10 people

Well, none of you people of questionable parentage tagged me, but I am going to do my list of 10 people I would like to hit in the mouth with a brick. I am going to try avoid the ones who have already been done, because I feel we must share the brick love.

10. Richard Corbett. I hate him but he's such an irrelevance he can't be any higher on the list. The man who still insists that the EU is the best thing ever, who helped to get the Constitution through the European Parliament, who writes letters insulting people for wanting a referendum and who probably only gets off if he thinks about plenary voting sessions or committee meetings. Also doesn't even live in Britain, let alone the constituency he is supposed to represent. Wears cheap suits and shoes that squeak.

9. Nadine Dorries. This is a tricky one, because actually what I need to do is to break the brick up and smash one bit in her mouth and then one bit each for the hands, because it's her writing which really annoys me. Or I could use three bricks? Nah, that's a bit of a waste. But my reason for really wanting to smash her with a brick is for her self-serving, sanctimonious and thoroughly illiberal views on abortion.

8. shortly followed by anyone who has anything to do with abortionfacts.com for being nasty, lying bullies.

7. Stuart Dickinson. Because it was a try.

6.Simon Kelner for editing a bloody awful newspaper which is obsessed with treating theories as facts and who thought it would be a jolly good idea to put a Foreign Office briefing on the front page of his newspaper in almost verbatim reprinting.

5. Alan Rusbridger. He pays Polly Toynbee and lets her drivel be read by millions. He cannot contemplate that cutting taxes, grammar schools and leaving the EU are plausible options in modern Britain (even though he himself went to an Independent school) and because he has engineered the departure from the Observer of Roger Alton because, in the words of Stephen Glover,the paper "had the temerity to think for itself."

4.Ashley Mote MEP. He's a fraud and a crook and yet he only got 9 months in prison, meaning the UK Independence Party don't get their seat back (he was elected on a UKIP ticket but lied on his forms and only told his wife he was facing charges the night he was elected.) He also spends tax payers money trying to avoid facing trial, including going to EU courts when he is supposed to despise them. Lectures about fraud in EU and yet was convicted of 21 counts including fraud.

3.Gillian McKeith. What do you shit, you turd-mining old killjoy, determined to sap the joy out of every living thing? Lavender sachets?

2. David Cameron. Because he deceives people into thinking he's eurosceptic, he can't be trusted and he says thinks he can't do just to win votes. Typical politician, but one of the only high profile ones who hasn't been mentioned.

1. Neil Kinnock. Just. Can't. Cope. With. The. Mendacious. Cunt. He'd probably see this and then get all his tax payer funded lawyers to sue me for libel, because he is mega wealthy, puts homes etc. in the names of his family and then sues people for saying he is worth x amount, he was hideous and vile to Marta Andreasen who was only trying to do her job and therefore by implication approves of fraud in the EU. Sued my friend for telling the truth.

So there. ner.

With regards to Nadine Dorries and the other part of her minority report, I was going to pick up on other aspects of it which I consider somewhat contentious; namely that she was saying that the committee were not being entirely above board and were being 'hijacked'. But Iain Dale has done it and can be bothered to go and add the relevant section, so go read it there and then remember that you pay that woman's wages.

Frilly knickers is at it again

When I heard the news this morning that MPs had actually made a sensible decision with regards to abortion, I fully anticipated squealing from a certain corner. And I was right.

I'm not going to get involved with this whole 'foetal pain' and 'survival rates' debate because, although I am an opinionated little madam, I'm not actually a doctor. However, I would like to register my slight disagreement with Ms Dorries over the two last sections in her minority report:

Abortion On Demand

This report has concluded that abortion in the first trimester is safer than normal childbirth and on that basis is pushing for abortion on request. However, if you take into account the long term health effects of abortion, particularly with respect to pre-term deliveries and mental health, this conclusion is at best questionable.

You see, frilly knickers, that's just your biased point of view and your desire to tell other people how to live their lives coming out there, I think. Given that lots of women have had abortions and carried on their lives without doing stupid things like stealing babies from parks or, I don't know, standing for Parliament, I don't see how it's 'questionable'. Given the choice between an unwanted child or a medical procedure which, if done at an early stage, is less time consuming than some blood tests I've had, I would argue that having an abortion is going to be better for the woman's mental health. Really.

Medical Abortions

All medical abortions should be supervised with adequate pain relief, professional reassurance and access to expert medical help, particularly in the case of very young women and teenagers. The Chairman’s report takes no account in its recommendations of the practicality and reality of medical abortions, and the impact that asking a sixteen year old to dispose of her aborted baby would have on her.

Oh dear God woman, did you come down in the last shower, or do you think that we fucking did? If you have an early medical abortion (which has to be under 10 weeks and is a course of tablets which induce a miscarriage) you don't suddenly drop a full size dead baby out of your Mrs Mimsy. It's like a fucking period. A fairly long one, admittedly, but at such an early stage literally all there is of the pregnancy is a lot of womb lining and a little sack with a few cells in. Do you really think that doctors would chuck a couple of tablets at a teenager and tell her to bugger off and let her pick up bits of arms and legs of a foetus? Argh! You're so fucking one sided and biased you aren't even coming out with rational arguments.

Now, I am rabidly pro choice and the decisions that doctors have taken today that a woman does not need two doctors to agree to her having an abortion is a bloody good one. But if you came out with some proper facts that would imply the current law is wrong, I would at least listen and consider. You don't seem to even be capable of that. You just want to impose your dogma and doctrine on everyone else whilst refusing to see their point of view.

89% of abortions are carried out at under 13 weeks gestation. 68% at under ten weeks and 30% of those are medical abortions. At this stage, there is no 'baby' but there is a woman, and the age group on which most abortions in 2006 were carried out was 19. So there are a lot of young women who don't really want to be pregnant and would like to have a quick, simple procedure with minimal fuss so they can get on with their lives. Why should they have to pretend to doctors that they are mad or the baby is going to kill them to get a procedure which is available? Why should they need the approval of two doctors when you don't for far more risk decision?

Women should not be made to feel like they are doing something bad and evil because they are putting their happiness first. And ignorant people like Ms Dorries doesn't seem to understand that. Well, she should. Because those women who are having abortions are the same people whose taxes go to pay her wages and her expenses and her bloody tedious blog. So, up yours.

Yes, I have. Which makes me more qualified to talk on the practicalities of it than some pompous priggish politician

It's very annoying. I know who the minor royal being blackmailed was but I'm not allowed to write it down, am I? Or can I say who I have heard it is?

I have found

The second face of the majority of our politicians...

This is especially true of anyone who says that they are going to do something about immigration whilst remaining in the EU.
Take the man of the moment, Mr Cameron:

Conservative leader David Cameron today pledged to cut net immigration into the UK, warning that the current rate of arrivals was placing an "unsustainable" pressure on the country's public services and infrastructure...Mr Cameron also urged ministers to commit the Government to "transitional arrangements", similar to those operated in relation to Romania and Bulgaria, which would limit the right of nationals of any future EU entrants to work in the UK. This could apply to countries currently in the queue for EU membership including Croatia, Macedonia and 70 million-strong Turkey.

Asked how much immigration from outside the EU should be reduced by, he said "substantially".

He would not set a quota today, however, saying that that would be made on the basis of advice from a new body comprising the Migration Advisory Council and the Migration Impact Forum.

As I have written again and again and again if you are part of the EU you are going to have a pretty tough time trying to do anything about immigration, especially from the EU.

As we have seen when the Government restricted migrant workers for Bulgaria and Romania, it is nothing but a sham, because anyone from within the EU has a three month right of entry and movement and we cannot not let them in if they are self employed. (I didn't want to link to that because it quotes the Tories, but that just shows you what they're bloody like. argh.)

What we need to do is to get British people of the arses and into work. No work, no cash. You want children, then save up and get a fucking job. It's a lifestyle choice to have children, and I'd rather not pay for arseholes like this waste of oxygen.

Why should we be propping these people up? I don't particularly blame people for employing hard working people from Eastern Europe, but I do have an issue when I pay to much tax to prop up a social security system more obese than Nicholas Soames

It seems to me that we are paying money to just the wrong sort of people and now in Britain we have bred an underclass. People who don't go to school, who will never have a job, who go on about 'their rights' and who the police don't seem to put in the stocks after they have committed a crime. People who think that they have a right to get money from the rest of us without actually doing anything.

But what will this government actually do? Fuck all. Why should they? People vote them back into power even when they are trying to turn this country back into a poverty stricken arctic wasteland. The lib Dems probably think that this evil old wit ch should go to the Court of Human Rights and win, and they aren't going to do anything about immigration because they gang bang the EU Social Model daily before they start knitting their own sandals and the press don't seem to want to ask any awkward questions.

I think I will actually give myself a heart attack before I'm 30 with all this anger and frustration...

Foreign Secretary or American Actress?

Foreign Secretary David Miliband has adopted a second son, his office announced today.

Mr Miliband and his violinist wife Louise are already the adoptive parents of two-year-old Isaac, who was born in the US in December 2004.

The Foreign Secretary will now take some time off to help look after the couple's new adopted son, Jacob.

Following the announcement, he pulled out of an engagement this morning with Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud to launch the "Two Kingdoms" conference.

Mr Miliband was replaced by Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells.

A spokeswoman for the Foreign Secretary would not give any further details about where his second child is from.

In a statement, his office said: "David and Louise Miliband are pleased to announce the adoption of their second son, Jacob.

"They are delighted by the new arrival and Mr Miliband will now be taking a period of leave.

"They ask the media to respect their privacy during this time."

Hmmm. Our foreign secretary appears to be doing an 'Angelina Jolie'. One in every colour, I wonder? Are we next to be seeing him in 'Heat' magazine suffering from an eating disorder?

Maybe I'm just being mean and biased. I do hate the cunt, after all.

Bye Bye Backbone

Well, I am beginning to lose hope that we will ever get out of this bloody EU Constitution. The EU have set aside large amounts of cash on their 'Plan D' campaign to 'inform' us meer mortals that it is rather a good thing, and simply a tidying up exercise, rather than a fundamental change in our constitution.

My latest feeling of woe has come because David Cameron and his other Tory leaders appear to have shat out their backbone over the last few days.

David Cameron risked reigniting Tory splits over Europe by signalling on Tuesday he will not bow to media and internal party pressure to promise a Conservative government would hold a referendum on the EU treaty after it becomes law.

The Tory leader tried to duck the issue at a London press conference, saying he would not be drawn on “hypotheticals” that might distract from his campaign for a referendum before parliament votes to approve the treaty next year.

He's right that it would be easier to have a referendum and negotiate before the Treaty has been ratified in Westminster, but seeing as the UK held our only referendum on our membership to the EU once Traitor Heath had signed us up to the Common Market, it doesn't quite ring true.

I suspect the issue is more that the Tories would probably rip themselves apart if, when in power, they held a referendum on the Treaty. It would not just be on what would happen if they got a No vote, which I suspect would happen, but which side the party would campaign for, seeing as withdrawing from it would seriously compromise out position in the EU, which the Tories are committed to remaining part of.

If they campaigned for a yes to stay in the EU the party would suffer from infighting and the leadership would essentially divorce themselves from the grassroots. If they campaigned for a No then they face problems with those in their ranks who want to be 'In Europe and Run by Europe' and if they get a No vote, then they will have problems with their position of wanting to be in Europe but stopping the Treaty by undoing the ratification.

It's a problem for them in the way that it isn't so much a problem for the other parties because Labour and the Lib Dems are utterly committed to selling our country down the river without letting the people decide, nasty rancid cunts that they are.
I suspect it's why Cameron has come out with the news that the Tories will be withdrawing from the EPP-ED in 2009, although who knows where they will go to. It's possibly too early to speculate because the MEPs who will be there with them won'+t be the same as the ones here now. And the only group which really takes their view point is the Independence and Democracy Group, co presided over by UKIP leader Nigel Farage.

A parliamentary motion calling for a public vote on the treaty “before or after ratification” has been signed by 43 eurosceptic Conservative MPs, including Iain Duncan Smith, the former leader, and Graham Brady, the former shadow minister for Europe.

It's a tricky one for them. It wouldn't be a tricky one for me. He gained a lot of public support by saying he would hold a referendum if elected but clearly if he's taking this new stand then that was just lip service to gain support in the polls for an election, or to delay the election which no parties except possibly the Government actually wanted.

And pleasing the electorate is something we should all be used to and be immune from, but I still feel sickened when politicians do things like this. It's not like this is a minor issue; it's one of the biggest issues facing our country today because it's essentially about how we're governed.

Given that the EU have also allocated €4 million for an EU rapid reaction force which also will be involved in civilian problems, it's down to who polices us and who makes the laws which govern us.

If you're concerned about immigration it's the EU you need to look towards. Health? Tax? Education? It's all either directly or indirectly linked.

Can't bury your cat in your garden? EU. Food prices higher than the market would dictate? EU. Fishermen losing their jobs because of fishing quotas? EU. People in developing world having their fishing rights bought up so they can't develop their own industry? EU.

It is a big fucking issue, and it's important we keep 'banging on' about it because otherwise those cunts who govern us will hand our democracy and accountability away.

And if we do get this new treaty, which it looks like we will, then there's little hope for returning to a democratic Britain which governs herself. I shall keep on trying, however. They'll probably lock me up, but I will.

MEPs to the rescue!

The MEPs have been busy little bees today! They have been doing all sorts of work, like voting for €14,400,000 for a European Agency for monitoring Health and Safety at work, so an agency full of busybodies to monitor other busybodies.

They have also given the green light to a €234 million compensation budget to get farmers to squish citrus fruits instead of doing something else with them like, er, electing them to the European Parliament? And not to be outdone on the fruit front, they have also given the nod to makers of ketchup and tomato puree for €280 million for the production of tomato processed products.

Nothing is too small to be beneath their notice! No vegetable too obscure, no law to invasive, no amount too large to take away from tax payers to fund their petty scheme.

A propaganda fund to 'educate' journalists? Here you go, have a few million! Have you suffered with the problem of stigmatising people whose business have failed? Then vote for a €2,500,000 programme to reeducate people like you and end that social stigma which those with failed businesses may suffer from. You don't think you need to go on a training course or have your children educated in this latest idea? You're wrong! Go to the EU brainwashing re educating camp.

If you're a Liberal Democrat MEP like Bill Newton Dunn you may want to ask for €250,000 to fund a study to discover the obstacles to the creation of a federal police force in the European Union. Oh, silly me. He's already done that. But being a Lib Dem, I am sure that he will tell any Eurosceptic members of the East Midlands that he is all in favour of retaining sovereignty for the UK, because that's what Lib Dems do when they go canvassing. I know, I've been on the receiving end of it.

So, whilst our tax burden is going up and up, and the growth forecasts for the economy are going down, whilst hospitals are not being cleaned properly and we don't have any spare maternity beds in London, whilst prisoners are being released early because there aren't enough spaces in prisons, and then they go off to reoffend, be assured that your Europhile Members of the European Parliament are throwing your money down the drain.

On the other hand....

What Classic Movie Are You?
personality tests by similarminds.com

Bill Clinton is The Godfather...

What Famous Leader Are You?
personality tests by similarminds.com

Apparently.

Although I haven't even been given a blow job under my desk by a fat bird.

Er, Hello?

A couple of weeks ago I wrote to David Cameron with the following enquiry:

Dear Mr Cameron,

May I first say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Secondly, I have a question for you. In your speech to conference in Blackpool this year, you said:

'But it wasn't just that, it was the cynicism of it. He told us things that he know he can't do: 'British jobs for British workers' is illegal under EU law. 'Deporting people for gun and knife crime', you can't do that because of the Human Rights Act. I
have to say to our prime minister: 'If you treat people like fools you don't deserve to run the country let alone win an election'. '

and later on you said:

'And we heard from Alan Duncan how we will introduce regulatory budgets to cut that regulation and I can tell you that we will get out of the European Social Chapter so we can make those rules in Britain rather than in Brussels.'

However, as I am sure you are aware, in a written question asking how a country would withdraw from the Social Chapter, Mr Barosso replied,

'The Commission assumes that when the honourable member refers to the Social Chapter in the Treaties, he is referring to the social provisions contained in Articles 136 to 145 of the EC Treaty. These provisions are part of the whole Treaty and cannot be isolated. All member states are bound by the Treaties they have signed and ratified and which have entered into force, including the social provisions they contain. Consequently, a withdrawal from these provisions by a Member State would require an amendment of the EU Treaty in accordance with Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union.' From President of the European Commission

Article 48 states that:

'The government of any Member State of the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties on which the Union is founded.

If the Council, after consulting the European Parliament and, where appropriate, the Commission, delivers an opinion in favour of calling a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States, the conference shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to those Treaties...

The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.'

So what I would like to know is how come you attacked Gordon Brown on telling us huge porkies about deporting criminals and then weren't so honest yourself about the social chapter? I have seen Mr Redwood's proposals on amending the 1972 ECA and various QC's specialising in EU law did agree with me in saying that his proposals would land the UK in the ECJ, so that's not really an option.

How are you proposing to get 26 other countries to alter a treaty?

I look forward to hearing from you and remain,

Yours sincerely,

Trixy

Today, I received an answer from his secretary Alice Sheffield, which has confused me somewhat and I need your help on it:

Dear Trixy,

Many thanks for your email to David Cameron regarding our proposals to develop a home grown Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act - I'm replying on his behalf.

While we recognise that such a project will not be easy, we believe that it offers an opportunity to protect important civil liberties such as the right to jury trial and our national tradition of freedom of speech and parliamentary democracy, whilst at the same time allowing more precise drafting so as to ensure that the rights conferred by the European Convention of Human Rights are applied in a manner that is less open to criticism.

Applications of the rights under the Convention in cases such as that of the Afghan hijackers and instances of the inability to deport criminals when there appears to be little or no grounds for believing that they will be at any substantial risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment are clearly unsatisfactory.

This is the start of a process in which we intend to carry out widespread consultation. We intend by encouraging debate in this important area to build a broad consensus of how best to protect civil liberties and human rights in Britain whilst balancing these rights with the responsibilities that each owes to others in our country.

It is our intention that the Bill of Rights will be compatible with our international obligations under the European Convention but will give British citizens a real sense of ownership of a document that reflects our core values as a nation.

I have attached an article written by David Davis MP, which explains our approach in greater detail.

Thank you once again for taking the time and trouble to write.

Yours sincerely,

Is it me, or did she just completely ignore my letter and write back to me about something completely different? I didn't ask about the Bill of Rights or the ECHR. I asked about an EU Treaty which Mr Cameron has said he will withdraw from elements off without saying how - apart from some shite by Mr Redwood which would land the country in the ECJ.

Anyone?

The Mind Boggles...

I went to Lisbon and saw the Prime Minister. This Reform Treaty isn't the same as the Constitution, dontcaknow? Oh no, they've taken out reference to the flag and the anthem, even though the flag has been flying outside embassies, hotels and councils for years and years.

I felt sick sitting only a few feet away from the thing and watching him lie. Because that's what he did. There he is, getting paid from my taxes and he can't even have the decency to tell me the truth about how the country I live in will be governed.

Answer me this then, Gordon. If this Treaty is in the British interest, then why do we need protecting from it? If our "Red Lines" are so secure then why do a group of your own colleagues not believe you and why does the Foreign Secretary seem unable to answer a question with a straight answer on the topic?

And why did all the journalists just sit there and not bother to ask any sensible questions or really get him squirming? The man is lying to us about the future of our country; about the very democratic accountability, about who is in charge of our armed forces, our police forces, the budget rebate which is being removed next year and was one of the red lines before Tony Blair gave it up in exchange for the President of the EU, allegedly.

The EU gets legal personality and Britain has to give up her seat on the UN Security Council and all Bob Roberts of the Mirror can ask is if the Prime Minister has spoken to Mr Socrates about Madeleine McGann, and someone else asked if Nelson Mandela was going to the rugby.

At another press conference, UKIP MEP Graham Booth decided he'd had enough of staged press conferences:

Mr Booth, MEP for the South West Counties, was in Lisbon as part of the Ind/Dem Group in the European Parliament and attended a Press Conference given by Prime Minister.

Infuriated by the lack of what he thought should be proper press questions, and waving a copy of the treaty, Mr Booth challenged the Mr Brown to answer the charge that by signing the treaty he would be committing the UK to join the euro common currency.

Mr Booth said: “This treaty that you have just signed states that the currency of all member states will be the euro. You’ve always said that if it were a question of joining the euro, you would submit it to the approval of the British people. Indeed, you confirmed that at Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday before you left.”

Some back bench Tories are having a rebellion because Mr Hague said he wouldn't definitely repeal the Treaty if the Tories got into power:

2143 EUROPEAN REFORM TREATY 17:10:07

Mr William Cash
Mr John Redwood
Mr Michael Ancram
Mr Christopher Chope
Mr John Whittingdale
Mr Edward Leigh

* 41

Mike Penning

That this House notes that the impartial European Scrutiny Committee concluded that the Reform Treaty is substantially equivalent to the original Constitutional Treaty; that the Government Manifesto promised a Referendum on the original treaty; that the Conservative Party voted against it in principle on the Second Reading of the Bill implementing that Treaty; that the Prime Minister said that he will reject the Reform Treaty if the Government's Red Lines are not guaranteed on 18th October, but (following the European Scrutiny Committee examination of the Foreign Secretary on 16th October) that these Red Lines do not satisfy UK vital national interests and that the European Court of Justice will determine these matters, not this House; that, contrary to the statements of the Foreign Secretary, parliamentary democracy is enhanced when this House, as the Labour Government in 1975, hands back a Referendum by Act of Parliament to the voters who elect Members of this House; that 27 million voters have been denied a Referendum on any European Question since 1975; that over 70 per cent. of the voters want a Referendum but that the reasons have to be fully explained; that the Reform Treaty is a consolidation of the existing treaties into a merger of the European Community into a European Union involving substantial, fundamental, constitutional and structural change by the Government's own criteria for a Referendum; and insists that the Prime Minister rejects the Reform Treaty on 18th October and holds a Referendum before or after ratification.

Hands up who thinks we'll get a referendum, or if these wankers in Westminster will bulldoze it through as they care about no one but themselves.

And yet people will still vote Labour next time round. They've taxed you to high heaven, gone back on manifesto pledges and handed over a country which isn't theirs to give, raided your pensions, hospitals are filthy, children aren't being taught in schools and the police are spending more time filling in forms than they are catching criminals. Immigration is out of control, violent crimes have gone up and people will still vote again for these people thinking they should be in charge of the country.

Fucking hell...

David Miliband - it's the Polly Conundrum

I have just been to the European Scrutiny Committee where David Miliband was talking shite to MPs.

It started badly for the boy who received a telling off from the committee chairman right at the start for only sending his 4 page letter to the Committee members an hour before kick off.

He then had to face repeated questioning from MPs over the complicated legal aspects of the Reform Treaty which he insists is not the same as the Constitutional Treaty, and this morning lied and said that that was a consensus amongst European Leaders. Which isn't the case, of course. MPs complained that the whole process was shrouded in "excessive secrecy" and complied in haste and that it marginalised the role of national parliaments, since the text was not released until parliament was in recess, and the decisions on policy will be made on Friday, after they have only been back a fortnight.

Batshit said this wasn't the case, and that this was because there had been a number of bi lateral meetings between representatives of national parliaments and the German presidency during the first 6 months of the year. He failed to mention that our Sherpa was unelected and unaccountable to the British electorate.

Amid much eye rolling and paper flicking which highlighted the amateurish nature of his performance he did try to answer some questions. Sort of. He failed to answer 'yes or no' when requested over a question about the role of the ECJ and he failed to give a straight answer 'without any flannel' when asked to by the chairman.

He had brought with him a couple of legal experts, of of which had a voice which made him sound like the love child of George from rainbow and Mr Bean. He thought he was terribly amusing. We were laughing at him, not with him.

Throughout the entire meeting, we failed to get a straight answer from the government about the blasted 'red lines'. Miliband is insisting that it's a good deal for Britain, even though if we don't sign up to JHA after 5 years we could be liable for costs, they are unsure about some wording which rather makes it sound like national parliaments are going to be obliged to further the aims of the European Union.

We also kept on going round and round in circles about the Charter of Fundamental Rights, with most of us present deciding that essentially if we sign up to this, regardless of 'red lines', it's all down to interpretation and a good lawyer could on the day make us accept all the articles in the Treaty, regardless of protocols and time limits and however much Batshit goes on about how the ECJ can only make rulings over laws which are already in our domestic legislation (but what happens if we want to roll back on some of these? Doesn't the Treaty make these the minimum? I thought we weren't supposed to blind parliaments?)we really don't know.

More importantly, people don't really care about the minutiae of it. They know it's a substantial transfer of power away from Westminster to the EU, those of us under 50 have never had the chance to have our say on the EU and those of us who did in the 1970s were lied to about what it was we were signing up to.

So shut the fuck up Gordon and David and give us a referendum. If you know we'll vote 'no' then why are you going ahead with it, knowing it's against the wishes of the people who have lent you power and who you are supposed to be the servants of.

Mr Miliband: After listening to you again today I have a question for you. Are you stupid, or a liar?

I have a better idea for something to cut

According to Philip Johnston in the Telegraph, jail sentences for rapists could be cut. This is because the prisons are too overcrowded.

I have a suggestion. How about you
1) Build more prisons
2) Withdraw from the EU so we can stop the entry of criminals and also kick criminals out rather than being told by some foreign court what we can do in our own country.

It's sick that the rights of criminals are being put above the rights of law abiding people. It's sick and it's wrong.

Rather than cut sentences of rapists, I'd rather they cut off their cocks.

And he's off...

Well, they forced him out. Not a great surprise to anyone, really.

They got rid of the best leader they ever had and Sir Ming Campbell took on the poisoned chalice which he didn't really want in the first place.

Then they moan about how old he is. It wasn't like he was botoxed up when they elected him, was it?

They are flatlining in the polls because they are pretty irrelevant but they do well at by elections and why? Well, from my experience in the Bromley By Election it's because they openly lie to voters. They are all things to all people and don't care what they say as long as they get votes.

One of my colleagues used to be in the Lib Dems and told me that they used to go vandalise their election posters and then blame it on the opposition or do nasty things to the other side and hope that kids would get the blame. Nice, eh? Obviously I haven't seen it with my own eyes, but that is what he tells me and I'm just passing it on.

Also, shouldn't they change their name to illiberal bureaucrats? Either that or they should be reported to the trading standards because their policies aren't liberal or democratic. Alright, they want proportional representation so ever vote counts, but they also try to kid people that the EU Constitution is just a 'tidying up exercise' and want full integration so that the people who make the decisions aren't accountable to the people who will have to live by those rules.

By being in the EU they also don't want a small state or free trade, and they are always proposing ridiculously high taxes which stifle innovation and hard work and keep people poor.

So the question should be not who will take over, but why would anyone take over....

Consider me amused

That:

Mr Justice Henderson, said Mr Kostic would not have left the money to the Tories if he had been "of sound mind"

Harsh. But fair? Who knows.

What a week!

My father thinks he is dying. He's not dying, of course, he's just got a bug. I should know, because it's the one I'm still getting over which I gave to him.

The bug was nothing to the more recent problems of my lower back, and on Monday I dragged myself over to the doctors whilst still in my jimmers (It's only across the road but mummy darling threw a fit and said they'd lock me up for being mental). The subsequent visit to the osteopath informed me that it wasn't my back, but my pelvis was in the wrong place. Seems to be in the right place to me; bottom of my back, top of my legs and not sticking out my head or anything similar, but then I'm not an osteopath. That will teach me to go falling / get pushed* out of bed and then move house on my own as neither my mother nor Beloved would help me.

Wonky pelvis has meant not going into work on rush hour trains etc. as I can't stand up for too long or it will go wonky again after I have been having it put back in the right place. So, Friday morning I decided to drive into work. A brave decision since only a month or two ago little car blew up on the M3, but a chap came to mend it for me. Or so I thought.

Unfortunately, whilst I was on the A4 at the Chiswick roundabout, the little water light came on again. Cue me driving diagonally across 3 lanes of traffic into a garage and looking downcast at the steam emerging from under the bonnet.

Thankfully, some gorgeous man came over and knew what he was talking about. Mechanic who said he mended car hadn't as the core plug which shot out wasn't welded back in (It's a magnesium compound, you see..?)and the head gasket had now gone bang as well. Fuck. Knight in Shining Armour sorted out emergency measures for me and I had to drive it to scrap yard which a cabbie had informed me was nearby.

Off I went toward the car cemetery, and hit a load of traffic. Oh bugger. Decided to freewheel down the hill for a bit until the brakes stopped working and then stopped in a human cemetery until the traffic went. And it did. Very quickly. Strangely quickly. Directions in hand we drove on through the now clear roads until we discovered why. The road I needed to take (bear in mind I have about 3 miles before the engine seizes up) was closed because a cyclist had been in an accident and died. So we take another road, and luckily come across a place which offers to help me out. Thank god that little drama was over, and it was for the day also, apart from the man trying to run me over on Bruton place. Cock.

Preparing for a much calmer Saturday, I ventured up to Hampstead Heath for a walk with a friend of mine. A mere 300 yards into the walk, however, resulted in us seeing a man standing on the edge of a wooded area, having a good old tug of his boy-bits. Lovely! Being upstanding members of the community (perhaps that was the wrong phrase to use there) she called the police whilst I went to follow him. Strangely, he didn't rush off, just wandered around with his jeans around his knees, t-shirt pulled over his face, looking at us. He disappeared before we could properly follow him, across the road, but we did get a drive in the police car to have a look for the Wanker of Hampstead Heath and saw the sniffer dog at work.

And then England won the rugby, so all was well in the world.

So that's been me for the last few days! Am off to Lisbon this week for the IGC and the weather is looking lovely. Timmy has been giving me some hints and tips on what to do out there but of course, Brown-Bashing will be top of my agenda!

*jury is out on what actually happened

News reaches me that all is not happy in the Daily Mail camp. Apparently, poor ol' Paul Dacre is rather a fan of Grawp, our Prime Minister, and after a lunch with him went to his various editors and told them he wanted the paper to support Labour!

Well, you can imagine that this did not go down well in the paper of the tory housewives who told Mr Dacre that they would rather support the Tories. I think maybe their line on the EU, immigration, grammar schools that kind of thing means they think they should be supporting the Tories, even though the Tories are much too wet for them...

Mr D screamed, apparently. I know! Shocking. So I wonder what will happen in the land of the Daily Outrage? We shall have to wait and see....

Nasty little hypocrite

On Radio 4 this morning our experienced and well qualified Foreign Secretary accused those who wanted a referendum on the EU Consitution of being 'demagogues'. Let's just get a quick definition to be clear:
. a person, esp. an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.

Right. So by putting the referendum promise in their 2005 manifesto, were not Labour appealing to the 'emotions, passions and prejudices of the people?' bearing in mind that they didn't want to have a vote, but did want to get elected?

And who is he to tell us that our very real concerns are wrong, in any case? We pay his wages, and the whole point of democracy is that they are supposed to listen to us. How dare he insult the people who are trying to defend democracy when he and his cronies are happily lying to us? Even when the Scrutiny Committee came back and said that the Reform Treaty was basically the same as the Consitution, they denied it!

Ostrich politicians, that's what they are. The Cabinet and Labour MEPs must be the only people left in the country who think that this isn't the Constitution, if indeed they even think that. Personally, I think they know it's the constitution, but they are far too malignant and crooked to stand by their promise, knowing they will lose.

Hang them all, I say!

Round 2

Two years ago I stood on this stage and I gave a speech, a short speech, about why I wanted to lead our Party. Today I want to make a speech about why I want to lead our country...

Off you go, then!

And I remember that day in Bournemouth standing at the back of the hall; hairs standing up on the back of my neck as a succession of democratically elected leaders, some of them just out of prison, walked onto that stage and praised Margaret Thatcher and our party for the inspiration she gave on our long march to freedom.

Lots, like Vladimir Bukovsky, are now members of UKIP, such is their fear of the EU...

But you know the triumphs of the past are not enough. Every generation of Conservatives has to make the argument all over again for free enterprise, for freedom, for responsibility, for limited government and that's why I stood here two years ago and said to our party, after three election defeats, that we needed to make changes and we have made those changes.

Granted, you have made changes. But I'm yet to see where this 'limited government' comes into it, or 'free enterprise'. You don't want to cut taxes - failing, it seems, to understand that tax cuts stimulate the economy, and you don't want to slash regulation, embrace free trade or limit the size of government because like your fellow Christian Democrats across the water, you love the EU.

Today just one in 10 of our members of Parliament are women but almost a third of our candidates are women. I didn't do that, you did that and you should be proud of what you've done.

Awe, yes. How nice of you to let the poor dears have a go at democracy....

Over these last two years we've campaigned on the environment, not just on climate change, but on cleaning streets and cleaning public places and we have won elections on the back of that. I didn't do that, you did that and you should be proud of what you've done.

Again, I'll give you that. I can imagine a Tory council would be much better at cleaning up streets than a load of trots.

But there is something else that our party is doing and has to go on doing. If we are really the One Nation Party, the Party for opportunity for everybody, it's not enough to just open the door and say 'please come in' we have to get out amongst Britain's ethnic minority communities and find the brightest, the best and the most talented and get them in.

discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. It's also incredibly patronising. Why not go for the best, rather than the best colour?

...But it wasn't just that, it was the cynicism of it. He told us things that he knows he can't do: 'British jobs for British workers' is illegal under EU law. 'Deporting people for gun and knife crime', you can't do that because of the Human Rights Act. I have to say to our prime minister: 'If you treat people like fools you don't deserve to run the country let alone win an election'.

It's not just the Human Rights Act, it's EU Directive 2004/58/EC which means you can only deny entry to / deport EU criminals for terrorism. But keep this in your mind - this mock outrage at Gordon Brown telling people he's going to do something he can't do...

But you know it is more cynical than that. Boy has this guy got a plan. It's to appeal to that 4% of people in marginal seats. With a dog whistle on immigration there and a word about crime here, wrap yourself up in the flag and talk about Britishness enough times and maybe, just maybe, you can convince enough people that you are on their side. Well I say, God we've got to be better than that.

Especially since you can do pretty much fuck all about the issues people are now concerned about, because you want to gang bang the EU model rather than embrace democracy.

What do I believe?

Dunno. Tell me.

I am by nature an optimist.

you'd have to be

I think if we give people more power and control over their lives, I think they'll take the right decisions, they will grow stronger and society will grow stronger too.

Like taking less of their money away and letting them spend it themselves? That sounds like a jolly good idea.

I don't believe in an ever larger state doing more and more, I believe in trying to make people do more themselves for their families and with society as well.

And yet you believe in an EU which wants to control ever more aspects of our daily lives, and you don't want to cut taxes which feed the large state, and you think that charging people for something as simple as how they travel somewhere is a jolly good idea?

And I believe that if we really want to tackle crime, if we really want to make our society stronger then you have got to make families stronger and society more responsible and to me that word responsibility really means something. I think over these last 10 years we have seen responsibility sucked away from people, sucked away from our public servants and taken away from our public services.

I agree with you.

And it ended with that extraordinary farce of two community support officers standing by a lake after a boy had drowned, feeling that because the rule book said they couldn't intervene, they shouldn't. Well, we've got to start tearing up the rule books and allowing people common sense, initiative, and responsibility in the jobs that they do.

Yes. Let's start with some of this ridiculous Health and Safety legislation.

And to me nothing sums this up more than the European Constitution. It's not just that it's an issue of trust, we put it in our manifesto that there should be a referendum, Labour put it in their manifesto that there should be a referendum and it is one of the most blatant breaches of trust in modern politics they won't give us that referendum.

But it actually goes further than that. In a world where we have this freedom and control are we really saying to people that when it come to how you are governed, how your country is run you can't have a say, it's nothing to do with you? That's wrong and that is why we will keep pushing for that referendum, campaign for a No Vote and veto that constitution.

Which means, presumably, that you are okay with the status quo? You are okay with barriers to trade, unaccountable commissioners making decisions over 75% of our lives, higher taxes, more regulation, death to people in the developing world through hyopcrisy? Our fish stocks being wiped out? Lovely. I'm not, that's why I'd sooner poo on my ballot paper than vote for you.

And the revolution of freedom and control, of passing power to people shouldn't stop at Europe it should go much, much further.

It hasn't started there, either. Don't tell me you honestly think the EU to give two shits about anyone?

In government we will take this revolution and freedom and control much, much further. I believe it's time in our big cities for elected mayors, so people have one person to blame if it goes wrong and to praise if it goes right; great civic leadership that we heard from Mike Bloomberg in his great speech on Sunday.

I think it's time with local government to tear up rules and all the ring fencing and the auditing and actually say to our local councils: 'It's your money, spend it as you choose and get judged in the ballot box by people that you serve'. And while we are at it, it is time to abolish those regional assemblies and pass those powers back to the local councils where the power belongs.

I quite agree. That's why I voted UKIP in 2005, because it was in their manifesto and not yours.

There are huge changes taking place in Europe, the Spanish are cutting corporation tax by 5%, Angela Merkel the Chancellor of Germany who I met recently she is cutting it by 9%. President Sarkozy in France is cutting the top rate income tax to make his economy more competitive.

None of the three leading parties wanting to cut taxes....all of them voting for a harmonised EU tax based for corporation tax...

And look under the bonnet of the British economy and too many things are going in the wrong direction. 20% of the jobs created are created in the public sector; the private sector is becoming smaller as a percentage of our economy.

I'm sure that has something to do with excessive regulation; again, another reason why I vote UKIP...

The decline in manufacturing and manufacturing jobs meaning that we are losing important skills. And I know that business wants to hear from the Conservative Party how we will reduce regulation and reduce taxation to give them more freedom in this new world.

I know that Redwood says he's going to alter the 1972 Act so we don't have to have all of these regulations and directives, but it's bullshit. He can't. It would see us in court in Luxembourg. You can do these things by leaving the EU, of course..although if you grew a backbone you could start planning tax cuts..ooh, about now.

And we heard from Alan Duncan how we will introduce regulatory budgets to cut that regulation and I can tell you that we will get out of the European Social Chapter so we can make those rules in Britain rather than in Brussels.

YOU FUCKING LYING ARSEHOLE!
How dare you slag off Gordon Brown for making promises he knows he can't keep and then do so yourself? We must have told you a million times that it's not possible. The President of the European Commission has told you that it is not possible. So why do you stand up and say it is? We can't even keep governing our own police force without paying fines to the EU and you think they're going to alter the treaty just for you? Are you mad, or just mendacious?
I'm going for a lie down.

And as we share the proceeds of growth between public spending on the one hand and lower taxes on the other hand, we can give business the lower tax regimes that they need. But here's the deal. For business and for us, to make sure we have sustainably lower taxes, we need business to help us to cut the bills of social failure.

Sack the politicians. That should get rid of a bit of the social failure. Is it me, or has the House of Commons turned into a rest home for the mentally disabled?

In this new world of freedom nothing matters more in terms of opportunity and our economy and our future than education. But too many things are not right in education in Britain. Almost 50% of 11 year olds leaving school are not able to read, write or add up properly.

They'd better get a job in politics, then.

Falling down the European leagues in terms of educational performance. 23,000 young people leaving school without any qualifications whatsoever, we are not doing enough to prepare young people for this world of freedom.

How about some level of selection in all schools, so children can learn at the pace which suits them? How about freeing up schools from bureaucracy and paperwork? Stopping them having to meet government targets instead of teaching the children?

The government has got its academy programme. It's a good programme. But I feel that Gordon Brown is putting his foot on the brake when he should be putting his foot on the accelerator and we should be making it easier for these new schools.

No, it's not. It's a vanity programme for rich men.

Ed Balls gave a speech the other day - not the one at the conference that was dreadful - he gave a speech the other day that I could have given myself about standards, about rigour, about discipline - so why isn't it happening?

He's a politician, and hence full of shit?

I don't think they've ever got to grips with the educational establishment, some of whom still think it's wrong to say children have got something wrong, because you'll brand them as failures, who still seem to think that all must win prizes, who still seem to think we have to treat all children the same.

All must have prizes? If you want to get rid of this mentality then it's a step in the right direction.

So we need to be courageous and strong on standards to insist that children are taught using synthetic phonics and they learn to read properly. To be clear that a GNVQ is a great exam but it's not worth four GCSEs.

Generally Not Very Qualified?

One of the aspirations people still have, and rightly so, is the aspiration to own a flat and a home of their own. And all of us, all of the Shadow Cabinet here they can tell the same story of young people who come to our surgeries, they show you their salary, they talk about local house prices and they just say: 'I don't see how I can achieve that dream'. And George showed how we going to cut stamp duty to show that we're on their side and we will help mend the housing ladder and get on their side. This is the party of aspiration and opportunity and George has shown us the way.

Just get rid of stamp duty, stop the HIPS crap and giving houses to lazy buggers. That would be a start.

And just as people want aspiration and opportunity at the beginning of their life so they deserve opportunity and security in retirement. And Gordon Brown's worse legacy will be his destruction of Britain's pension system, and we in this party will never let him forget it.

Good. How can anyone vote for Labour? How? Just how mentally retarded do you have to be to think that these people have done a good job?

POVERTY

Leave the EU, embrace free trade. Cut taxes and regulation and let people work hard and reap the rewards. And stop encouraging lazyitis by letting people sit on the dole and givig young mums council houses. That's enough on that...am not interested in any bleeding heart bullshit about 'euqality' and 'let's all have a cocktail party to raise awareness of the poor folk'.

In states like Wisconsin in America where they've cut benefit roles by 80%, and the changes we will make are these: we will say to people that if you are offered a job and it's a fair job and one that you can do and you refuse it you shouldn't get any welfare.

Well done them. Let's do that here.

You know there is a phenomenon in Britain that's called LATs - that's Living Apart Together and there are 2m people who pretend to live apart because the benefits system pays you more to live apart than live together...Well, as George has set out, we will end the couple's penalty in the benefit system, so we don't penalise couples, we will reward them and yes I believe we should recognise marriage in the tax system as well.

Good.

But I don't just want to give people a tax cut, I want to give people a time increase, time for many families is the most precious commodity of all, time you can spend at home, time to help with the home work, time you can do things in the house and that's why I think it's time not just for these benefit and tax changes I've spoken about but also to say to all employees in all companies with children that you should have the right to ask for flexible working.

Does the employer have the right to refuse? I think they should, if they don't think it's in the best interests of their business. now, they could be wrong, and then they could lose a great employee, but that's up to them, not up to the state.

Ten years on from a government that said "24 hours to save the NHS", billions spent and yet moral is so low, some hospitals still threatened with closure, departments shutting down, productivity so poor in the NHS, what's gone wrong? Again if we don't understand why Labour are failing we won't succeed.

I think it's because the reform has been topped down. Targets imposed from above, endless re-organisation, nine in the last ten years, and an NHS computer costing billions of pounds that many professionals in the NHS can't really tell you what it's for, though they are worried its going to take away patient confidentiality, and I think they've demoralised the staff in the NHS and questioned their professionalism and their vocation.

I think it's because the NHS is the nearest thing to Communism in this country I can possibly think of. And my GP said when he was studying communism at school he couldn't understand it. Now he works in the NHS, he can. Let's have employee based health insurance!

What we've got to do is make the NHS and doctors answerable to the patient and not to the politicians. And the way we'll get a really personalised NHS is make the changes that are necessary. Giving people a real choice of GPs, giving GPs control over their budgets and allowing GPs to choose between whatever hospital they like.

You can do that without being in a national scheme. It's easier, in fact.

I think this country has benefited immeasurably from immigration.

I don't think anyone is saying that some levels of immigration aren't a good thing. What sensible people say is that unlimited immigration is bad. Let's have work permits!

And that's why I think David Davis in that excellent speech yesterday, set out the steps that we need to take. We do need to say that new EU countries should have transitional controls and yes there should be an overall limit on economic migration from non-European countries.

So, when your MEPs voted to let in the poorer countries from Eastern Europe, and they said there wouldn't be a rush of migrants, and attacked UKIP for saying there would be, what was that? Now you want Turkey to join, and know very well that any transitional measures are bullshit, because freedom of movement is enshrined in the Treaties, what's that? More bullshit? And be a man! Stand up and say that because we're in the EU there isn't anything we can do about EU immigration because we've signed up to it. Stop pretending that not letting black people in will make a huge difference. Imposing a colour bar seems like a bit of a racist policy to me.

The first thing to say is that when it comes to these issues, we must never put party before country. I have always believed in the Atlantic Alliance and I have always believed in Britain's independent nuclear deterrent.

Good, but the problem is, I don't trust you. And quite wisely.

And when Labour came forward with plans to replace Trident, I am proud of the fact that we marched our members of Parliament through those division lobbies to make sure that vote was won.

Well Done.

There are things we could do, quite small things, that would make a difference. If you sit in the back of a Hercules at Kandahar air base or Bastion as I have done, you will hear soldiers telling you about some of the smaller things. Why don't we get more contact time with home via telephone and e-mail?

Why can't we have free parcels all year round, not just at Christmas time? Why can't we have the same system as the Americans where your leave starts the moment you step foot on American soil rather than when you actually leave Camp Bastion in the middle of Afghanistan.

Not being sent to an illegal war would be a start. Not signing up to EU military schemes that it seems only the UK contribute to. Not letting the EU break up historical regiments? Paying them properly? Not charging them tax when they are on tour?

...when you are wounded on a battlefield in Helmand one day and you wake up next day in a hospital you want to recuperate with your comrades in arms and that must mean a separate military ward.

So why did the Tories close down military hospitals?

We will give Britain a proper Border Police Force, and we will scrap the pointless ID cards. We will defend important civil liberties like jury trial but we will replace the Human Rights act.

Good! Can you make sure that we don't get any of the fuckers from Guantanamo Bay, though?

Those are all modern Conservative changes for this new world of insecurity. And when it comes to the new threats, we have to face them directly. New threats like terrorism, and new threats like climate change.

See, this is why I don't trust you. Climate Change is not new. If the climate didn't change, we wouldn't be here. Moreover, whatever you say about polar ice caps, I don't see it as a reason for you lot to tax us to buggery. I don't see how me flying somewhere is going to kill a polar bear. I don't see how arbitrary targest from the EU which we can't meet are going to do anything. I don't see why we all don't get nuclear power and in the mean time use cleaner coal fired energy. And let's invest in new technologies, but properly invest.

This is a clear and present danger to our country. Some people say it is not popular to talk about green issues. I don't care. It's right and it falls to this generation to deal with this issue.

I don't agree. I think you're just doing it to appear modern and you want another reason not to have to cut taxes.

And how will we be able to encourage China to act unless we act here at home?

I shouldn't have thought China gave two fucks, really.

And again the old politics is failing. Carbon emissions are up under this government. Green taxes as a share of total taxes are down. And we are failing to give people proper incentives.

Green taxes are regressive. That

But undoubtedly the biggest threat that people face in this country is the crime on their streets.

Be nice if we could kick 'em all out, eh? Or if they're foreigners with a criminal record, not let them in?

Our prime minister has said that our society isn't broken but when you think of 20 children shot dead on the streets of London, when you think of gun crime doubled, violent crime doubled, a boy on a bike shooting Rhys Jones.....I wonder what society the prime minister is living in?

The Westminster bubble, I should have thought. Along with the rest of you. Build some more prisons, you twats!

But let us resolve right here, that we will not pursue the old politics. No more Downing Street summits, get together a packet of measures for the 6 o'clock News, brief them out and then while everyone has reported them they never actually happen and everyone moves onto the next thing. That is not what this party is going to do.

I am just thinking about all that shite when Redwood released his policy proposals. They aren't going to happen, but you loved it up with the media, didn't you!

Well, that's it.

Thank god for that.

Giving people more power and control over their lives.

But not really, as I don't want to leave the EU and therefore I want unaccountability and a democratic deficit, and I don't want to cut taxes which gives people real control.

You can have a raspberry too. I don't like you or your politics. You're better than that knob Gordon Brown but I'm not going to vote for you or your pals because I don't trust you and you simply refuse to address the issues that matter to me. And Don't bother with your 'vote UKIP, get Gordon' shite. No, I won't. And to be honest, if Gordon is in power things will get bad enough for the British people to care about it and make a change. And voting Tory is not a change. It's just the same shit in a different coloured box.

This country has become a joke!

Thank you to Paul for providing me with this one...

The Squirrel and the Grasshopper.

The Normal Version

The squirrel works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building
and improving his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks he's a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the squirrel is warm and well fed. The shivering grasshopper
has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

THE END


The British Version

The squirrel works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building
his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks he's a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the squirrel is warm and well fed. A social worker finds the shivering
grasshopper, calls a press conference and demands to know why the squirrel
should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others less fortunate, like the grasshopper, are cold and starving.

The BBC shows up to provide live coverage of the shivering grasshopper; with cuts to a video of the squirrel in his comfortable warm home with
a table laden with food. The British press informs people that they should be ashamed that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is
allowed to suffer so while others have plenty.

The Labour Party, Greenpeace, Animal Rights and The Grasshopper Council of GB demonstrate in front of the squirrel's house.

The BBC, interrupting a cultural festival special from Notting Hill with breaking news, broadcasts a multi cultural choir singing "We Shall Overcome". Ken Livingstone rants in an interview with Trevor McDonald that the squirrel has gotten rich off the backs of grasshoppers, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the squirrel to make him pay his "fair share" and increases the charge for squirrels to enter inner London.

In response to pressure from the media, the Government drafts the Economic Equity and Grasshopper Anti Discrimination Act, retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The squirrel's taxes are reassessed. He is taken to court and fined for failing to hire grasshoppers as builders for the work he was doing on his home and an additional fine for contempt when he told the court the grasshopper did not want to work. The grasshopper is provided with a council house, financial aid to furnish it and an account with a local taxi firm to ensure he can be socially mobile.

The squirrel's food is seized and redistributed to the more needy members of society, in this case the grasshopper. Without enough money to buy more food, to pay the fine and his newly imposed retroactive taxes, the squirrel has to downsize and start building a new home. The local authority takes over his old home and utilises it
as a temporary home for asylum seeking cats who had hijacked a plane to get to Britain as they had to share their country of origin with mice. On
arrival they tried to blow up the airport because of Britain's apparent love of dogs.

The cats had been arrested for the international offence of hijacking and attempt bombing but were immediately released because the police fed
them pilchards instead of salmon whilst in custody. Initial moves to then return them to their own country were abandoned because it was feared they would face death by the mice. The cats devise and start a scam to obtain money from peoples credit cards.

A Panorama special shows the grasshopper finishing up the last of the squirrel's food, though spring is still months away, while the council house he is in, crumbles around him because he hasn't bothered to maintain the house. He is shown to be taking drugs. Inadequate government funding is blamed for the grasshopper's drug 'illness'.

The cats seek recompense in the British courts for their treatment since arrival in UK.

The grasshopper gets arrested for stabbing an old dog during a burglary to get money for his drugs habit. He is imprisoned but released immediately because he has been in custody for a few weeks. He is placed in the care of the probation service to monitor and supervise him.

Within a few weeks he has killed a guinea pig in a botched robbery. A commission of enquiry, that will eventually cost £10,000,000 and state the obvious, is set up.
Additional money is put into funding a drug rehabilitation scheme for grasshoppers and legal aid for lawyers representing asylum seekers is increased.

The asylum seeking cats are praised by the government for enriching Britain's multicultural diversity and dogs are criticised by the government for failing to befriend the cats.

The grasshopper dies of a drug overdose. The usual sections of the press blame it on the obvious failure of government to address the root causes of despair arising from social inequity and his traumatic experience of prison. They call for the resignation of a minister.

The cats are paid a million pounds each because their rights were infringed when the government failed to inform them there were mice in the United Kingdom.

The squirrel, the dogs and the victims of the hijacking, the bombing, the burglaries and robberies have to pay an additional percentage on their credit cards to cover losses, their taxes are increased to pay for law and order and they are told that they will have to work beyond 65 because of a shortfall in government funds.

THE END

liar, liar, pants on fire

After I wrote the piece about Brown, I thought I'd send him an e-mail about one of the issues, which I duly did:

Dear Prime Minister,

I was very interested to hear in your speech to the Labour Party Conference that 'any newcomer to Britain who is caught selling drugs or using guns will be thrown out. No-one who sells drugs to our children or uses guns has the right to stay in our country. '

I am slightly confused as to how you would do this, given that for anyone coming to this country from an EU member state, directive 2004/58/EC states that:

2. Measures taken on grounds of public policy or public security shall comply with the principle of proportionality and shall be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned. Previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for taking such measures.

How could you then ensure that drug dealers and people who use guns and are from an EU country are thrown out when it breaks EU law, which according to a House of Lords ruling (the Factortame case, I believe) EU law is supreme to UK law?

I look forward to hearing from you, and hope you have fun at PMQs tomorrow - which is at least entertaining to watch.

Yours sincerely

Trixy

Well, I have since discovered that the question was asked in Grawp's press conference today and the Prime Minister said it wasn't true.

The Prime Minister lied to the lobby press, whilst they weren sitting there in front of him. I had a look at PA to see if the transcript was up there but I can't find it, so it probably won't be considered a big story.

The Prime Minister i.e the Top servant of the people (am teaching myself Latin)thinks that's it's okay to lie to people. To stand up in front of the world and lie.

And it's not a story. What does that fucking tell you?

I'm sick of this country. I just want to get out of it before Brown returns it to the land it used to be: a barren wasteland.

Conference speech roundup

Am going to do a wee summary of the points in the Lib Lab Con's leader's speech which irritated me the most. I'll start off with Brown.

And when the terrorists tried to attack Scotland's biggest airport, they were answered by the courage of the police and firefighters and a baggage handler named John Smeaton. He came to the aid of a policeman under assault from one of the terrorists.
Later John told me it was instinctive, he was doing what was right.
That man, that hero John Smeaton is here with us today and on behalf of our country - John, we thank you.

And yet only a few days before a young boy had drowned in a lake because these pretend police officers weren't trained enough to rescue him. Just as well we didn't have officials at Glasgow airport, eh, rather than some sensible member of the public...

It was in these early weeks, in the wake of the worst flooding in almost 150 years, in county after county, we saw British people pull on their boots and pull out their boats to rescue neighbours and strangers.

And together they went to work to clean up the streets, sweep out the shops and reopen the schools. Long after the waters have receded the memory of their quiet strength remains.

It's just a shame that you cut the flood defence budget, eh? Then perhaps they wouldn't have had to have suffered so much after all. And more on that tomorrow...

But as a teenager I saw close friends of mine who might have gone to college or an apprenticeship or to university who never did.

And now, presumably, you see even more after this stupid, dangerous government decided on some arbitrary 50% target for higher education and introduced not only fees, but also top up fees! Well done! And now it's those very people you sought to get into education who aren't, and the dumb hoorays who are. Lovely.

So what first made me want to do something in public service?

The private sector wouldn't have you?

I don't recall all the sermons my father preached Sunday after Sunday.

In much the same way as I try to block out the preaching at us you seem very fond of.

I am a conviction politician

I wish you were a convicted politician

I stand for a Britain where everyone should rise as far as their talents can take them and then the talents of each of us should contribute to the well being of all.
I stand for a Britain where all families who work hard can build a better life for themselves and their children.

After I've taxed to to buggery

I stand for a Britain where every young person who has it in them to study at college or university should not be prevented by money from doing so.

But I still think that stupid targets, loans and fees are a jolly good idea so I can use your money to waste on projects, throw at the EU and prop up anti democratic countries across the globe.

Today in education, private schools offer one to one tuition. But why shouldn't all pupils and not just some benefit from extra personal help?

It's normally because the parents of children who go to private schools pay huge fees to do so as well as paying for state education in their taxes...

We have lifted 600,000 children out of poverty. We are doubling child benefits. We have trebled maternity allowances. And 6 million families now benefit from the Child Tax Credit.

So they pay tax and then you give them some of it back, minus the admin fees? Brilliant! Why don't you just raise the personal allowance so they don't have to go through that farce, and the likes me you and I don't have to pay for it.

And I pay tribute to our Deputy Leader Harriet Harman who by her campaigning work is pioneering this cause of equality. No discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, age, or faith. And no discrimination against the disabled.

It was actually the EU who brought in this harmful legislation which has cost businesses billions of pounds. And the anti disability legislation means that where I live, they are not allowed to build a footbridge over the river Thames because it will break EU law as disabled people won't be able to use it. So we can all suffer.

And in Britain where once there were three million unemployed, there are today more men and women in jobs than ever in our history - for the first time over 29 million people in work.

So has unemployment actually gone down, or are there more people in work but the same number of people on the dole because you let the work they should be doing to be done by immigrant workers and yet pay them to sit on their fat, lazy arses? The number of people in work is not the same as the number of unemployed, because it's not cetiris paribus, my dear fellow. Not everyone is as bad at economics as you are.

I've met too many young couples who've told me - we work hard, we save, we play by the rules, we want to get on and yet we can't afford to buy or even rent our first home.

So we plan to help first time buyers and we will increase house-building to 240,000 new homes a year - in places and ways that respect our green spaces and the environment. My aim by 2010 two million more homeowners than in 1997.

And for the first time in nearly half a century we will show the imagination to build new towns - eco-towns with low and zero carbon homes. And today because of the response we have received we are announcing that instead of just 5 new eco towns, we will now aim for ten eco towns - building thousands of new homes in every region of the country.

And for affordable housing and for social housing we will now invest £8 billion. This will mean a 50 per cent increase in funds for social housing.

We don' want social, eco, lego brick with a pit outside for poo house! We want less tax so we can save more and we want you to stop spending our money giving houses to tramps who get knocked up at seven and never have a job in the whole of their lives, and also stop giving houses to asylum seekers who travel through plenty of 'safe' countries to get here. Especially the ones who live in those gorgeous houses with sash windows just off the Chelsea embankment. NOT FAIR, NOT RIGHT.

That is why we took the right decision to ban handguns. And now we need to deal with the illegal supply of guns.

But my dear fellow! Your government and civil service has no idea how many small arms / light weapons are in the country! You don't even know which desk to send it to in the civil service so my FoI request can get answered!

In July I announced a new unified border force. And already the first elements are in place - a stronger uniformed presence at ports, customs officers targeting illegal immigration, stronger security checks at passport control, by next year ID cards for foreign nationals and we will start to count people in and out.

Although not at ports between EU countries. Nice.

And we will move forward with our new Australian-style points-based approach to immigration. So Britain will continue to benefit from skilled workers from abroad and they will understand their responsibilities to earn the right to settle in Britain.

But not for the 460 million people in the EU who have a right of free movement and can stay here for 3 months without registering, and if they are self employed, don't have to? Or the potential 71 million from Turkey, or the ones from the Ukraine, Moldova, Croatia...who are in line to join the UE?

But let me be clear any newcomer to Britain who is caught selling drugs or using guns will be thrown out. No-one who sells drugs to our children or uses guns has the right to stay in our country.

Ooooh, what's that burning smell? Could it be your pants on fire, you big far liar?
You can't throw someone who is from the EU out for breaking the law, just as you can't stop them coming in in the first place. It's all here in the EU directive which you EU gang bangers love so much.

One question - when are you going to stop lying to us?

And let me say: we in Britain cannot be good stewards of the environment unless we are good internationalists and that means being good Europeans too.

Like having two EU parliaments that we have to travel between once a month? Like the EU just invented a target of 20% renewable energy by 2020 even though they are nowhere near making the previous targets?
It's not true that there is no debate on whether climate change is man made. I don't see how it could be, but of course The Devil is much better at these things that I am, mainly because he has more patience than I...

At all times we will stand up for the British national interest.

And I accept my responsibility to write in detail into the amended European Treaty the red lines we have negotiated for Britain.

And whether it's environmental, economic or security cooperation, we will hold fast to the partnerships with our closest ally America, our membership of the European Union, the Commonwealth and our commitment to the United Nations.

You...argh! How fucking dare you! It's a con! A cosmetic addition to avoid a referendum cooked up by you and the EU and the Dutch who also don't want a referendum, and as I mentioned before, your Europe Minister went over to meet them to discuss how to avoid a referendum! Even TEBAF Margot said to the European Parliament that the Red Lines weren't liable to stand up to anything stronger than a Lib Dem put down...

So this is my pledge to the British people:

I will not let you down.

I will stand up for our schools and our hospitals.

I will stand up for British values.

I will stand up for a strong Britain.

And I will always stand up for you

Oh, bugger off you sanctimonious, untrustworthy little shit. The only thing you stand for is election. *blows raspberry*

What a big porky pie!

Alas, dear readers, the website for the Council of Ministers has crashed and so I can't send you a working link to the text for the EU Consitution.

However, because I'm a helpful and friendly young lady, I can tell you a couple of interesting points about it.

Shoved away amongst 76 pages of protocols (after the 2 page preamble and the 250 pages of treaty text) are two very interesting little clauses:

Protocol 10 Article 10 (4) the EU by Qualified Majority Vote can force the UK to pay financial penalties for the opt out.

The opt out, by the way, is a five year derogation from the UK having to accept EU rulings on Justice and Home Affairs. But here's the 'science bit' as those folks at L'oreal would say: it's only a delay of five years for the laws which are made before the Treaty comes into being, expected around 1st January 2009 - because let's face it, they aren't going to let something like democracy stand in the way of their plans. So we'll just be 3 years late in amalgamating these laws into our statute book, and then we'll have to do them all at once.

Unless, unless...

we pay them MORE money! They don't get enough from the tax payer to waste on their stupid, harmful and nonsensical laws and trips for cankers like Lady Kinnock to go on jolly holidays to the Carribean to understand poverty. Oh no.

It gets better. According to a new article, 4a (2) in the Protocols, they have included this lovely little snippet which says that the Council of Ministers (yes, those foreign chappies who you don't have any say in electing and no say in removing)can decide by QMV to put pressure on the UK to sign up to the whole shebang and let the EU take control of our legal system.

Bye bye habeas corpus! Hello corpus juris. Bye bye Juries! Hello being thrown in jail and not being formally charged.

Don't you just love 'em?

(it was bust earlier, but now it might be available

poll results just in

My spies tell me that an ICM poll appearing tomorrow in the Guardian shows Labour's lead down to 1%, with others such as yes gov saying 4%.

Clearly, the excellent performance by Cameron (even though his speech had little substance and clearly was practised again and again - but credit where credit is due) has won over the swing voters. I wonder, giving these results, if Gordon will be so keen to call a snap election. Does someone who has spent his whole life waiting to be Prime Minister want to risk it so early on? I wouldn't. But then, I'm not a one eyed, two faced morally perfect, economically retarded knob.

Anyway, I hope there isn't an election. Give us a referendum instead, you selfish fucker. Let us have a choice over something that matters, rather than the last 25% of how we're governed...

My colleague asked me to put the Tory conference on, so I switched the TV on and just sort of left it. After 5 minutes he turned around and said 'are you sure this is the Tory conference, Trixy?'

I looked. It was Postman Pat.

Well, easy mistake to make!

It's not so great really....

The reaction could have been compared to the congregation at a South London church when Jesus is mentioned. £1 million? They gasped? Praise be to the Holy Man Osborne who has come to deliver us from the opposition benches!

Well, looking at it, I'm not so sure why it's so amazing. The Tories aren't actually going to cut the overall tax burden but simply shift it onto something else. And it's not really that generous, either. If you look at the sums, it's only £3.1 bn to raise the threshold up to £1 million for Inheritance Tax, out of a total government spend of some £580 billion. That's not even 1%. It's pathetic, really. They probably loose that in a year from staff pinching paper clips.

Now, before people start jumping up and down at me saying I'm just attacking the Tories, I will make clear that it's miles better than anything the other two have come up with. Darling's response to Osborne was rather juvenile and, well, wrong, saying they hadn't done their sums properly and that there would be a deficit for the government.

So what?

Why is there this culture of thinking that the government is the best person to spend our wages for us? I can tell you straight, no one can spend money quite like I can, and I'd rather shoes and lovely dinners than some pointless computer system and child benefit for children who don't even live in the country.

So Osborne should have turned around to Darling and gone - even if the Non-Dom taxes don't quite cover it, it's not a problem. Much better is getting millions of people out of the hideous trap of having to sell the family home to pay for the next hair-brained scheme of our government, especially when so many young people can't get on the property ladder and so many others are in debt. Which is what that one-eyed bastard Prime Minister did when he was Chancellor. He probably takes money off carol singers when they come round collecting at Christmas.

UKIP, of course, want to scrap IHT altogether, and jolly well done I say.

Inheritance Tax is also currently charged at 40% on estates above £285,000 but, with increasing values of houses, more families with modest wealth are now becoming liable for IHT. As a result, there have been many justifiable calls for raising the threshold to, say, £500,000 or £1 million. There have also been suggestions to replace IHT with some form of wealth tax.

However, the small amount of IHT that is actually colelcted (£3.2bn per year) is evidence of the extent to which this tax is avoided by higher wealth individuals who can afford to pay for tax planning. Given this low yield, and since IHT is poorly directed and expensive to collect, UKIP's simple solution is to abolish it altogether with immediate effect.

People are already taxed on their earnings, and when they buy stuff, and smoke stuff, and do anything and go anywhere and when they earn money from shares and keep money in savings. So quite why people should be taxed again when they've actually managed to get enough money together after tax to buy a house and want to pass it on to their children is sickening. Bleugh. I don't see why other parties don't do it, but of course they are tied to this idea that to cut taxes and government spending is a bad thing when in fact anyone with a memory of 20 years back, or the capacity to read the newspapers or books will realise that cutting taxes is expansionary fiscal policy and thus causes an upturn in the economic cycle and thus more money for everyone! Yippee!

Praying on grieving families..I've just had a thought. Perhaps the reason the NHS is so shit is because politicians want people to die so they can get more money from the death duties? It would explain a lot.

Am genius, me. With great shoes. (have bought new ones. Grey suede mary-janes. lovely.

Some advice

It's not just shoes Ol' Trixy is good at. I also have a knack for all things accessories, which is why I have a huge collection of scarves, gloves, hats and jewellery designed to brighten up and update any outfit.

So I thought I would pass on some of my knowledge and experience on to you, my readers, in case you fell foul of a particularly nasty trick the fashion world is playing on you chaps.

I walked past Zara yesterday and the male mannequin was wearing a flat cap. They are selling flat caps, implying that if you want to be trendy, you should get one.

My advice: don't.

That is all.

The thought police are here

From Eliab, I hear an astonishing tale of the thought police in Blackpool where they have a Tory controlled council for the first time in 20 years...

3.9.3 Smoking
The licensing authority recognises that premises licence holders who do not comply with the prohibition on smoking in enclosed public places will be dealt with under the relevant legislation, and ordinarily will not be brought to its attention through the review process. Premises licence holders however, who persistently fail to comply with the legislation, and/or positively promote non-compliance should be brought before the panel on review and can expect that suspension or revocation of the licence would be the normal course of action.

Er, hello? Since when did not liking a law mean that you are breaking the law? I am in UKIP and I oppose the 1972 European Communities Act and the Maastricy Treaty, does that mean I am guilty of something?
As Eliab says:

id the people of Blackpool realise that they voted for a man whose political compass points to a Mugabean regard for the rule of Law? When the Tories rock up in Blackpool next week, will they feel just a little ashamed? I doubt it.

Let's all write to the fat fuck who wrote this piece of draconian, anti-democratic shit at cllr.henry.mitchell@blackpool.gov.uk

Wankers.