twice as much. It is already grossly unfair and I don't need some guy who has a grace and favour palace in Lambeth and pays next to fuck all tax to lecture me on this subject!

And what about overseas, Rowan? Well "I remind you of our Zimbabwean friends, still suffering harassment, beatings and arrests, legal pressures and lockouts from their churches." Er, excuse me but I see you used the word 'legal' there. It's not up to you to tell other countries - or indeed our country - to go against what is legal.

And then to make it worse, you continue "Our prayers continue for Asia Bibi in Pakistan and others from minority groups who suffer from the abuse of the law." Seems you don't like the law very much do you?

How about Iraq? "It is a great grace that both Christians and Muslims in this country have joined in expressing their solidarity with this beleaguered minority." What you should be doing, Rowan, is keeping your nose out of other peoples' countries.

Henry II dealt harsely with a former Archbishop when he stuck his unwelcome nose into politics. I sincerely suggest that you need to stick to things spiritual and when I comes to politics, remember that it is not your place to comment...

EU President's New Year Address

Von Rumpy-pumpy wishes you all a Happy New Year...





The Fourth Reich marches on...

+ + + + + UPDATE + + + + +
Another nation has today fallen under the yoke - Estonia has capitulated by joining the Euro!