Translate

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Brown Bounce Never Existed

Labour must be worried. The Brown bounce which was flagged as a 9% lead by YouGov, the internet polling organisation, looks as if it might all be hot air. The 'bounce' been the big media narrative for July whereby all stories that undercut the narrative get ignored, and all stories which reinforce the narrative get a boost.

It is beginning to look like it could all be imaginary.

The first evidence for this came at Sedgefield where Labour's vote right in the middle of the supposed bounce fell from 59% to 44% or maybe even 41% if the ballot box tampering allegations prove to be correct.

http://www.typepad.com/t/app/weblog/post?__mode=edit_entry&id=36954402&blog_id=555190

Then the poll from ICM which only featured those who actually voted in the 2005GE showed that Labour are losing support amongst definite voters at twice the rate they are gaining., and Cameron is gainig support at twice the rate he is losing.

http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/07/29/does-this-data

Saturday, July 28, 2007

Cameron's Crisis

In truth it is Britain which is in crisis. We are about to be broken up totally against our will into a group of powerless regions or newly created statelets, where democratic input is minimal. This is still and has always been a stealth programme, now in the hands of the stealth Prime Minister.

The Constitution is merely how they hope to lock the gate and throw away the key, so the chewing up of the meal can really begin.

We are governed 80% from Brussels already even before we are broken up. Parliament is a sham providing no proper scrutiny, but theatre where great Europeans can parade their egos in adoration by the media.

Our elections are becoming substantially rigged with postal vote fraud and ballot box tampering.

If we sit back for a few seconds and take it all on board, we are actually lost right now, and it will take a very determined programme from somewhere to put things back where they should be.

The law cannot defend private citizens from violent crime. Educational standards are plummeting. There is no respect for or fear of authority anywhere. The only question is who has the strength or determination to stop this process rotting us away.

David Cameron certainly has the right instincts and many polices to put Britain's broken society back together, but how will he ever achieve anything if he cannot first put power and democratic accountability back where it belongs in Parliament and away for Brussels and its latest gauleiter Gordon Brown.

He is completely compromised by the europhile rump in the Conservative Party like Ken Clarke, John Bercow and as was a few Quentin Davies' and to a lesser extent William Hague, who doesn't seem to get the urgency of the crisis..

Cameron is 100% dependent on the media to present him to the voters, which is why so much effort has gone into pretending to be Blair-like and so on. He has succeeded in making the media like him, which is a valuable achievement but it has been at the expense of the belief of the majority of his own supporters. This ‘positioning’ process of media engagement has to ease up now or it will bring about the end of his term as leader from within the party. There is no choice. The media cannot be the total priority any longer.

So where to next?

The answer is that he must open up non-media channels – increase internet use - and communicate to voters directly as small parties do. First Cameron will have to consolidate the core range of policies which excite his own supporters and which excite other potential electors. Then a programme of regular door to door leafleting, postering must be embarked upon nationally. Conservative supporters must engage in a weight loss programme by forming an army to bypass the main media to ensure the message gets delivered, wearing out shoe leather.

The in-house rump of Europhiles must be shuffled off. It is really the job of their Constituents to push out the likes of Ken Clarke. Rushcliffe have tried deselection against him before, but he dodged it. It won’t keep him out of the media but it will mean that Cameron doesn’t have to bother as much about his effects.

Cameron must then promote those within the Party who are serious about the issues, and not the best media image creators as advocated constantly by Iain Dale and the like. The Tim Montgomerie seriousness should be allowed to predominate, the Cornerstone, John Hayes, John Redwood and IDS.

How long has Cameron got?

Brown will go to the country next May at the earliest. He seems to be more concerned with other political threats right now as much as the Conservatives and Lib Dems, swinging away from permissiveness and towards pseudo-authoritarianism and (false) nationalism. He is seeing canvas returns showing support for the BNP is at levels which must be concerning him, judging by his language. Unless the Conservatives move into the slot and provide a much more hardline version of Conservatism – not as rhetoric or tone – but as policies – we will be outflanked on the right by Brown as he tries to see off the threat to his vote by the BNP.

Brown’s talking of ‘British jobs for British people’ and ‘repatriating 4000 illegal immigrants’. He’s cancelled the casinos, is raising the stakes on cannabis and wanting to tackle antisocial behaviour.

Apart from the casino policy which is effective, the others are going to be all talk unless there is major alteration to the criminal justice system sufficient to bring fear and respect back into our society. That won’t be possible inside the EU. Britain has reached a crisis point. For the first time the EU drift is coming up against strong fast-growing resistance. The Party that delivers the end of the EU and repairs Britain will be the one to hold power. There is no reason why that should not be the Conservatives. It certainly won’t be Labour or the Lib Dems. If we fail, there is little doubt that the resistance will move across and grow faster in previously minor parties.

I think we have 6 months to reset the trend. I have no doubt that Cameron has the seriousness of purpose. But will he be able to be more than a one trick pony? He knows the media game. Can he impose authority? There are the people inside the Party who could help him, but will he turn to the right ones?

Friday, July 27, 2007

Sedgefield And Polls Indicate BNP Threat to Labour

'15 of the 16 ballot boxes at Sedgefield were not correctly sealed,' it was alleged by a BNP supporter speaking from another Constituency.

'Our canvas returns and the canvas returns of other parties at Sedgefield show that we won about double the number of votes that were counted, and it is strongly supected that the boxes were tampered with.'

'Our share of the vote could have been as high as 18/20%.'

'This kind of thing is happening frequently in elections in which the BNP take part. The boxes should be properly sealed, and only opened at the count.'

'Decisions about formal complaints have not yet been taken. We will keep moving on to the next stage of our campaign.'

If these allegations are true, then the assumptions as to voting share by the other parties all need cutting down by about 8%. Labour's 44.7% becomes 41.1% (44.7 X .92) from 58.9% at the GE. Conservative share has also fallen from 14.59% to 13.42%. It would suggest that the earlier assessment that almost no BNP votes are coming from Conservatives and Lib Dems are wrong, which makes more sense. However the bulk are presumably coming from Labour, making it a fair estimated assumption that a Labour voter is three times more likely to vote for the BNP than a Conservative or a Lib Dem.

BNP website report..http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=1629

also see this chart on politicalbetting.com which shows labour shedding votes to others at 5 X the rate of Lib Dem or Conservative.

This tends to support the observation that the BNP present a threat, particularly to labour's vote.

Will BNP crash out like UKIP?

I am not sure what point you are making about Hartlepool and UKIP, Alan.

I suppose you mean that because UKIP got 10% at Hartlepool in 2004 and pushed Tories into 4th place, and then disappeared that means the BNP pose little threat to labour now.

On the face of it, that’s not an unreasonable first theory.

But two things need to be thought about. 2004 was the height of the Robert Kilroy Silk optimism for UKIP which pushed in all their MEPs when they won 3,000,000 votes in the Euro elections. Hartlepool was the first and last big byelection coup for UKIP.

Once Kilroy crashed out, that was it. UKIP have been flatlining ever since.

The similarity to the BNP in Sedgefield is that the vote came at the expense of one major party far more than another. Then it was the Tories who were hurt.

The BNP vote has come mostly from one party too, this time it’s labour. But are the BNP be about to crash and flatline as UKIP did?

The word from the ground is no. UKIP were terribly badly led and suffered from continuous infighting as Kilroy found. This goes on to this day with Farage and Nattrass still at each others’ throats. The fur is still flying. They are not well financed and are pathetically badly led.

The BNP are well organised, well financed, and there is no infighting amongst the leadership. Their campaigning is professionally run, and they have a highhly motovated army of foot soldiers.

They avoid the media, just as much as the media avoids them, and they deliver their message through leaflet and local meetings. they are strongly controlled and led from the centre. At this point in time there is nothing which suggests the BNP are about to crash out.

On the contrary Gordon Brown is quite clearly starting to pitch at this market with his ‘British jobs for British people’ and the proposed repatriation of illegal immigrants. Brown is taking BNP seriously. Labour do not utter one word about them. The media is silent about them, and polls mysteriously do not seem able to enter the BNP into their sums.

The proof to me is that Brown is worried.

Yesterday Nick Griffin was elected leader by 91% of the votes cast by the membership. They launched a national petition for a referendum on the EU Constitution today.

Cameron Will Survive Floodgate

Brown's policy declarations such as British jobs for British people, deport illegal immigrants etc demonstrate that he is more than aware of how much his vote is threatened by the BNP. If he had any doubts before, he will now be certain after Sedgefield that the BNP will take 5% from him, and could possibly take 10% by the time of an election. The BNP are operating in 500 Constituencies now.

The Guardian today say that Brown's earliest date for a GE will be May 2008. By then the new BNP branches will be in their second years and bedding in.

The polls don't take the BNP into account all putting 'others' at around 9-11%. For some reason they have decided to ignore the BNP factor. It is impossible to get any comment on the BNP from any Labour commentator. They simply don't exist except at the ballot box. It is extraordinary that polling organisations are going along with the policy id denying the vote size of the BNP.

The primary purpose of the polls being 'adjusted' recently seem to be to reinforce the assassination attempt on david cameron, which is coming across all media - BBC, Murdoch, even the Mail. It seems to be a coordinated attempt to get Cameron, matching the one launched against IDS in 2003. Betysygate then is Floodgate now. Both poppycock but effective, except cameron looks like he'll survive with ease, unlike IDS.

The price of standing up against the EU is, it appears a coordinated assault from all media.

It is extraordinary how well Cameron's support is holding up at 32% given what's coming at him right now.

He'll make it. But he should communicate about the EU to voters through door to door leaflet and not through the main media, which has lost all ability to see events in a calm balanced manner, and will focus on remorsely attacking Cameron for being xenophobic etc if he tries to stop the EU Constitution.

Thursday, July 26, 2007

ICM Guardian: 'Yes We Lied Big To Hurt Cameron While He Was Down'

From a PB Blog - 'There are some corrections to their reporting in today’s Guardian:

“A chart showing David Cameron’s personal rating in a Guardian/ICM poll (front page, yesterday) contained several mistakes. It did not include those voters who said they liked both David Cameron and the Conservative party, and muddled some other figures. The correct figures are: likes Cameron, but not the party, 18%; likes Cameron and the party, 25%; doesn’t like Cameron, but does like the party, 26%; don’t know, 26%. Five per cent refused to answer. Voters were not asked if they did not like both Cameron and the party. We did not make clear that the chart showed figures for all voters, not just Conservative voters.”

Some fairly major errors there, but at least they have clarified them, including the main issue identified above - that there was no possible answer for those who did not like both the leader and the party.'

The lesson is clear. You cannot trust ICM Guardian.

So far they are the only poll to give Labour a substantial poll lead.

No I'm Not A Girl

I found folk on PB (politicalbetting.com) discussing my sex today. Yes I am male. My blogname tapestry is female sounding, I admit.

I used to blog on ft.com in the 1990's. A bloke called Stephen Saines who lived in Canada awarded the regular contributors to the 'euro' threads names, based on the pieces on a monopoly board. As I was the eurosceptic pro-UK pound contributor, he called me 'top hat'. Up til then I'd used my real name 'henry'.

I found that often my posts would not get through. When I changed my name they suddenly would get through again so I started inventing names that would be recognised by my fellow correspondents ( I don't think we called ourselves bloggers in those days).

'Top Hat' became 'topper' then'tapper' then 'tapestry' then 'teapastry' then 'tapestory' and so on. So when I started blogging in 2006 due to illhealth and having to stop work, I went back and used one of my old ID's.

Some people say that you should blog in your own name. One reason I don't do that, is that when I go on search engines to track things I've written on non-political topics in publications, there can be too many 'whacks' of my name from political blogs, mking search awfully hard work. I keep my real name for my business and other non-political writing.

To complete the story, others often replied to me as 'tap' rather than tapestry. When I started my blog here on google, I could use the-tap.blogspot and it sounded OK. I had a lot of strange events though after writiing against well-known and well-resourced individuals and started a second blog on Typepad using Tapestrytalks inspired by Dizzythinks. By copying around a few, it is harder for any blockers or hackers to make trouble.

Britain's Fifth Column Falsify Information To Attack Cameron

The attacks on Cameron were initiated by Rupert Murdoch according to Stephan Sheakespeare who was told three weeks or so ago by a Murdoch editor that Murdoch had decided to be rid of Cameron and replace him with Hague. This coincided with the Brown takeover and with Cameron strongly resisting the EU Constitution.

The only polling organisation to provide hopeful polls to Brown after the by-elections was ICM Guardian. The first poll was a survey which did not ask about voting intention. The questions were 1. which party did you vote for at the election and 2. which party do you feel warmest to now? From these answers, voting intention was deduced.

The results look odd as 'others' has been awarded 9%. Most other polls find others on around 15%. At Sedgefiled, others were on 20%. At Southall where the voting mix is not as typical, others were on 10%.

Judging by the obvious bias in the most recent poll focused entirely on Cameron, not even asking anyone if they liked Cameron and the Conservative Party, it would not be unreasonable to deduce that ICM Guardian's recent polling has become blinded by the need to ramp up the pressure on Cameron.

The BBC has clearly been running the narrative about Cameron's trip to Rwanda being a wrong move. His time spent in his Constituency beforehand visiting flood-affected people - two days - was not even reported. The media bias in this country and the blatant attempt to unseat yet another Conservative leader by providing effective lies to suit, is downright pathetic.

If there 2 letters written to the 1922, one would be Bercow who is usually to the fore in these media coordinated games. The other could be Ken Clarke, or another Europhile. If the pro-European conspiracy cannot unseat Cameron this time, they will probably try again in a few months time. If I was a Conservative eurosceptic doubting Cameron's strength of will to fight on my behalf, I would be feeling most encouraged by Cameron. Not from what he's telling me himself so much, but from what the stealth enemies of Britain and our democracy are trying to do to Cameron.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

ICM Guardian Polls Lack Credibility

Two by-elections which are a survey of 100,000 people showed Conservative support up a little since the GE, and yet one polling organisation ICM Guardian interviewing only 1000 people, and which drops Conservative support 10% in a week is given more prominence.

ICM have 'others' only on 10% up from 9% last week. Sedgefield had others on 20%. Other polls show consistently 15%. ICM lack credibility.

Gordon Brown's Dull As Ditch Water

Many Cameron critics on Conservative Home want Conservatives out there attacking Gordon Brown every day. Huntsman wants a full scale assault.

In the same way that it helps Cameron when people attack him, it gives Brown oxygen, energy, something to fight against. The one thing you need if you want to look like the man of the moment is someone to attack you. It makes you look powerful and significant to be attacked.

Brown loves a fight. It gives him a focus. Without a fight, he's rudderless. His 'moral compass' starts spinning all over the place.

If you allow him a clean slate, to show what he truly is, it is actually quite shocking. He is objectively even duller to listen to than anyone believed. Huntsman would help Brown by giving him a verbal war. Don't oblige him. He'll prove his overwhelming dullness much better all by himself. All the time he was Chancellor, he was energised by his hatred of Blair. Now he has no one to hate. His cabinet meetings demonstrate the 100% sycophancy of his team, and their knowledge that it doesn't pay to displease the Gord. He rules supreme. He has everything he ever wanted, and God it's dull.

His programmes too are starting to match his personal dullness. No stylish gambling surrounded by high class hookers. It's cloth cap down the bookies and the national lottery only. Drinking to be curtailed. Parking to be made a nightmare. His one claim to the voters' confidence is that he will be competent. But we already know he's a one trick pony. Money. Billions of it. From the taxpayer, which all gets wasted before it can do anything. In ten years he doubled the size of the state, and halved the amount people get from it.

We don't need to provide him with cover by attacking too hard. Let Gordon Brown have the airwaves all to himself. The public will soon be so bored they'll be crying out for someone with some life in them. Even Ming Campbell has started to look interesting. That's the measure of Brown's dullness. The phrase 'dull as ditch water' sums him up. Dullness is his primary defensive tactic. This week, for example, if he can only make floods seem boring, then people will think about something else, and not the fact that it was him personally, Gordon Brown that cut the spending on flood defences despite all the warnings, and no one else.

Don't forget the quote - my enemy is my helper. It was never truer than for Gordon Brown. He cannot generate energy without an enemy to provide it. Deny him, Huntsman. Don't feed. He'll drown is his own dullness much quicker if he we go quiet. Cameron's playing him just right.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Cameron Loves His Bashers.

The day they stop bashing Cameron on CH is the day he's over.

In right wing politics, bashing is the equivalent of imitation - the sincerest form of flattery. It betrays interest to bash. If there is no interest, silence is the response.

Bash away. The more noise the better. Democracy works because debate improves.

That's why Nulab are such a disaster. They sit there in worshipful silence, and turn into scalded cats if anyone dares to even question the pronouncements of their Gord.

The other wonderful thing about Cam-bashing on Con Home is that it sure as hell confuses the left wingers at the BBC, and the Grauniad. How can this ill-disciplined rabble ever expect to make any progress, they muse.

They keep repeating in their narrative what a disaster the grammar school debate was. That's because they haven't had even one debate in Nulab for fifteen years. In fact the grammar school debate was a refreshing outbreak of democratic process and it resulted in a sound policy compromise.

If we go quiet and become like them, we'll fail this country like them. Bash away. Cameron loves it. He's a localist, and localism needs bashers.

Which tune shall we dedicate to Cameron and the spirit of open debate tonight, Cam-bashers?

Cry Me A River? or why not Whitney – I’ll Always Love You?

Gordon's Barking

Cameron should have known that there were going to be floods. They happen like clockwork every sixty years. 1947 was the last time. Surely he realised these ones would be coming in 2007. What a useless leader of the Conservative Party. If I was an MP, I'd immediately write to the 1922 committee, and demand a leader who at least knows the long range weather forecast - especially when the meteorological office doesn't. I mean. What are politicians for?

BBC Website Headline - Tories to fight for referendum on EU Constitution. So why do they interview Nigel Farage? Is he a Tory? Cameron should call the BBC immediately, and explain that UKIP are a Brussels embezzling, drinking and whoring operation.

UKIP only just beat the Monster Raving Luny Party at Southall. Why doesn't the BBC call the MRLP for a comment on the EU Constitution to provide balance?

Or if they really want to hear something absolutely barking, they should call Gordon Brown.

Sunday, July 22, 2007

Cornerstone Are Loyal To Cameron

Those who think that the Cornerstone are behind the attacks on Cameron, are wrong. The Cornerstone feel that their views on marriage and the broken society are being taken seriously by cameron at last. they would not attack Cameron at any time, and especially at the moment he has started to back their ideas.

Cameron is copping it from the USERphiles - who are furious he is standing firm against the USER Constitution. He is allowed to make eurosceptic noises, but not really put up a fight in the USER manner as perfected by hague.

See Portillo today in Sunday Times.
'Cameron's mentioned the Government's refusal to consult the people on that treaty (the USER Constitution) but his heart was not in it. He does not wish to unleash again within his own party the destructive arguments about Europe.'

Talk about a threat. These are the guys behind the threat to Cameron. John Bercow? Probably.

USER - Union of Subservient European Regions.

Source of information about Cornerstone - a Senior Member of Cornerstone.

The Weather Forecast Was Right

I've been blogging about the coming attack on Cameron from Murdoch. Now the assault flagged by Stephan Shakespeare is occurring. 2 Conservative MPs have written to the 1922 Committee. I will try to find out some more from contacts today.

Saturday, July 21, 2007

Cameron's Post-Southall Strategy

Murdoch is said to be plotting to replace David Cameron with William Hague. (See below - Stepahan Shakesprare. Conservative Home)

http://www.typepad.com/t/app/weblog/post?__mode=edit_entry&id=36512630&blog_id=555190

Imagine what that does to David Cameron knowing that there is a plot to have him replaced involving his key right hand man. No wonder he went half crazy spending all his time in Ealing Southall doing his level best to drive up his credibility within the Party.

Murdoch's displeasure with David Cameron goes back to Cameron's unwillingness to pussyfoot with EU leaders, or attend News International social functions, and rub shoulders with the corrupt. Now that Cameron is making a determined fight to block the EU Constitution without the promised referendum being held first, Murdoch's displeasure and his requirements to please the EU, are moving him strongly against Cameron.

But it is Conservative MPs who decide who leads them, not the EU or Rupert Murdoch. There are not enough europhiles to raise the 15% of signatures at the 1922 committee, and the eurosceptics will be unlikely to pull the rug on David Cameron while he is committed to fighting the EU Constitution.

There is another factor. Cameron's electoral strategy is becoming unworkable.

The spread of a BNP vote around Britain is changing the electoral arithmetic sufficiently that the Conservatives no longer need 40% to win an election. If the BNP are to land between 5-10% in all constituencies, and pull their votes predominantly from Labour, or parties other than Conservatives as they did at Sedgefield, the Conservatives could win an election with the 37% they were already achieving until recently.

With 'other' parties growing their support all the time, it is becoming nigh impossible for any party to get up to 40+% anyway. 'others' already have 16% in polls. By 2009 this could well be 20%. In the 1990's, when Conservative votes were 40+%, 'others' were more like 7%.

Cameron is going nuts trying to broaden the appeal of the party to Lib Dems and other sectors desperately hoping to find a way up to the 40+% level. Maybe he should rethink now, and forget this strategy. If he can consolidate the party at the 37% he is achieving, and he settles everyone down, allowing policies to be Conservative type policies, the work of the BNP especially, in decimating labour's vote will bring the target within range. All he has to do now is consolidate.

Maybe while he's in Rwanda, he'll think of this and come back a different man.

Sedgefield Analysed

At Sedgefield the BNP's candidate Andrew Spence, of fuel protest fame, and previously of UKIP, won 9% of the vote. 9% is not enough to win a seat. Nor was it not enough to change the result by pulling votes from other parties.

But if the same 9% vote was cast for the BNP in a marginal seat, and the 9% had been pulled from one party more than another, such a vote could change the result very easily. UKIP, for example pulled 2% in the last general election, and thereby prevented around 30 seats from falling to the Conservatives, adding 25 seats to Labour, securing their majority, and presenting 5 seats to the Lib Dems. Without UKIP's paltry 2% vote, Labour's 60 seat majority might have been eliminated. (Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph)

The BNP have so far stood only in their hotspots such as in Yorkshire and East London. They have occasionally seemed close to winning a Westminster seat in Barking. They have not so far strayed out from their 'racial fault line' heartlands. So is the thought about whether they might be influential on the result of the next general election, only of academic interest?

They have also elected a few councillors here and there winning up to 30% in council elections, but surely they don't have the resources to spread out any further, and go national.

BNP's STRATEGY

If reports coming from within the Party are correct, the BNP could have an effect on the next general election of the kind I am describing, as they are setting up branches in 500 Constituencies. That would mean they will be standing in many marginals. If they start to poll 9% across these seats, the effect of the BNP standing, could be dramatic.

They have no media support, no radio, no TV but they have foot soldiers. BNP members are highly motivated and deliver literature to peoples' homes by wearing out shoe leather. The story put out by the main media is that they are racist beasts who must be stopped. This may be true, but it allows the BNP to surprise people by the common sense sounding literature they write. Some of the facts contained in their writing might need to challenged, but as the party are blanked by the media, they can write their own narratives unopposed. They are able to present themselves as victims of unfair media coverage.

SEDGEFIELD

The Sedgefield by-election showed the Conservatives' vote staying level, Lib Dem rising a little and only labour's vote falling. It seems from Sedgefield as if the advance of the BNP is going to hurt Labour the most. This is bound to start featuring in electoral calculations, and could be the key factor that stops Gordon Brown going to the polls in a hurry. Cameron might start to feel grateful for having the pressure taken off him (for now) by the BNP.

N.B. 35% of labour voters put BNP as the party they would support next after labour in a recent poll, confirming the threat the BNP poses to labour.

Friday, July 20, 2007

Sedgefield Has Changed The Electoral Arithmetic

Cameron has done well in that many feared that BNP penetration outside the cities might be partly at the expense of Conservative support. It seems not.

From the BNP website referring to its 9% of the vote as 'victory' -

'This is a huge leap forward in an area where we have only recently set up local units; the mix of farming and former mining areas of Co. Durham cannot be considered our traditional kind of support base but proves convincingly that the BNP has an appeal beyond those parts of Britain suffering on the fault lines of multiculturalism.'

All Conservatives have to do is to avoid erosion by 'others', and Labour's vote will be the one to be eroded.

UKIP changed the results of maybe 30 seats in 2005 with 2% of the vote taken mostly from Conservative. If BNP start stripping away Labour support at three times that rate, it could lose Labour 100 or more seats, and let the Conservatives in.

If Cameron stands firm on national issues such as the USER referendum, on the West Lothian issue, and so on, he could see Gordon Brown's vote decimated while he hangs on to his. (Union of Subservient European Regions)

Sedgfield is the moment politics in Britain changed. Tony has given Gordon his parting gift. Brown will not be seeking an election anytime soon.

Not one commentator noticed.

(35% Labour voters list the BNP as the second party they are most likely to vote for)

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Cameron takes On the Union of Subservient European Regions

Why is Clarke speaking out pro-U.S.E.R on the BBC?

Because he's got the backing of Murdoch and the BBC. As Stephan Shakespeare suggests in his column, Murdoch is seeking Cameron's replacement with Bildeberger Hague who would be USER-compliant. (Union of Subservient European Regions).

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/columnists/2007/07/stephan-shakesp.html

The reason the media catapulted Cameron ahead of Liam Fox to win the Party leadership was not because he would put up such a contest against the USER Constitution. They thought he would be the next Blair - tradeable to sell Britain down the river.

The only people who can get rid of Ken Clarke are his Constituents in Rushcliffe. Cameron doesn't have Hague's support to ditch Clarke. If he tried, the media would move to assassinate him as they did IDS and Thatcher before him.

Cameron's demise is already being demanded by the USER. Murdoch is hoping to deliver it in favour of William Hague.

Cameron must stand firm, and somehow Conservative Constituents must wake up and kick out the USERphiles. Cameron's not being a traitor has shocked Murdoch and the USER. they thought he would roll over and agree to anything in return for good media, like Blair.

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Bees Dying Off Threatens Human Food Supply

My cousins who live in New Zealand called in today at my UK farm to see my old Dad who's not too good. They are producers of manduka honey over there and they sell it mostly in japan. I asked them what they thought was killing the bees in the USA and in the UK. Their reply was shocking.

British scientists developed a Brassica (cabbage) modified with the Bt gene, known to kill caterpillars and moths.

The scientists were quoted - 'In research done so far, we have found that if you feed the Bt brassicas to diamond-back moth and cabbage white caterpillars they all die within 48 hours, leaving the plant virtually undamaged. If the caterpillars are killed before they reach maturity and breed, then resistance does not develop.'

Unfortunately the dumbos didn't imagine the obvious. If it kills moths and caterpillars, maybe it will kill other insects. It appears now, (although many disagree with my cousin's theory), that it is killing off the whole population of bees in the USA, which could lead on to mass starvation, if the process is not reversed. The plant Bt Brassica is being widely grown and bees are dying across the world in their billions.

Bees are essential to the production of one third of human food directly through their role in fertilising crops. They are also essential to the feed production of animals that make up another one third of our diet. This most vital process to human survival is threatened by the careless modification of foods carried out by scientists thinking in only one box at a time.

This is exactly what was forecast to happen by many people. You cannot trust governments and scientists to work responsibly. The fiasco is being kept out of all media cross the west as the threat is so severe to the survival of the human race that no one dares to report it. The News Channels are being asked to report the story of the collpase of the bee population, but to blame it on other causes, none of which are capable of explaining the sudden extermination that is happening.

I heard a radio programme on this in the UK recently. There was no mention of any possible connection Genetically Modified crops. Have the scientists done us in good and proper this time?

My cousins' view from the bee-keeping world was that honey produced from bt Brassica plants was not touched by other bees or the moths which normally guzzle the honey once bees had died or abandonned a hive. This is most unusual as moths especially normally pile into a deserted hive for the free pickings. The genetically modified plants clearly are highly toxic to bees and moths as well as caterpillars. Something needs to be done urgently, if bees are to survive this toxic intervention in nature.

UPDATE - A possible explanation - July 2008 - HERE

For a more scientific explanation of the subject, click http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/225743/

Humans Suffer From The Toxic Environment Too

Something seems to be suppressing the bees' immune systems, as they are suffering from multiple pathogens. What is the root cause? No one knows yet, it seems, but the media are definitely not mentioning the possibility that genetically modified crops might be a factor. That would place governments in an embarrassing position - to question the wisdom of their interventions. That would never do. Once insects start to die, human should take note - not just becasue our food will disappear with bees dying off. But we too have immune systems which are vulnerable to toxic substances and chemicals.

For 3 million years our species has lived on this planet in mostly clean surroundings. Only in the last 50/60 years have so many chemicals been released into our environemnt. Each one places a toxic load on our nervous and immune systems. Many unexplained increases in our morbidity - cancer, Parkinsons, Alzheimers could be ascribed to this fact - and falling levels of fertility.

The chemicals are entering our bodies in increasing quantities. The way that humans excrete toxic substances - sweating through the skin - is also much reduced compared to past times. Many people find that regular Infra Red saunas are helping to improve their general health.

Last year I was diagnosed as having a high level of Dichlorobenzene which was interfering with my DNA especially blocking my Oxidant processing capacity, and ruining my autonomic nervous system. I would often sleep 12 hours after playing any sport. My heartbeat was bad with atrial fibrillation attacks which landed me in hospital, being scooped up off the floor and resuscitated. My stomach had a severe yeast dysbiosis as I could not digest any nutrients. MY condition was going gradually worse, and I did not have much hope.

I was given chelation intravenously, Ethyl Diamide Tetra Acetate to pull out metals and chemicals from my body and I was told to increase my sweating. I went to Manila, Philippines and saunaed every day for six months in an Infra Red Sauna. A year later and the same tests show a big reduction in the toxins in my body. I am back playing sport. My heart is better and my stomach is better too, especially if I eat raw garlic regularly. Unfortunately I have fibrous growths in my hands and feet which are inhibiting some of my earlier movements. But never mind. My quality of life is greatly improved on what it was in the previous few years, and I hope to live a bit longer too.

While in Manila I had all the mercury taken out of my teeth and had loads of dentistry. It took 5 months in the dentist's chair every week. My mercury and lead levels have fallen from 25/31 to 7/8 and this makes it easier for my nervous system to recover acording to the doctors at the Breakspear Hospital, Hemel Hempstead, London.

Te funny thing about illness being caused by our toxic environment is that it is not acknowledged by the NHS in Britain. Once you have something which your GP cannot diagnose, you are more or less discarded and told there is nothing worng with you and that you are suffering from depression. For the millions of humans affected by toxic environments there are pathetically few doctors working in this field anywhere in the world.

Another way that toxins hurt us is that our immune systems don't recognise chemicals in our bodies. They just know that something is wrong and they start to look around for something to attack. The problem is that they begin to attack safe things like food, and so our bodies start to waste energy and resources fighting things like milk or wheat etc instead of the real enemies which our immune systems are not trained to deal with. I had allergy suppressing injections for six months as I was reacting against many foods. These helped me a lot as well.

We will no doubt be hearing more depressing news about our own health, our enviroment and collapse of vulnerable species in future. We need to educate ourselves a whole lot more if we are to survive into the future.

Boris Is A Risk - But A Good Risk

Yes Polly - no doubt mostly correct although the charge sheet summary stretches the evidence accumulated further than it is capable of going by a wide margin. LIverpool would agree with you, however. They will never forgive Boris Johnson up there.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2127918,00.html

The key to Boris in London and in fact politics in general is the nation's current collapse of leadership. It's not simply a calculation as to what Boris will do himself. Can Boris inspire and lead, and manage others? That is the main question which needs answering.

Government by directive is imposed from all sides nowadays from USER - the Union of Servile European Regions, Nulab and from bureaucracy's greatest friend, Cuddly Ken. The absence of leadership by example, of inspiration, where other agents not governments have the confidence to build, create, invest is now a gaping void. Polly Toynbee, typical of a NuLab acolyte does even know that such qualities exists.

What is the evidence of Boris' capability of such things? The answer is that it is strong. His management of the Spectator was inspirational to others, and his creativity is undeniable. Yes he is also a risk for Cameron, as Toynbee rightly says but that too is evidence of leadership on Cameron's part - the willingness to take one. labour will not be defeated in safety and comfort, but only by Cameron taking calculated political risks - risk being another concept that under Nulab has slipped from the nation's vocabulary - other than as a nasty demon to be exorcised by the HSE.

Boris will be a strong contender, and Toynbee's pen if anything demonstrates more than ever why Boris Johnsons are needed to save Britain from becoming totally boring and incapable of anything than playing it safe...and thereby losing the world leadership which we still have in so many areas. Boris and Cameron could bring calculated risk taking back into fashion. That is the new battlefront.

Monday, July 16, 2007

Murdoch Goes For Cameron's Jugular

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/columnists/2007/07/stephan-shakesp.html

Murdoch's Press is now out to finish off David Cameron's leadership of the Conservatives. Cameron's standing up to the EU Constitution, which was not in the script when he won total media backing to get the Party leadership. He was meant to be the 'next Blair' who would trade all for personal ambition.

But Cameron's turning out to be far more subtle than Murdoch realised. Murdoch's the EU's main agent in Britain - ensuring all political leaders that win power are committed to the cause of 'ever closer union'. Murdoch assassinated IDS. His next victim he believes will be Cameron. Read Stephan Shakespeare. Hague the Bildeberger is the planned replacement. The power of the media in the UK is our biggest problem.

Murdoch must be broken up if Britain is to survive. The EU are furious with Cameron for standing up against them. How Dare He? Murdoch's getting ready to spill blood again on the EU's behalf.

Why don't his American Republican financiers work on Murdoch a bit? The USA doesn't want a Union of Soviet European Regions - The USER.

Saturday, July 14, 2007

Deselect The Europhiles - NOW!!!

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2007/07/bercow-defectio.html

Bercow was obviously batting for the other side under IDS. He was the one in the media attacking IDS on a daily basis in support of Portillo when Portillo attempted his failed coup in February 2003. Portillo's also a mate of Mandelson. It's not called the 'gay mafia' for nothing, and every one a europhile.

As far as I know Quentin Davies only has a traditionally gay kind of name.

The lesson for all Conservative Constituencies is clear. If your MP is a Europhile, deselect them before the next election. Or they will deselect you after it.

Patrick Cormack must go and any others, Bromley, up to and including the lovely Ken Clarke, at Rushcliffe.

I have nothing against gays I might add and many excellent eurosceptics are also gay, although it seems that gayness and treachery can on rare occasions be close relatives judging by the Cambridge lot who supplied our nuclear secrets to Moscow, and now we have the Portillista gang like Bercow.

I do have a lot against Europhiles though, hanging around in the Conservative Party wrecking Cameron's pitch.

In the end of the day it is Constituencies who elect MPs and they should take more trouble to deselect them when they know they have a wrong'un. Quentin Davies' constituency discussed deselection and held back. What a mistake that was.

Any europhiles who've slipped through the net under Frances Maude should also be dealt with - Battersea being a notable example.

The EU Killing Machine

British Trading Standards have invariably found that when EU regulations have replaced original British, the standards are lower. e.g. many children are killed by washing machines now since we had to change to EU standards. Many lorry wheels detatch and kill people on our roads as the EU standard is not as good as the British one used to be - which worked well. There are countless similar exmaples - where we have had to go down to the levels which are in practice in Italy say or Spain as they refused to upgrade to the levels we used to enjoy. You will never read one word in the media about it. All the deaths are pinned on the operator or the installer as a rule, which of course is grossly unfair.

The EU is a juggernaut. That's why we have agreed to kill and maim hundreds of our citizens every year, and then blame it on ourselves.

I don't think we like our country now as it has become inside the EU. Everything's going crap and we need to get it back and into some kind of shape. The non-comprehending Irish have a stronger culture than we do - rural and Catholic - and they have been able to maintain some kind of civil society despite the EU onslaught. In Britain we have not. Our society is literally broken.

We don't like our country any more, but we still love it - as you love your family. We have no choice. But we do have a choice about the EU.

Gordon Brown is only the latest traitor to our country, as he wraps himself stealthily in our flag. We don't only want a referendum. We need to get out of the EU completely. Cameron must keep up the trickle of resistance so that we can hope for a better life once more. Our misery has gone on long enough.

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Housing - Gordon Brown's Next Disaster

Providing low cost housing should actually be a surprisingly easy thing to achieve, if industry was permitted to do that.

Building expensive housing and subsidising it as proposed by Gordon Brown will act as an economic distortion, creating large debts which will force up tax rates and interest rates yet further. Taxes are already into their inefficient levels where they collect less by blocking incentives. If Brown adds 10% to income tax a move he is said to be in favour of, the trickle of companies and individuals quitting Britain will turn into a stampede. The economy's growth will suffer.
If you want low cost housing, just buy it. You can order homes oThen the internet which will be delivered to any site you may have - warm, comfortable, durable, fitted and ready to use. So what's the problem?
www.ukparks.com/residentialhome.asp

The problem is the cowardice of Brown's government. He will be criticised by agencies paid for by the housebuilding industry to stop people getting housed at a price they can afford. If Brown won't even try to get round the house-building industry's PR efforts to block the widescale use of transportable homes, Britain indeed has a housing problem, plus a high tax problem, and a government debt problem to match it. In all other English speaking countries such homes - called park Homes in Britain - house over 5% of the population. In Britain only 1% are housed this way. It's time this was changed. A million people could be housed cheaply and quickly if there was the political will - no new taxes, no more debts and no need for the government to spend any money at all. In fact the economic activity would fill government coffers were it allowed to proceed.

The other aspect where Britain has got housing wrong in the past, and where Gordon Brown is about to repeat the mistake, is to allow public high rise housing of low quality, but not to allow privately developed high quality high rise city centre residential property. If condominiums were allowed to be built at 40 storeys to provide 1,2 and 3 bedroom luxury flats in or near city and town centres, many new homes at lower prices could be afforded. The need for commuting and excessive car use would be reduced, enabling more people to live without cars and use public transport and reduce their carbon footprint. Other countries depend to a large extent on housing their urban populations in this way. Only in Britain does high rise mean low quality, state built. Again planning rules need relaxing for this solution to housing needs to take off, and the housebuilding industry needs to be ignored.
http://www.ezrarealty.com/

The Conservatives should not be so cowardly as Brown is being, and should introduce proposals to change the way Britons house themselves. The effects of Brown's shortsightedness and attempt to put back the housing clock will be homeless misery for millions, to match his pensions misery and his high tax on business misery. Gordon's frown will be shared by us all in time. Let's go for Cameron's smile.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Brown Changing? What About Cameron?

With all the focus on Bown struggling to cope, few are noticing the subtle change in Cameron. He’s hardenened his Blair-imaging charm and become more authoritative. He’s headed away from vapid policy-lite celebrity-building GM magazine posing into grown up tough policy debate. That changeover took all of a week.

Where Are The Left Wing Bloggers?

Left wing blogging is active on politicalbetting.com and comment is free - the Guardian comments section - is a place where the left expresses its opinions openly.

Left wing blogging overall seems to focus on attacking the ideas of others, rather than building ideas of their own.

The right wing mind starts with the positive viewpoint that all is well with the world and if we do the right things, the world will get better. The left seem to think that all is not well with the world, and unless they dismember and destroy what is being created, terrible injustices will result.

To a right winger, poverty needs to be dealt with effectively by building employment, supporting marriage, building incentives. The left think that poverty can be dealt with by destroying the privileges of wealth, by getting their money and giving it to the poor, and rebalancing family life in favour of single parenthood.

The problem for the left is that once their ideas are written down, they don't actually make sense, or work. As a result they prefer the spoken word, the tribally appealing slogan to a long conversation or any in depth analysis.

The appeal of left wing politics to the electorate grows in good times, and the appeal of the right wing of politics grows when the left has been managing the country long enough to mess it all up again.

If Cameron wins power he should stay on the right long enough to get the economy going and society working again. That will take two parliaments at least. And then unlike Thatcher who went further right the longer she lasted, he should move to the centre ground to preempt the revival of the destructiveness of the left wing.

Monday, July 09, 2007

Were The London/Glasgow Terrorists Stooges?

WERE THE LONDON/GLASGOW TERRORISTS STOOGES?

It seems incredible that three attempted terrorist attacks were so easily dealt with by the security services, and that no one was hurt.

How come the ambulancemen noticed a perfectly legally parked car in the dark when they were already busy attending an incident at the night club? How come the bomb failed to detonate?

How come they found the other car so easily, and that one also failed to detonate?

How come the attack on Glasgow Airport was also foiled and that bomb did not detonate? How come the gas bottles in the Cherokee Jeep did not explode in the intense fire that consumed the vehicle?

Maybe I've missed something - but how come this all happened in Gordon Brown's first week when maybe someone wanted to give him a helping hand to establish his authority?

Perhaps the securty services had penetrated this cell, and decided to activate it, ensuring that the activation would be unlikely to succeed.

Sunday, July 08, 2007

Wimbledon's Hawkeye Calls 'Out' Balls 'In'

WIMBLEDON'S HAWKEYE CALLS 'OUT' BALLS 'IN'
The effect on Federer in the 4th set currently still going on, of seeing a ball which to the eye was out, being called in by Hawkeye, was devastating. Nadal has shot into the lead 4 games to Nil, on the strength of the error. It could have changed the result.

Hawkeye works in cricket because if the virtual ball travels through the virtual space of the stumps, it would impact them in reality, so an LBW decision could be based on it if the authorities decided to use a virtual umpire. A tennis ball, though never compresses fully to 50% of its volume. So the virtual ball showing itself intersecting the virtual line by 1 mm is to distort the rules. The compressed ball does not touch the line. It misses it.

The rule is that the ball is in, if it touches the line, and out, if it doesn't. Hawkeye is calling balls in that have missed the line, but would have touched the line, only had the ball compressed to 50% of its volume which it doesn't ever do. Hawkeye is being wrongly used at Wimbledon.

To make Hawkeye less of a joke in tennis, it should be redesigned to calculate the likely compression of the ball, so that it only provides an image of the estimated section of the ball which actually connects to the ground, and sees if that touched the line or not.

Saturday, July 07, 2007

Gordon Brown's Burning Up

GORDON BROWN'S BURNING UP

Brown’s media persona bears little resemblance to the real Gordon. You see the real Brown in the House. No confidence, no idea how to handle a brief or construct an argument. He just piles on detail upon detail hoping to bury questioners, and then switches into cliche mode for his finale (’British people’, ‘consensus’, ‘magnificent’ etc etc). It’s as if he wants to make a Budget Speech every time he takes to his feet.

If the idea is to persuade, it doesn’t. And it looks hard work.

It’s like the British Tax Code, now the most complicated and longest in the world. Brown likes to tire out opposition, bury it in quantity rather than allow it to focus on any one detail. As Chancellor, this defensive strategy, aided by Blair’s support absorbing most of the blowback, worked.

Being Chancellor is only about the monetary aspects. Imagine how hard it will be to play the ‘bury you in detail’ tactic as Prime Minister, when he will need to remember masses of detail across all aspects of government. And his cliches will be heard day in, day out, not just occasionally when he was forced out of his bunker.

Take that, and then remember that Gordon’s persona is already under stress, as it’s basically a dishonest one. He is not confident. He is being easily punctured by exposure to Parliamentary questions and debates. Some fag end. Gordon Brown’s stress level will be burning him out.

Floods Expose Labour's destruction Of Democracy

FLOODS EXPOSE LABOUR's DESTRUCTION OF DEMOCRACY

Trying to get archbishops to make flooding into a banner for socialism is pathetic. Floods hit young, old, rich, poor alike - and insurance and debt affect everyone. The poor presumably rent and can get out more easily. If they own a house, are they poor?

This is typical media news management trying to get a narrative about the floods which suits Gordon Brown. He sees the politics of floods before he sees the human problem. That's why it's taken him so long to engage with the situation.

It's taken these thickos a week to work out how to tackle this in the media, and train Gordon what his lines should be.

The real issue isn't socialism. It's that Labour haven't done anything about planning for flood defences even though floods have been predicted for years. Labour are building in flood plains across the country as we know. The warnings are broadcast frequently.

That's the real question.

How come nothing's been done?

Is the answer the corruption that pervades government now, with local democracy neutralised by Prescott? Who is there to battle powerful interest groups that make billions by building on flood plains? Prescott? Don't make me laugh. What does he care about? Money - we are told.

Labour want you to think about the socialism of floods. Well think about Labour's own role for once - not their poxy narrative. They've been in power since 1997. The old stuff about 'it's the Tories yer know' don't wash any more. Labour have destroyed local democracy by neutralising councils so they can promote their regionalisation programme. That's the story that must not come out. So they go for good old socialism, and get a bishop to start the narrative for them.

Gordon - Where's All The Money Gone?

GORDON - WHERE'S ALL THE MONEY GONE?

Gordon Brown always used to make great play with his 'contingency fund' in the 1990's, in his 'prudence' time. No one even hears any of these words any longer, since Brown lost control of public spending after 2001.

Why did he never say - this is 'profligacy' time, when the word 'prudence' slipped from his vocabulary -so that people knew the government wouldn't have any money if an emergency occurred?

The money has all gone, that's for sure. And the gold and the oil. Where's the 'contingency fund' now, Gordon when we need it?

Labour have become disconnected from reality. We have a genuine natural disaster in what is now Brown's 'presidential' time. It doesn't fit the narrative, so it doesn't get media focus. Sorry, Hull, but you picked the wrong moment to become a disaster area.

I understand the stress and pain of floods, as we had them in Shrewsbury where I was living. Everything stops. It's like a war. People are in despair and misery as their houses, shops, pubs, schools are all taken out in one hit. John Prescott came round doing the 'we'll help you' bit. Walls were built and temporary defences can now be rushed out when the river rises. In those days Gordon hadn't given all our money away buying election victories, and funding the EU.

My advice is to call Prince Charles and ask him to come there and refuse to move until Gordon Brown puts in a personal appearance. The Queen will mention the situation at her weekly meeting with Gordon, and maybe the media will switch focus away from Al Quaeda. Start your campaign now.

Friday, July 06, 2007

Roger Scruton Credits The Culture Of Jealousy

New Culture Forum - How did we end up in a position where being conservative is seen as the enemy of creativity?

Roger Scruton: Largely through ignorance. Conservatives believe that it is easier to destroy than to create; leftists try to persuade us that destruction (which they are good at) is really a kind of creation, since creation lies outside their power. This is something that George Orwell perceived clearly, even though (for reasons known only to himself) he always called himself a man of the left.

Tapestry (my comment): Propaganda is the cause, and only propaganda. Leftists need to pin all kinds of negative labels on conservatives. They cannot find much, because conservative policies work. So they look around for something else to beat conservatives with. So 'uncultured' comes into play.

Artists are usually dependent on state handouts or support in one form or another, so it is easy enough to create a world view for them which portrays those fools who pay all the bills as some kind of inferior beings, who don't understand or appreciate the intricacies of the superior intellects of artistic talents.

The notions of leftism are emotionally appealing to all who are dependent on others. The providers of society don't understand why those they support, are so resentful against them, but it is merely human nature - to resent those who provide you with what you need, if you cannot repay in equal coin or measure of some kind, or at least have no intention of doing even if you could.

The leftist cultural snobbery is just hysterical. Most successful artists are conservatives. Most businessmen have cultural lives - and businesses cannot compete unless they have vibrant cultures with cooperative and highly creative elements. In fact in my life I have found far more meaningful culture in the workplace than I have in the theatre.

I love the theatre, art, opera, music of all kinds, writing - both watching and performing myself. It's time that the left wing intellectuals packed up their misplaced snobbery. Really it's laughable. Scruton is talking highly-paid nonsense. The Left speaks the the culture of organised jealousy. There's no point in engaging with it. Just move on.

Thursday, July 05, 2007

Labour's Frightened Little Mouse

Brown is Prime Minister for a week, and it's immediately obvious he has no leadership qualities. Labour have backed a lemon - out of cowardice. Blair told them to take a risk and push forward some candidates, but Jack Straw decided it wasn't worth it having Brown's knife in his back for five years or more. The truth is Blair should have sacked Brown a long while ago. It is Blair's cowardice that has put Labour in this mess.

Maybe Blair secretly will be delighted for everyone to see now what a hopeless frightened little man Gordon Brown really is. He's had Gordon's knife in his back for 14 years - and he's used this narrative as a news blanket all through his Premiership to cover up all his failures. It's fooled everyone from Rupert Murdoch who's been praising Gordon Brown's intellect for year after year despite the lack of any evidence, to most political commentators who imagined a strongman - a Stalin - not a frightyened little mouse.

The truth is Brown is nothing without Blair. Blair tried to tell them, but they weren't listening. There must be some pleasure for Blair now in seeing Brown hang himself in the Commons. We thought Ming was a lemon. Even Ming looks good now!!!

Brownites Are Chicken

First Gordon Brwon tries inviting all hostile questioners during PMQ's yesterday to come over for a private chat. Now Harriet Harman's at it. Theresa May asked her to clarify her position in Parliament today, on a number of topics where she had apparently contradicted the government line. What does HH do? She tries to invite Theresa may to agree a non-aggression pact. It's exactly the same as Gordon Brown.s approach.

It's kind of like saying - this democracy thing's a real fag. Let's pack it up and present a united face to the public, while we do whatever we agree together on the QT.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6273246.stm

The Brownites are chicken, I tell you. They don't like it up 'em.

Better A Bonking Boris Than Shagger Norris

The Brown era is in danger of becoming the dullest in the country’s history.


There would be a good cure for that.


BJ as Mayor!


It would require a little bit of growing up here and there.


also Don’t ever go to

Liverpool, Boris

. They haven’t got over it yet.


But what the hell. Your CV needs another badge.


Cabinet promotion would not be on, and there is no badge better than the mayor of London.



Livingstone has exported the job of Mayor into another reality, separate from mainline politics.


One step removed - like the editorship of the Spectator. It's made for you, Boris.




Brown wants to end the culture of celebrity.


He has to be stopped.


Boris Johnson For Mayor.


If you're tired of London, you're tired of life. Ken Livingstone's killing us all.


OK Shagger Norris is so called by many. But it's Bonking Boris, not Shagger Boris. Those who are trying to rhyme the two top Tory candiates, Shagger Norris with Shagger Boris (Guido) are wrong. There is a subtle difference you know. A Bonker has more class than a shagger.

Golf Course Ghost Makes Us Twitch

A friend of mine who teaches at Shrewsbury School recently joined Church Stretton Golf Club positioned on the edge of the South Shropshire hills. We had played there occasionally on and off for about five years. It is one of the most beautiful golf courses in the world and costs about £10 a round, which by British standards is very reasonable. When I'm over in Asia in the winter months, and I think of home I always imagine the Chruch Stretton golf course. Up on the top exposed to all weathers, often strong winds and driving rain, it feels like you have entered another world.

Talk in the Club House confirms that it is not only the extraordinary views that are special. You stand over the Shropshire plain looking out along at a row of hills, starting with Caer Caradoc - the fort of Charactacus, the chieftan who fought the invading Romans before they completed their conquest, and ending with the Wrekin - named after Uricon, the garrison City of 60,000 inhabitants which the Romans built nearby, today with only a few ruins visible, mostly under the turf.

The golf club is around a century old, and even though I've played on many beautiful golf courses in Thailand, the Philippinesand the Seychelles on Praslin Island, Church Stretton is in many ways the best. Golf played over hills is always more exciting than on the flat, but usually hillside courses have too many short holes, and don't stretch you. I can tell you now though, Church Stretton is anything but dull.

There are other things that are different about Church Stretton golf club. You will hear as you rest up in the Club House the story of the ghost. The locals say that they don't ever see him or her, but as they drive the hole at the very top of the round, the 13th,they see their ball land on the fairway 250 yards or so away (it is a downhill start to the hole). But as they get a bit closer and look around, they can't find their ball. It is gone. They say there is a ghost who takes away the balls - and that it only ever happens on the 13th.

It seems quite a spooky tale, and to be honest we thought it was a bit of a joke, another Loch Ness monster yarn to boost the takings. That was until yesterday, the 4th July 2007 . Three of us, the usual team set off at around 3.30, taking a risk on the weather, as there was a fair bit of rain around. The flag on the 1st was beating in the gale. We thought we would try the first 3 holes and if it was too terrible, we would stop there.

But as we went up higher up, we found ourselves in the lea of the hill. The wind dropped a bit, and we were only hit by the occasional shower. Umbrellas are useless in these conditions. In a strong wind they become like a sail and pull or push you where you didn't want to go. There was no one else foolish enough to go out, and in this very fresh air, battered and occasionally soaked, we kept going. The wind blew strongly between storms so even though we were getting soaked in the squalls, the wind dried off our clothes.

The golf scores on windy days can get quite ragged, and if you par a hole you feel pretty good. When the wind is behind you, your normal drive of say 200 yards can suddenly become 250 yards, or more if it's downhill. That's the easy bit. To pitch a ball onto the green in a strong wind needs careful allowance to be made for the effect of the wind. A shot which would be pin high and in line can land twenty or more yards away from the target. Even with the wind behind, a par is a good hole in such conditions.

These thoughts were in our minds, and the subject of our happy chatter as we all three drove the 13th. I saw Dick's ball land right in the middle of the fairway a few yards from mine, about 250 yards away, driven across the wind. Tim went the long way round the dog leg, and landed on good ground too. That's where the fun started. We looked everywhere but Dick's ball was nowhere to be seen.

It was a real puzzle. After many years of playing golf in many different parts of the world, in all weathers, I had seen most things - an occasional hole in one, flooky shots, good and bad and funny, but not once had any of us seen a ball just disappear. We looked and looked but it really was nowhere to be seen. There were a few holes nosed out by nesting rabbits, but not properly started. I checked those even though I had seen the ball land past them. There had to be some rational explanation. But Dick was sure. This was the ghost of the 13th hole.

He took another ball from his bag, and decided to accept that his ball was lost, but refused to add the penalty points to his score. He struck the next ball and it landed beyond the green to the right, lifted up by a gust and deposited up the bank. And then we saw it. The ghost which had been talked about by the locals, which had haunted this golf course for the hundred years since it was constructed appeared right before our very eyes.

You would think that an apparition would strike fear into our hearts and we would run, turn grey overnight and vow never to go up Church Stretton again for the rest of our days. But it wasn't like that. I'd heard tales of Roman soldiers appearing in cellars in York marching in line. We'd had pictures flying around my parents' house when we were children. Most people imagine they've seen a ghost, but only a few have really seen one.

This ghost was clothed all in black, walked in a strutting relaxed manner and his head was continually bobbing up and down to look at the ground. He reached down and picked up Dick's second ball as we watched........ then curled up to the rocks carrying it in his brown-red beak. Realising this was more a case for Bill Oddie to investigate, I felt pleased that there really were no restless souls lost between worlds unhappily haunting the most beautiful golf course in the world.

http://www.churchstrettongolfclub.co.uk/history

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

Gordon Brown Can't Cope

Just watched PMQ's. Ming actually looks good now. Against Blair, no chance, but against Brown, he does well. I thought the 'trap door' comment flummoxed Brown and he looked upset by it. Ming seemed relaxed and capable.

Cameron on the other hand is so far ahead of Brown as a debater that it almost like he was Brown's boss giving him instructions. It's not that Brown's nervous that matters. It's that he's not good at the job. He really doesn't know how to work PMQ's in a most fundamental way.

If he is asked a particular question of detail, he tries to answer it with a generalisation, a reference to how he is going about the subject maybe, or to 'our country' or the 'British people' - and it's only once he's got the talk back into woolly generalisations he seems to relax.

He's continually trying to coax his questioners away from tackling him publicly and repeats over and over that he'll meet them to discuss this all later on (in private) as if that's somehow better than exposing the debate in the House, which he clearly hates.

When he knows a bit about something - the Childline part - he pours out masses of detail as if that's meant to impress everyone with how much he knows. He gives far too much detail in his answers.

It's as if he's not quite sure which bit of detail is the one that counts so he tries giving you the lot, and then goes for his crescendo of 'magnificent job' 'British people' 'strong steadfast' blah blah blah.

The poor guy really has no idea, and hates being seen out of control when he's built up so much expectation. He knows he's not good enough, and it shows, but he thinks he can somehow make Parliament go away and he can shine in other fora - like the media maybe or in private negotiations where he feels powerful again and in control.

Blair warned that he is a clunking fist - no jusdgement, no finesse. We know he's cack-handed after seeing him operate as Chancellor making British tax the most complicated system anywhere in the world. How the hell did he end up as PM?

His own side look miserable apart from Quentin Davies who manages to maintain a supercilious smile as his new hero crumbles a few rows in front. Quentin seems to like failure. It's what he's used to!

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Quentin Brown Nose Must Be Rewarded By Gordon Frown

Quentin Davies MP gives his reasons for crossing the floor of the house.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2007/07/why-quentin-joi.html

Give This man A Peerage - and then send him to the opticians, followed by a course of psychiatry.

Labour have wrecked the economy, allowed 5 million to remain idle on state handouts while 5 million otherwise unneeded immigrants have poured in to replace them, including a few terrorist cells, who we cannot touch courtesy of Labour's Human Rights Laws.

The load of all Frown's tax credits is stopping many working families from trying too hard to work much at all. His pensions policies have condemned millions to poverty in old age.

Overtaxed Individuals and companies are fast heading for the exit as our streets fill with violent criminals who should be in jail but Frown hasn't got any money left to fund prisons. Our troops are underprovided while they fight to protect us from terrorist regimes, for the same reason.

Quentin Brown Nose is nosing and licking Frown's anal regions so assiduously, that Frown won't need to change his underwear for many months. Surely a peerage is much deserved here if not an upgrade to The Order Of The Stool, an ancient and honourable traditional title which should be dusted down and recreated by Frown to celebrate this titillating relationship which Frown is enjoying with his favourite Brown Noser. How about the title ' Lord Davies Of The Brown Stool'?

Private Equity - Gordon Brown's Monster

The News is filling up with two words - almost on a daily basis - 'Private Equity'. Today, for example, we hear that the AA and SAGA both are owned by Private Equity and yet no one listening to the news, or at least very few have much idea what that phrase means, or why that matters.

Surely Private Equity means that the owner owns the business, and that they are either private individuals or not publicly quoted companies that own the shares. So why does that matter?

It matters not a jot except for one fact - that these individuals or private companies that buy the business like AA and SAGA, do it with borrowed money, and offset the borrowing costs against the trading profits of the businesses they run. So that they pay no corporation tax, and the government loses billions.

It's like someone buying a house on a 100% mortgage, renting out the property to a tenant who pays rent which clears the mortgage for you. The first result is that they pay no income tax, as their income is eliminated by borrowing costs. Property prices rise. The owner makes money, but the government loses out.

Why though would anyone want a business that makes no profit?

That's easy to explain. You pay no income tax, or corporation tax, and look forward to making a capital gain. If an investor makes profits inside a company, and they decide to take money from the profits earned out of that company for their own personal use, since 1997 when Gordon Brown changed the rules on National Insurance, these individuals are paying 64% (income tax at 40% plus national insurance at 24% - employee's which is visible and employer's which is hidden). The result has been that very few people who are in business to make money, are going to bother paying themselves salaries like that or receiving dividends which are taxed at a similar rate.

Pre-1997 directors could get money out of their businesses and pay 40% as National Insurance didn't apply. To receive £60,000, they needed to take out £100,000 from the company (income tax at 40%). The whole £100,000 was offset against corporation tax at 30% so the government recieved 10% net. After Gordon Brown's changes, you needed £160,000 to pay £60,000. The offset against corporation was worth £48,000 (30% of 160,000), so instead of it costing net £10,000 in tax to pay out £60,000, it now cost £50,000. That is why investors looked for other ways to avoid paying national insurance on business profits.

National Insurance before Gordon Brown was not a tax. It was the way each individual paid into the national pension system so that they earned the entitlement to draw out later on. The sums in and out bore a relationship to each other that was not brilliant but was fair. There was always a surplus each year of more paid in than paid out, and rather than pay people better pensions, governments of all hues began to use this to fund general expenditure. Gordon Brown was stealthy and he uncapped National Insurance so that it was payable on all income and not just up to the ceiling which was about £30,000 per annum.

The result has been not the huge increase in tax take Gordon Brown expected. The opposite has happened. Why?

The other change Gordon Brown made in his early years was to reduce Capital Gains Tax so that people who bought businesses and sold them making a capital gain, needed to pay only pay 10% of their gain. This was Goron Brown's idea to promote enterprise and keep the City pumping money into the British economy and keep it growing. It has led to huge growth in investment as you would expect, helping to fill Gordon's coffers.

But the result of the two totally different approaches to taxing business - one giving owners who buy and sell companies an almost tax free environment on their capital gains (losses can be offset and these can be acquired by selling assets at a loss amongst 'friends') - the other taxing people at extortionate levels, who actually work hard and try to make profits longterm inside companies. It has seriously unbalanced the relationship between capital and labour. It has also lost the government billions of pounds in revenue.

It is not worth people's while to run companies and keep them longterm and buld them up over a lifetime. With the tax system as it is, it is only worth manipulating for quick capital gains. Businesses like the AA that have built up a record of longterm trust with millions of customers by taking only a reasonable charge from them for a good service are easy pickings for a quick increase in capital value.

Private equity buys a business like the AA which was running a longterm startegy of building trust with clients, cuts its oveheads by reducing staff, increases its prices and pushes out into other businesses to maximise revenues, all on borrowed money. Then the business is sold to shareholders attracted by the rising returns, and the private equity people, who borrowed everything, sell out making a huge capital gain which attracts a maximum of 10% capital gains tax. The government loses billions in corporation tax, and the amount of debt in the economy heads ever skyward exposing the whole economy to higher risk.

Gordon Brown seems to love tinkering with all the little details and he has made the tax system blindingly complicated. But this aspect is simple. Don't bother working inside companies and trying to produce income. Borow all you can, make capital gains. That goes for the biggest corporations to every individual. Is it any wonder that Britain's economic peformance is slipping? And is it any wonder that Brown's tax take is not enough from the economy we do have? Also the economy will be far more vulnerable to a credit crunch - and rising interest rates will hurt government revenues far more than they used to do.

Gordon Brown's supposed to be some kind of economic genius. The evidence for that needs finding. The news channels don't explain what private equity is, because they would have to tell people the true story about Gordon Brown. That would never happen in the media world we live in today where governments control news and reporting tightly. That's why you need to read blogs to find out the simple facts. Private Equity is caused by stupid tax laws. Who made those laws? None other than Gordon Brown.

Cameron Promotes Owen Paterson

Cameron's polling shows that only a minority - 37% - believe he is strong enough to make a good Prime Minister, whereas Gordon Brown is believed to be a strong enough individual to hack a leadership role by 57% (Populus). Cameron may be a lot stronger than people think, but he studiously surrounds hmself with people who seem nice and appear to put their niceness over and above their dedication to their role. The emphasis so far has been almost exclusively on appearances - trying to look nice to compete with Blair - and rebrand the Conservative Party in the public's mind.

Now Blair's gone. Cameron, up against Brown needs to look stronger, but his first tendency is still to place other 'nice' guys around the shadow cabinet table. Hague, Osborne might be stronger than anyone under fire, but they seem very nice people. Even Fox and Davis manage to avoid being too controversial most of the time, and the number of women grows ever greater. The rebranding has tended to keep out the more serious-minded, or has stopped them from being too strident. It's been almost a case of non-politics politics.

One character who is made of sterner stuff, and Cameron's first promotion of a Cornerstoner to the Shadow Cabinet table is Owen Paterson MP. He is of a different progeny to the others. Very polite and certainly good-looking, Owen was IDS' campaign manager when he won the leadership contest. He then became IDS' envoy who tried to build an ant-federalism alliance inside the EU by visiting the accession countries plus Portugal and Spain before they went socialist and federalist in their leanings. If IDS had not fallen, the COnservatives might well have exited the EPP in 2003 and Owen would have been a prime mover in that. No one talks about it now, and it never lade the media even at the time.

He fought for the Fishing Industry and persuaded IDS' shadow cabinet to make it party policy to withraw from the Common Fishing Policy. Owen, inside his faming/Fishing brief also fought against the policy of protecting badgers which have passd TB to herds of cows which have been infected with TB from badgers, resulting in the slaugter of millions of animals and billions in compensation.

Recently he has done important work pointing out the stupidity in the government's Roads policies. Owen digs down to the detail, finds the problem and hits it hard, continually until people sit up and take notice. You will find him on the end of many Christopher Booker stories in the Sunday Telegraph. many politicans shy away from challenging powerful interst groups. Not Owen.

Cameron might find that Owen's determination and interest in issues plays well with electors, and his movement up to Northern ireland should be a first step. Owen would do well in any brief. He will not play to the crowds, and is modest and businessllike in his approach.

There is more similar excellent managerial material in the Cornerstone Group - MPs experienced in business like Owen who used to travel all over the globe running his family's tanning business until he sold up to focus on his political career. John Hayes is another who digs down to the detail and does not shirk or cave in to interest groups. Maybe his turn will benext.

Those Conservatives who worry that the Cameron team is exclusively a PR machine with little actual interest in managing and improving, should take heart from the appointment of Owen Paterson.

Monday, July 02, 2007

Iain Dale Calls It Wrong On Conservative Chairman

Iain dale knows a lot but does he know what really matters?

Blair has gone.

The whole Cameron gameplan to date was a play-Blair strategy, of which Maude was a major part. In essence, no content or detail was to be allowed to show its face where superficiality and image-play would do.

And, all credit to Cameron, against Blair, this strategy has worked - even if it has driven Conservative MPs and activists half mad with despair on occasions. Cameron made us look OK in a Blair-dominated era in the easygoing cultural environment, where nothing could be taken all that seriously without one's 'cool' being diminished. Maude fitted in well.

Blair has gone, I repeat.

Brown is here now. And he's another sport altogether. Intensity of effort, serious reciting of school mottos and almost religious adherence to a script is being demanded throughout the Labour Party machine. No longer will reality be redefined on a daily basis by Blair, rendering any effort to present policy an almost hopeless task. Blair lived by the day, shooting from the hip. Brown professes to live by principles - the exact opposite of what went before, and he's digging into well prepared positions.

Whether Brown's principles stand up to scrutiny is now the name of the game. Even ugly people can play now. The idea with Blair was that looking good and sounding good came higher than policy or anything else. Seducing the audience was quick and easy for Blair, and it required little effort from him.

Brown has now condemned the culture of celebrity - of easy pickings for good-looking and talented folk. No more froth will be tolerated on his watch. Poliics is now serious business once more, and only serious players are invited to participate.

The way to fight Brown is say goodbye to the image soundbite-skilled operators like Osborne and Maude, and replace them with equally serious as Brown policy folk, who can think through to the detail, and show that Brown's entrenched positions are wrong.

If you play Blair-like frothy soundbites at Brown, he'll bat them away with contempt. Solid detailed and well thought through policy statements that resonate with voters are now not only permissible but required. Brown, aware that Cameron is in danger of continuing with his anti-Blair strategies is inviting the forum of debate to be reconquered by common sense, claiming that his brand is best.

Cameron must now play Brown on his own terms as he played Blair on his. That means getting the Party's feet back on the ground, healing the rifts which are in danger of dividing modernisers from traditionalists. Common sense and detail must become the only games in town...a little dull maybe after the dizzy flights and superficiality of the Blair years. Brown dullness has to be scuppered on its own terms.

We have in the Party people ideally suited to take on Gordon Brown - who operate on another level of determination and commitment to getting policy right, and less inclined to shoot off slightly preposterous slogans like 'heir to Blair' and the like.

I propose again John Hayes for Chairman. The Party needs to demonstrate it's moved to meet the new challenge. There's no point in rearranging the same mugs around the table in different chairs. Brown represents a totally diffeent cultural environment to Blair. Cameron must match his play.

Islam Must Modify To Succeed

The Christian religion took nearly 1800 years from its beginnings to reach the Enlightenment, when it was reinterpreted to a human-centred concept, where happiness, contentment and fulfilment were seen as the focus of life, and individual life and opinion were respected. Prior to that people were executed by religious courts for blasphemy.

The Islamist extremists need to reinterpret their religion in a similar way. One way they can be persuaded to do that, is for them to see that when the Koran instructed them to kill non-believers and conquer their lands, the world was not multicultural and mixed together. Lands were either 100% Moslem or 100%% non-Moslem. the only way to spread the religion was by conquest, it seemed.

Today Moslems are allowed to come to Britain and the West and preach their religion, and mix together with non-Moslems. They do not need to kill non-believers to gain access. In fact doing so will damage their religion as the West is forced to take measures to defend itlelf by invading the Moslem lands where the aggression is controlled from. Their actions could be causing a loss of power to Moslem countries and damaging their religion, which is not what the Prophet intended.

Their aggression could eventually cause the Prophet to be rejected from western lands if they persist with killing non-believers. Why not focus on converting the west by peaceful means as the opportunity is there without the need to kill people? The situation was not forseeable so long ago, and the texts need to be reinterpreted for the modern world, if the religion is to thrive.

Sunday, July 01, 2007

Gordon Brown Sucks

Politicians will need to learn a little modesty. They are capable of starting wars as we know. But they are not capable of fighting them. Winning wars depends on another body of people completely - intelligence officers, electronic eavesdroppers, technicians of all sorts and specialities, soldiers, airmen and naval personnel.

All governments can do is ensure that these people are properly funded, and motivated, and honoured for their dedication.

As regards honour, Gordon Brown is so keen to claim all the credit for protecting the public that he is unlikely to have any of it spare for the people doing the actual intelligence work and fighting the actual wars. In fact in his way of thinking, they are servants in his power and control.

As regards money and equipping, I think we all know how pathetic Brown has been in funding the services that are fighting this war for him.

As for motivating people, Gordon Brown is boring and not inspiring. He will always use a hundred words where ten would do. It is his lack of self belief which is the problem. He didn't even have the courage to face an internal election within his own Party, let alone an external one.