Monday, April 30, 2007

Why vote UKIP?

I notice that Jackart is wondering why people vote UKIP

I am bored of commentators and bloggers lazily trotting out the line that "the boy Dave is just another Tony Blair and we might as well go and vote UKIP", just because he refuses to promise Tax-cuts, and has worked out that making people like you makes them more likely to vote for you. The Line that "Europe makes most of our laws ERGO Westminster is irrelevant therefore we must vote UKIP" is just as dull. This is just as silly as "It's all about oil". Any comment using the phrase "Blu Labour" will be deleted - it's pathetic.

I don't think that many commentators do. I for one like to scatter facts throughout my arguments of why I will not be voting for David Cameron and instead will be giving my support to UKIP.
I also question if it is indeed the work of 'Dave' which has put the Tories up in the polls, or the complete failure of our Labour government. The Tories aren't in the magic 40% target in the polls, despite many efforts by Cameron to use 'Words that Work'. Like 'Blue Labour'.
There is more to policy than tax-cuts and Europe, and no-one can get everything they want out of a Party, if they're prepared make the compromises necessary to be part of a Governing movement.

Yes, to a point. But bearing in mind that the EU make 75% of our laws, including our international trade policy, transport policy, are interfering in health and education, control immigration, whether or not we can deport foreign criminals, are trying to bankrupt the City of London, employment legislation including how many hours a week someone can work, and are even having an effect on how often rubbish is collected, then I suspect that some people would class it as a 'big' issue. And tax is also another vital issue, because fiscal policy is effective, especially on a microeconomic level. And Government doesn't work unless people pay tax into the coffers for their public services.
If you're prepared to look like ridiculous lefties (revolutionary Trotskyite alliance, Socialist Peoples' party, Communist Party of Great Britain, Socialist Workers party etc... ad infinitum) each with their own religious belief in their solution to societies ills, then go ahead. Stick to your principles to the letter. Or you can grow up.

Yes, this comment did rather confuse me. Why on earth would I not want to vote for a party which represented my views? How does wanting the people who make the decisions governing the way that I and my friends and family live be accountable to the very same in any way extreme? And more to the point, how is that 'leftie'? Whilst I understand the author is of the political right, surely hurling around insults should be a little more accurate?
Dave is not the same as Tony.
Although I notice that you are calling them both 'Dave' and 'Tony' as they both decided to alter what they were known as to appeal more broadly to the masses. Anyway, I'll just pop this amusing little link in to this section

Yes he's a moderate - radical reformers do not do well when everyone's doing basically OK (by basically OK, I mean "Has a job"), but his instincts are against state intervention, and pro individual responsibility.

But people aren't doing well. People are monumentally pissed off, which is why voter turnout is down, minority parties are getting more votes and, importantly, huge numbers of British people are leaving because they are sick of the way the country is being run, and the direction is being taken in. Cameron has not reached the magic 40% in the polls, which, with this government, he really should be doing.

He will cut taxes, eventually (Thatcher took her time too).

How do you know that? The Shadow Chancellor has made it perfectly evident that he doesn't get the link between expansionary fiscal policy and economic growth. They think that the state can spend money better than the people who earn it, and they don't want to cut funding on public services, despite it being perfectly evident that chucking money at the problem really doesn't work. Also, Cameron has broken the only policy he ever made when he was running to be leader; namely to withdraw his MEPs from the federalist EPP group in the European Parliament.

He will reduce regulation, a bit. He will be better at standing up to Brussels than Tony. Individual policies may not be much cop, but add them up and there's a world of difference between Cameron and his party and the largely unreconstructed Dave and Dierdrie Sparts led by a power-grubbing one-eyed thief and a spivvy ambulance-chasing lawyer who currently "govern" us.

He will find it very difficult, given that at least 70% of Britain's regulatory burden comes shrink wrapped from Brussels, where we only have a 1 in 27 vote at the Council of Ministers, 78 MEPs out of 785 and in an organisation where the European Commission propose the laws. Given the last attempt to deregulate by the European Union, I suspect this is just another red herring. There was an immense amount of publicity surrounding the claims by Siim Kallas that the Commission were going to scrap 56 regulations and directives. In actual fact, about half were defunct, because they referred to enlargement countries that were now part of the EU. At least 10 have been challenged in the court by the relevant head of the DGs, leaving a few small directives that, rather than being abolished, have been amended to existing regulations. And then you have the Sir Humphrey's of this world.

We've had one day shy of 10 years of this nonsense and it's time for it to end. The local government elections are an opportunity to thrust a knife into Blair, Brown and all the other bastards who have comprehensively ruined this country's once elegant constitution and once powerful economy.
We;ve had 1 day shy of ten years of a Labour government, and this Thursday is the local elections and the Welsh and Scottish Elections. Of the latter two, isn't it interesting that the Conservative Party have decided that the extra layer of bureaucracy in these Euro-Regions is now rather a good thing, now that they can get more money from it, even though it's a blatant example of regionalisation, which the Tories say they oppose.

If you're right of centre, and you want a new government, vote Conservative on Thursday.
Well, not really. Because this Thursday is the voting on local elections, and you decide a government in a General Election.

If you're a swivel-eyed monomaniac with adolescent fantasies of self-importance, vote UKIP especially if you want 5 years of Gordon Brown (hey, at least he's Eurosceptic). If there's no UKIP standing, you can always vote BNP.
I am sure that Timothy Congdon, former 'Wise Man' in the Treasury in the 1980s would be delighted at you calling him such names. As would Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who was given a life peerage by the Conservatives, and is chairman of the Pearson Webb Springbett (PWS) Group of reinsurance brokers, which he founded in 1964. Or, indeed, Lord Willoughby de Broke. Since 1992, Lord Willoughby de Broke has been governor of the Royal Shakespeare Theatre and since 2002 president of the Warwickshire branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE). He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts (FRSA) and of the Royal Geographical Society (FRGS).

And here is a small list of why I will always be voting UKIP, which was a reply to a post similar to Mr J's by Caroline Hunt, once again wondering why people voted UKIP:

I don't want another Labour government. I want a UKIP government. And if I can't have that, I at least want UKIP MPs. I'm not going to get that by not voting for them, am I?

If you can't understand why people would vote UKIP then it may be time to compare their manifesto with that of the Tory party.

I, for example, vote UKIP because firstly I want the UK to withdraw from the EU and replace membership with a free trade agreement. Once we have control of our own trade policy we can, either multilaterally, bilaterally or unilaterally embrace free trade. This has the benefits of increasing global parity.

I also understand that the way to stimulate economic growth is to cut taxes, as an increased marginal propensity to consume and invest increases the money multiplier. This is NOT the policy of the Conservatives, who seem to have abandoned any logical economic policy, and who also want to keep state spending at this unsustainable and damaging level.

I also believe in selection for schools and think that the reintroduction of grammar schools and support for existing grammar schools is vital for improving education in this country. I think that Head teachers should be freed up from being controlled by the government and should have control of their own school. This is not the policy of the Conservatives.

I don't think that environmental taxes are necessary. Indeed, I think they are a convenient way for our Westminster politicians to raise taxes without any political opposition from within Parliament. I certainly don't think that we should be so preoccupied with an unproven theory, which this fandango with climate change is.

I think we should have nuclear power. I think we should build more prisons.

As for Helmer and Hannan. Well, the fact that Helmer was thrown out of the EPP for doing what he was elected to do is illustrative of the true feelings in the Tory party towards anyone with EUsceptic leanings.

Helmer was given the whip back after he wrote a letter to Cameron saying he would join UKIP unless the whip was restored, so clearly he thinks that there is a reason to vote UKIP.

People vote UKIP because they represent the views of many, many people. And as it is their democratic right to vote for who they wish to, why should they not vote for a party which represents their views? It's not a case of only being able to vote for Tories or Labour. I actually think that Gordon Brown is more EUsceptic than David Cameron, and having heard him address the European Parliament Economic and Monetary Affairs committee, I certainly heard more statements from him to convince me of that than I ever heard or saw in 2 years of following that committee and seeing the true beliefs of the Tory MEPs on that committee.

As a last point Caroline, what do you think about the Tory MEPs helping to fund the 'yes' propaganda for the EU Constitution? Because they did....

Your comment that UKIP cannot and will not win seats in Westminster is rather confusing. Do you know something you're not letting on? Are all UKIP votes going to be destroyed? Is there a ban on UKIP entering Parliament? Or are you just copying rhetoric from your leadership who don't exactly have a perfect record when it comes to speaking honestly about any matters linked with the EU.

Withdrawing from the CFP and Social Chapter, anyone?

Sunday, April 29, 2007

Going a little too far?

Whilst I do enjoy laughing at Liberal Democrats, reading further into this story from The Times, Trixy became a wee bit irritated:

The leader of the Liberal Democrats in Darlington has been suspended from the party after backing a British National Party candidate in next month's local elections.

Party leaders could not explain why Steve Jones signed the nomination papers of Dave Brown, the BNP candidate for the North Road ward in the town, but admitted that it was an "error of judgment".

After an emergency meeting of local party officers, Mr Jones agreed to resign as leader. He was then suspended from the party pending an investigation, and will no longer be defending his seat in the elections on May 3. It is too late to find a replacement, so the Liberal Democrats have given up one of only three seats which they had in the town.

Well, it's okay so far. What goes around, comes around and all that. This is the party who caused a huge lot of bother for Councillor Ellie Bland when her husband forwarded an e-mail which was, I think, rather amusing, and accused her of being a 'racist'.

Seems to me that this chap up here just made a mistake. He didn't realise that he was signing the form of a neo-nazi but someone who was standing as an independent which was silly admittedly, but hardly a hanging offence. I should imagine that if this chap hadn't done it, then someone else would have, because the BNP does have support in this country, mainly due to the disastrous situation we are in with immigration. (Because of the EU, of course.)

The bit which really wound me up and caused something of a squeak, much to the chagrin of the person sitting next to me who was trying to work, was this:

Francis Maude, the chairman of the Conservative Party, called for Mr Jones to be forced out of the party altogether, rather than merely temporarily suspended.

Did he, now. Is he calling for the same thing to happen to the Conservative association chairman of their Sevenoaks branch, who sacked someone because she had breast cancer? When the BBC tried to get someone from the Spineless Conservative Party, they refused to talk about it. Sort out your own house in future, Mr Maude, rather than slinging round insults which make you look like a hypocritical idiot. Which in fairness, I suppose, is true. Signing the piece of paper of the friend of your wife is not even in the same league as deliberately trying to ruin the life of someone suffering from a terminal illness. But then that's the Conservative Party all over: all mouth and no trousers. They don't have any policies of their own, so they go around attacking other people and undertaking cheap publicity stunts.

I will end on a less 'friendly to the Lib Dems' note and relate a joke from my old Tory Party days;

There's a Lib Dem and a Labourite standing on the edge of a cliff. Which one do you push first?

The Labourite: Business before pleasure....

Friday, April 27, 2007

First one to 12 points wins

Thank you to my lovely housemate for e-mailing me this list to further distract me away from my work...


One Point Dares
1.Ignore the first five people who say 'good morning' to you.
2.To signal the end of a conversation, clamp your hands over your ears and grimace.
3. Leave your fly open for one hour. If anyone points it out, say,"Sorry, I really prefer it this way".
4. Walk sideways to the photocopier.
5. While riding in an elevator, gasp dramatically every time the doors open.
6.When in elevator with one other person, tap them on the shoulder and pretend it wasn't you.
7. Finish all your sentences with "In accordance with the prophecy..."
8. Don't use any punctuation.
9. Interrupt your conversation with someone by giving a huge dejected sigh. 10. Use your highlighter pen on the computer screen.

Three Point Dares
1. Say to your boss, "I like your style", wink, and shoot him with double-barrelled fingers.
2. Kneel in front of the water cooler and drink directly from the nozzle.
3. Shout random numbers while someone is counting.
4. Every time you get an email, shout ''email''.
5. Put decaf in the coffee maker for 3 weeks. Once everyone has got over his or her caffeine addictions, switch to espresso.
6. Keep hole punching your finger. Each time you do, shout, "damnit,it's happened again!". Then do it again.
7. Introduce yourself to a new colleague as "the office bicycle". Then wink and pout.
8. Call I.T. helpdesk and tell them that you can't seem to access any p*rnography web sites.

Five Point Dares
1. At the end of a meeting, suggest that, for once, it would be nice to conclude with the singing of the national anthem (extra points if you actually launch into it yourself).
2. Walk into a very busy person's office and while they watch you with growing irritation, turn the light switch on/off 10 times.
3. For an hour, refer to everyone you speak to as "Dave".
4. Announce to everyone in a meeting that you "really have to go do a number two".
5. When you've picked up a call, before speaking finish off some fake conversation with the words, ''she can abort it for all I care''.
6. After every sentence, say 'Mon' in a really bad Jamaican accent. As in: "The report's on your desk, Mon." Keep this up for one hour.
7. In a meeting or crowded situation, slap your forehead repeatedly and mutter, "Shut up, damn it, all of you just shut up!"
8. At lunchtime, get down on your knees and announce, "As God is my witness, I'll never go hungry again!"
9. Repeat the following conversation 10 times to the same person: "Do you hear that?" "What?" "Never mind, it's gone now."
10. Present meeting attendees with a cup of coffee and biscuit; smash each biscuit with your fist.
11. During the course of a meeting, slowly edge your chair towards the door.
12. As often as possible, skip rather than walk.
13. Ask people what sex they are. Laugh hysterically after they answer.
14. Sign or pp all letters with your initials and a swastika.
15. Dry hump the photocopier. When someone spots you, stop and cough embarrassingly, then lean in to the machine and whisper loudly, "I'll see you tonight"

Yes another one

A little bird has told me about a certain Tory MEP who has a reputation of being eurosceptic saying something quite different from that reputation.

Conservative MEP for the South East region Nirj Deva was at a dinner the other evening making a speech about how we can all make the EU 'the leading knowledge based economy in the world.'

'ello, 'ello...what about the UK as an economy, or have we all gone into Euroland without realising? And even the Commission wouldn't be so dumb as to think that the EU could be so successful. One of their high profile attempts to make the EU in any way efficient and business friendly, the Lisbon Agenda, has been such a failure they keep on having to relaunch it: which is as close as you get to an admission of failure in the EU.

Not only that, but the poor chap seems to think that the partnership agreement between the EU and India is a good thing. He appears to be conveniently ignoring the fact that we as a country should be having our own trade policy and is rather keen on Peter Mandelson being in control.

I would have thought that it would have been better for the UK to lead the way with trade agreements with India. After all, they are a former colony and are ideal partners for us in global trading. As the third largest trading nation we should be fully embracing free trade with the anglosphere and ACP countries as soon as we possibly can, and when the rest of the world catches up with this rather jolly idea which increases global parity, they can jump on board too.

Let's not get tied down with bureaucracy and the economically illiterate, because no one will benefit: indeed, everyone will suffer.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Brown admits he shouldn't be chancellor

From The Sun:

“I did maths at school and for one year at university.
“I don’t think I was ever very good at it — and some people would say it shows.”

Yes, Gordon, it does. Not just your lack of mathematical ability, but also your inability to grasp even basic economics. Let's look at the fiasco over our gold reserves, shall we?

whilst these normal folk can grasp supply and demand, our Chancellor of the Exchequer is still learning from the Fisher PriceTM easy learning guide to buying and selling.

Just in case you’re a little short of time, Gordon, let me summarise the basics for you. Firstly, gold, however much politicians like it or not, will always be purchased, especially in times of uncertainty and instability. Secondly, the price of gold goes up and down depending on demand and supply. The idea is to buy when cheap and sell when the price is high. This is one way of getting some cash in your coffers and it doesn’t include taxing people to buggery.

Thirdly, if you announce when the price of gold is already low that you are going to sell 60% of the United Kingdom’s gold reserves, it’s going to mean yet more people will sell ahead of the inevitable drop in price once a large amount of gold is sold back onto the market. Once they’ve sold theirs, the price drops even more! And here’s the golden (excuse the pun) rule: once you’ve announced you’re going to sell, don’t then wait a few weeks and sell gold which essentially belongs to more people than just you at a 20-year-low. But hey, you’re the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I’m just a girl with a few letters after her name: there’s no way you’d ever make that mistake! I mean, if you had waited just a few years, then you could have raised ₤4bn which would have gone down nicely at a time when the tax burden has risen from 39.3% of income in 1997 to 42.4% right now.

It came on the day that the Governor of the Bank of England warned of an economic slowdown (well, interest rates have been rising for some time to try to halt the growth in borrowing) and research showed that the UK has the most complicated tax system in the world.

I'll take the last point first. It's very simple, vote UKIP and you get a flat tax system. There. That was easy.

Yes, we do have a culture of borrowing. But is that so surprising when for a huge number of 18 year olds, the government is telling them that it's okay to be thousands of pounds in debt, even at such a young age. I speak of Student Loans. At 18 when I went to university I had to take out a loan, as did most of my friends. So at 18 my friends and I considered it normal to have debts of £10,000 or more. When friends and I now bemoan our dire financial situations, it is normally said as follows:

"I owe x...that doesn't include my student loan, which is about £12,000 now."

I thought nothing of taking out the loan, because my parents told me I had to if I wanted to go to university and it was, after all, a government loan. And yet, without even realising, I was becoming immune to the fear of owing money.

I said this to the Local Government Minister the other day, who conceded that I did rather have a point. Does that mean they will do anything about it? Does it bollocks. They will continue with their arbitrary target of trying to get 50% of young people into higher education, because they have some kind of chip on their shoulder about people not being worthy unless they have a degree, even if it is from a former polytechnic.

I see it as a huge problem trying to get this country back on track for an economic recovery unless we leave the EU. The EU sees tax competition as a bad thing, thinks that all businesses are bad and wants to stop people working more than 48 hours a week, which is the way most people manage to get themselves out of debt. Think about it. If I am being taxed to buggery, then it's going to be very difficult for me to lower my cost of living, because most of what I earn goes on simply surviving. So I will try and earn more, to have a greater disposable income at the end of the month. Except that the EU want to stop me doing that, and think that they are, in some odd way, helping me.

Just as, I presume, they think they are helping me by interfering so much in agriculture and thus making my weekly food bill more expensive. Or by trying to focus the attention of energy onto renewable sources which excludes nuclear and therefore makes it less likely that the UK will move to nuclear energy which will be a much more secure and cheaper way of producing energy and will help out no end with our foreign policy.

And on a final note:

But there was some cheer for Mr Brown when the Bank boss also predicted a sharp fall in inflation — which hit 3.1 per cent last month — over the next six months.

If anyone with a brain realised that the CPI, forced on us by the EU, which excludes among many things, mortgages, is a completely irrelevant way of calculating the rise in the cost of living. It's so consistently under the RPIx, or even the RPIy that it is actually a bit of a joke.

So, I ask again, can we leave yet?

Monday, April 23, 2007

The EU: providing us with yet another reason why it should not exist

According to Reuters

The European Union agreed on Monday to inform groups and people why they are put on its list of terrorist organisations, a move aimed at avoiding decisions being overturned in court...

EU foreign ministers meeting in Luxembourg on Monday agreed that reasons for blacklisting 29 other groups and more than 30 individuals remained valid.

"Therefore the Council intends to maintain (them) on the list," a statement said.

"The persons, groups and entities concerned will be informed via a statement of reason of the specific information that form the basis of the Council's decision," it said, adding groups would be allowed to comment on the decisions.

That seems like a jolly good idea: let's tell a load of terrorists why we think they're terrorists. That way, we can let them know what we have on them and, more to the point, what we don't have on them. Well Done.

The EU blacklist includes the Palestinian Hamas group, Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). Blacklisting means groups are banned and have their assets frozen.

Hold on a minute...I know that the rest of the world had caught on to the fact that Hamas is a terrorist group, but the EU decided that funding the Palastinian Authority i.e Hamas was a jolly sensible thing to do. Am all confused, now. Perhaps they are?

Either way, it should be up to the democratically elected and accountable politicians of this country to decide on where aid goes, and which groups are considered terrorists. I was going to tell this to a group of Iranians outside the FCO the other day, and inform them that they needed to stand outside some EU institution, but I couldn't be bothered and I had a meeting to make.

I suspect even if I had told them, they wouldn't have believed me. I mean, it is rather a joke that the third largest trading nation in the world is ruled by a group of crackpot politicians who wouldn't know a sound economic policy if it landed on their head and bit them. And yet, we are.

I'm not going to vote

I don't have a UKIP candidate in my ward. I have 3 Tories who are currently sitting councillors and who I really don't like (one of whom was incredibly rude to me in the local paper) and some Labour and Lib Dems.

But none of these people represent my views so, as I have said before, I will simply not vote.

Judging by the increase in the number of candidates from UKIP in this election though, I suspect that next time round I will have a UKIP candidate to vote for.

Friday, April 20, 2007

Could someone explain this to me?

A friend has sent me this quotation from the Julian Clary column in the New Statesman, but I'm not sure I understand it.

Can anyone help?

"Cut the crust off and don't be put off by the musty smell. It's delicious!" said Maurice. Yes, well, he's not the first Frenchman to make that claim. I'll say no more.


It consuming it increases the risk of heart disease, does that mean we shouldn't swim in the sea?

I've never once managed to do that without taking at least one gulp of the stuff.

Have also just thought of something else too. But I won't ask that.

Thursday, April 19, 2007


Driving to the office this morning on the M25 motorway, I looked over to my right and there was a woman in a brand new Audi A4 convertible' doing 90 miles an hour with her face up close to her rear view mirror putting on her lipstick!

I looked away for a couple of seconds and when I looked back she was halfway over in my lane still working on the lipstick!

It scared me (and this coming from a bloke....) so much that I dropped my electric shaver, which knocked the bacon roll out of my other hand. In all the confusion of trying to straighten up the car using my knees against the steering wheel, it knocked my mobile from my ear, which fell into the coffee between my legs, causing it to splash and burn BIG JIM AND THE TWINS, causing me to scream, which made me drop the cigarette out of my mouth, ruined my shirt and DISCONNECTED A VERY IMPORTANT CALL. Women Drivers!!!!!!!

political opportunism

Do you remember when it emerged that on September 11th 2001 a government press officer had sent an e-mail to her boss saying that it was a good day to bury bad news? There was a certain amount of uproar at this blatant political opportunism.

Yet the European Commission are doing something even worse. They are using the deaths of six million people to get more power.

It's very hard to argue against the idea that denying the holocaust is a pretty nasty thing to do, and that the people who do it are, generally speaking, nasty bastards. Which means that if you can get political mileage out of it then it's very difficult for your opponents to argue against you.

Which is why, of course, the European Commission are planning on implementing a piece of legislation which will give them a legal personality, and thinly disguising it under the veil of anti-racism.

This is a bad thing. This is using a stain on the world's history for political end. This is using the abject misery and suffering of six million people so that a group of unelected, failed politicians can have more power.

For a great round up of the content of the paper, visit the Kitchen. Go read how truly terrible it is. How the EU want the power to take people to court, how they want to stop people who deny or trivialise genocide from running businesses and from welfare benefits.

Basically, they want a foot in the door to gain yet more competences over Justice and Home Affairs, business regulations and social security.

I wonder how many British people actually want this to happen? Very few, I suspect. And yet the way the mainstream media have responded to it is to praise this law, or not to write about it at all for fear of looking like they think it's acceptable to deny the holocaust.

I don't actually think it should be illegal for people to deny the holocaust. If someone is that repugnant and ignorant then the best way to deal with them is to ignore them and make them realise how pointless their existence is. Because free speech is a right, and no one should have the power to take it away. It's a small hop, skip and a gulag away from an authoritarian state.

Which is why, in Luxembourg today, I sincerely hope that our British representative will veto this plan from the German Presidency. That they will have the guts to say, "sorry: this is a disgusting piece of political opportunism, you should all be heartily ashamed of yourself and no, you will not be gaining control over British justice and home affairs."

However, this is a Labour government, so they will probably just crawl around meekly and let this country go further into the jaws of the grasping, slime-covered country called Europe.

A letter of complaint

I have spent a fair amount of time and money recently traveling between London Paddington and various towns to the west of that. So, unfortunately for me, I have to use First Great Western trains.

The other evening I was trying to get back from Cardiff as I didn't really want to spend another night surrounded by close harmony singers cooking cheese on toast, and so I attempted once again to get a First Great Western Train.

I almost killed someone. How, just how, can any company be so useless? I felt that I had a duty to inform them of how I felt...

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to congratulate you on a truly outstanding performance. As a former commuter on South West Trains, I really did think that was as miserable and traumatic as train travel could go.

I was wrong.

Having spent the last week traveling between London and the West Country, I can conclude that your service (and I use that term loosely) is simply one of the most miserable experiences that a human being can endure; and I say that as someone who has had to go to the premiers of modern music.

To be blunt: you shouldn't be running a train set, let alone a train service that people have to rely on. I'm not sure if you are aware, but the general idea is for trains to arrive at the station at the scheduled time. This means that people can actually plan their day and make arrangements which they can keep. A clever concept, I'm sure you'll agree.

I question whether this is a notion known to you, because you seem to be really rather bad at it. Perhaps 'bad' is the wrong word; 'dire' might be better.

Over half of the last six journeys I have taken on First Great Western in the last ten days have been late. By late, I do not mean a few minutes late, but an irritatingly inconvenient amount of time late.

Also, most of your trains are crammed full of passengers, leaving one feeling like an extra in the film 'Schindler's List'.

I wish I could bill you for the time out of my life you have wasted, the years knocked off my life expectancy through stress and the damage to by wallet and liver from drinking too many gin and tonics in a desperate attempt to stop me killing myself whilst I am on board one of your trains.

But I can't, so I will send this letter and wait in blissful anticipation for the reply.

I am, and remain,

Yours faithfully


p.s I have just been notified that on Thursday, 3rd May I have to travel down by train to Newton Abbot. Would it be too much to ask that the train is on time?

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

UKIP candidates

I've noticed a few comments about recently which have rather pissed ol' Trix off.

The delectable Iain Dale writes that the BNP have been putting up lists of where UKIP candidates are standing.

Obviously there is nothing UKIP can do about this apart from make clear that they don't want racist votes from the BNP, thank you very much. But it does call into question exactly why BNP supporters think that UKIP are the next best thing.

They don't. They're trying to discredit the party, hoping that if people think that, then we'll be tarnished with the same brush without actually doing anything. The BNP seem to have this bizarre idea that UKIP and the BNP are in some way similar, when they are diametrically opposed. I'd rather vote Lib Dem than BNP, but in reality, I wouldn't vote for anyone other than UKIP, as no other party represents my views.

Also there have been a few articles written about UKIP saying that the party have been telling porkies about the number of candidates they're fielding

What is clear, however, is that UKIP do not have 1,000 council candidates, as claimed by Nigel Farage last week.

Can I just say that that's wrong. It's not my fault that the Tories cannot add up properly, but I suppose it's the price we pay for not having a decent education system.

So, the figures for the candidates are as follows:

The UK Independence Party will be fielding a total of 1031 candidates in the forthcoming elections.

This breaks down to 963 borough and district candidates
33 Assembly candidates in the Welsh elections
35 Parliamentary candidates in the Scottish Elections

This does not include the 218 town and parish council candidates.

So, ner.

Monday, April 16, 2007

Quotation of the day

Colleague and I were having a rant about the state of our politicians, and in particular, those crowd of intellectually deficient losers masquerading as our government.

That the Defence Secretary, Des Browne, does not feel the need after such a monumental fuck up of the Navy 15 selling their stories, to resign. That the Health Secretary can say that this is the best year ever for the NHS when there aren't enough nurses, qualified doctors can't get jobs and MRSA is up 85%.

As my colleague so eloquently put it, "It makes you want to jump up and shit on her neck."

Well, quite.

Sunday, April 15, 2007

no inspiration

I'm being rubbish about blogging at the moment. I really can't get excited or enraged by anything. Am obviously immune to the outragous behaviour of out politicians, and am getting a wee bit tired of saying the same things over and over again. So I think I am going to take a break for a bit until I can think of something worthwhile to say.


Thursday, April 12, 2007

Putting the world to rights

I really hate watching the bodies of service personnel being flown home, but today I am seriously angry about it.

Not only have four kids died fighting a war which was unnecessary at a time when the military have never been worse off, but it's such a stark contrast to the fiasco over the 15 sailors and marines who were held hostage in Iran.

They come home and we have to read tripe such as

But, speaking of the moment they were reunited, he told how he wept and begged the 26-year-old for a hug. Arthur said: "I missed Topsy most of all. I really love her, as amumand a big sister. Not seeing her and not knowing if she was safe was one of the hardest parts of the whole thing.

"Then on the sixth day, when I was just about giving up hope, I was pulled from my bed in the early hours of the morning.

"They led me down a corridor and into a room, where I saw Topsy in a corner.

"I can't describe how that felt...just every emotion rolled into one. I ran up to her, threw my arms round her and cried like a baby.

First of all, what happened to 'name, rank and serial number'? I can't imagine how appalled I would have been if I had been in a prisoner of war camp in, say, Japan during WW2 and I saw British troops acting like this.

But to then make matters worse by selling their stories? And such cringe making stories at that, just makes me angry. Yes, we can all blame Des Browne for making such a disastrous call by allowing them too, but what made those sailors who did think that it could possibly be a good idea?

Anyway, four people who won't be selling their story are the four who have been brought back from serving their country in boxes. How many years have we had troops fighting in Iraq and yet we are continually hearing the news that yet more are dying. The British forces should be properly armed and smashing these terrorist gangs. And yet we hear today that troops doing their tour are going to be serving for 15 months instead of a year.

They've closed down military hospitals, troops numbers are being slashed still, they're not paid or armed properly and nothing really brings that home like four people coming home in wooden boxes.

Oh, I know that dying is the risk that you take when you join up, and there are perks to the job which should compensate for that. But I still think that if you are prepared to risk your life to fight for your country (or to satisfy a couple of egos and get some oil in this case) then the government who sent you there has a duty of care to make sure you are protected as much as you possibly can be.

But hey, I could be wrong.

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Another reason

Why the Tories don't have a leg to stand on when they accuse UKIP of 'splitting the Eurosceptic vote'.

I popped in to see a friend yesterday and on the wall of the office of a Tory MP was pinned the front page of the Independent with '50 reasons to love the EU'.

I asked the girl in question about it, and she said 'oh, we like the EU here.'

And yet the Tories are still trying to kid people that they will do something about British membership of the EU, or that they will stop any further integrations. Or that they are eurosceptic.

As someone who studied statistics, if I had looked at the figures about which political party had taken the UK the furtherest into the EU and then made a statement saying that the Tories would be the party to stop further European integration I would have absolutely nothing to back that statement up.

On an even more annoying note is the Tories campaigning against the closure of rural post offices by having grand scale meetings, when they can't actually do anything about it because they want to remain in the EU, and it's the EU who are forbidding the government from subsidising rural posts offices properly.

It's lies. Damn lies. And I hate it.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Hard boiled eggs

As harsh as this may sound, I am very pleased that the European Courts have decided to rule in favour of a man who did not want embryos to be used in IVF treatment for his ex partner.

It must be awful for the woman, Natallie Evans, to want children but not be able to have them, but having children takes two people: A mother and a father. As such, consent is absolutely vital on both sides, regardless of whether the embryos are already and there to be used.

The man in question now does not want to have a child with Ms Evans, and so why should he? Even if she says that he doesn't have to have any part in the bringing up of the child, it is still unacceptable for anyone to let the procedure go ahead. He may not be the kind of man who simply can't sit by and do nothing when he knows he is the father of a child, so why should he have to?

It would also be traumatic for any child to know that he or she was not wanted by one of their parents.

I am firmly of the belief that having children is not a right but a privilege. There are lots of people out there who can't have children, and actually, I resent so much money being spent on IVF treatment on the NHS, because it is not necessary. By all means, go private and do it, but don't make me pay for it. If you want a child then you should be able to afford it, instead of relying on the state, or, more precisely, you and I, to sub you through.

How can anyone possibly argue that given the current state of the NHS, it is right that so much money is spent on something that is not necessary? I would like to be a size 10, leggy, brain surgeon, but quite frankly this ain't going to happen. Does that mean that I should get surgery on the NHS to try to fulfill my dreams? No.

Life isn't fair, and you just have to get on with it and make the most of what you have.

*this does not mean I am any happier about there being European Courts, even if they do reinforce UK decisions. Think how much time and money would have been spent if the UK court decision had been final.

Buying presents for friends and relatives can always be tricky, but my father e-mailed me this nifty idea.

I think it could really make someones day.

Saturday, April 07, 2007


Following on from my little post yesterday about the Tories sacking someone for having cancer, I thought you chaps might like to read this from the Mirror

Sacked by the Tory party for having cancer
7 April 2007


A TORY agent has won £38,000 after being hounded from her job because she had breast cancer.

Rosemary Holman said her life was made a "living nightmare" by bullying constituency boss Mike Broomby.

She claimed he picked on her, bombarded her with aggressive questions about her illness and refused to let her work from home.

Eventually he dismissed her, allegedly saying he "didn't care" about her illness. After winning a claim for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, Rosemary, 48, said: "It's fantastic my suffering has been recognised.

"I cried when the judgment came through.

"This wasn't about money, I wanted to be taken seriously. I was left out of the loop as proceedings against me gathered force."

Rosemary was struck by cancer in 2004 after running admin for Sevenoaks Conservative Association, in Kent, for 10 years. She pressed on at work as long as possible.

She claimed Mr Broomby, 72, shouted at her so much she became terrified of going to the office and had trouble sleeping.

Mr Broomby told a tribunal in Ashford: "I was concerned about Ms Holman's health.

"I sacked her when she failed three times to go to a medical examination."

The party association was ordered to pay £31,936 to Rosemary, of Benfleet, Essex. Mr Broomby is liable for £6,403.

The sum covers pension loss, lost earnings and emotional trauma. The Association denied Rosemary's claims and may appeal.

Friday, April 06, 2007

Gordon Brown: Thieving Bastard

As the Devil points out, Gordon Brown has decided to give yet more of our money away to try and combat VAT fraud.

Gordon Brown was plunged into fresh controversy yesterday after he was accused of backing down in a year-long row over the European Union budget.

The Treasury confirmed that he had stopped haggling over the details of the deal negotiated by Tony Blair in December 2005, but EU diplomats claimed it would result in a deeper cut in the UK rebate than Mr Brown had wanted.

Britain will now pay its full share towards rebates for other big net contributors to the 27-nation bloc's budget, contrary to Mr Brown's interpretation of the original deal.

You may remember at the time of the rebate discussions, there was one man trying to stand up for this country:

So the tax burden is sky high in this country, public services are failing, economic growth is no where near as high as it should be, mainly due to the damaging social policies of the EU who want regulation after regulation which harms British businesses and yet now he's not going to be Chancellor for very long, the bastard has decided not to try to fight to keep more of our rebate. And why? To try to combat fraud for a regresive tax which is imposed on us by the EU. The EU should not have anything to do with our taxes. The fraud in VAT is enormous, and yet we have to go begging to France to get anything done about it, when if we weren't in the EU we wouldn't even have to ask anyone else for permission to do what the government must do as a duty of care.

It's astonishing that anyone can think that the EU is a good idea, unless they are mentally retarded. It damages everything it goes anywhere near.

So why are we still in it? And when can we have our say in a referendum?

Can the mud slinging begin now?

A few weeks ago, I posted a story which appeared in the Daily Mirror about the Tories in Sevenoaks being taken to court over a case of unfair dismissal. The lady in question was sacked unfairly by a chap called Mike Broomby, who allegedly is rather a nasty piece of work.

Anyway, Cllr Gavin Ayling left a comment saying:

Maybe we should wait for the result before slinging mud at the party who was doing the employing? Maybe...

And I didn't write another word about it. However, now that I know that the Tories have lost their case and the cancer suffering lady in question, who has been told by doctors that she does not have long to live, has been awarded |40,000 damages for her unfair dismissal, and the other side have to pay costs.

So, especially in light of how the Tories rubbed their hands with glee at the case of UKIP being blackmailed by a man with plastic knees, who completely made the story up, I am going to do the same to the Tories.

I am going to call the Tories mean, heartless bastards for bullying a lady with cancer and trying to make her go for a medical examination with the buddy of the Constituency Chairman, rather than an unbiased doctor. Especially when she had been to countless doctors, and the only reason for this one was because the Constituency Chairman Mike Broomby, was looking for excuses to sack her.

I wonder who is liable to pay? The Constituency as a whole, which used to have lots of money (but less since they loaned some to the main party who then decided to keep it) or the Chairman who was taken to court?

I will let you know.

How did I miss this one?

What the European Union has done for us, from A-Z

A is for Arsenal Arsène Wenger and Thierry Henry's exercise in footballing elegance (with barely a British boot on the pitch) would hardly be possible without Europe's open transfer market
So you're saying that having a British team with hardly any British players is a good thing? Interesting. Also, are you aware of what the EU are trying to do to football? May I suggest that is possibly has more to do with the money offered. Oh, and the EU are trying to stop non EU players from joining British clubs, and they were trying to get the EU flag flow and the EU anthem played for matches with clubs from the EU.

B is for borders During a journey from Belgium to Luxembourg to France to Germany to Poland a passport had to be shown only once and then cursorily
If open borders facilitate legal trade, then it will also facilitate illegal trade, but to a greater degree. If you think this is a good thing, I am not expecting any more articles in the Guardian about people trafficking.

C is for climate change 27 governments have just agreed the most ambitious package ever to tackle global warming. If the US, China, and India followed suit, the future would look less bleak
Doesn't that just rather prove the point that, even if humans did have much to do with climate change, this stupid idea of Fortress Europe is backward looking and pointless? The UK should not be ignoring countries like India and China, but the EU seems determined that we must only look at them as a threat. And also, the sheer arrogance of EU countries telling other countries they must cut carbon emissions, and thus not develop, and then bleating on about eradicating poverty makes me scream.

D is for democracy dictatorships in Spain, Portugal, Greece and all over eastern Europe are in the dustbin of history
But alive and well in the EU where the European Commission are the only EU institution to make laws, and the Commissioners who are the guardians of the treaties, cannot be sacked by the people they claim they represent.

E is for the euro On trips across much of Europe, travellers no longer have to change currencies and no longer come home with a pocketful of useless coins
Economics text book over here, please. Having a single interest rate for vastly different economies is a bad thing. Ask Italy. Or Germany. Or France.
And since when was currency 'useless?' Even if one never went back to the country, surely all those little coins would be rather useful to hurl at stupid guardian journalists who write lists full of shite?

F is for flights Stag parties in Prague? Shopping in Barcelona? How could we afford it without the cheap airlines enabled by deregulating European air traffic
Well, it's called competition. It's what happens in a market economy. Basically, even though the different sectors of the airline industry could be called oligopolistic, as a whole it's competitive. I would suggest that the ability for consumers to compare prices easily on the Internet has made the industry move slightly more towards the Utopian 'perfect competition'. But hold on: I thought we had to combat climate change, and flights were bad? I'm all confused!

G is for Germany Until anchored in the EU, Germany caused untold grief to most of us
Ha! If anyone from UKIP said this, can you imagine the cried of 'racist' from the pages of the guardian? That is, once the sandal wearing gaggles of hairy jumpers had picked themselves up off the floor. Yes, Germany did cause lots of grief. But so did Russia. For a lot longer. And Germany didn't join the EU for quite a few years after the Treaty of Rome. And they didn't actually have any desire to go to war again.

H is for homebuying The British mania for that place in the sun is a result of the EU requiring members to open their housing markets to foreign EU citizens

I think people bought homes abroad before the EU...However, the EU has failed spectacularly to stop 'land grab' in Valencia. But let's just keep quiet about that one, eh?

I is for international clout Europe's sum is greater than its parts when it comes to making a difference internationally
Like at the WTO, when as a group it makes sure that developing countries remain poor by insisting that the trade policy of 27 countries is protectionist? The influence of the EU is declining, whilst other countries like India and China are waxing. So why should we limit our choices and stay on the sinking ship?

J is for jobs Working anywhere in Europe is now easy and occurring on an unprecedented scale
Yes, and the number of unemployed in Britain is rising, whilst there are shortages of workers in Eastern Europe; migrants are living in tents in Hyde Park and people like me can't afford to get on the property ladder because of the spectacular increase in demand.

K is for Kosovo The biggest challenge. EU is preparing to steer the province to independence in its first such mission

Funny. When my dad was working hours and hours of overtime over Kosovo, it was NATO he was working for.

L is for London As Europe's pre-eminent financial centre, the City of London has benefited enormously from the single market
Bing! Thank you for playing! The EU hates the fact that the City of London is more successful than Frankfurt and yet didn't join the EU. Especially since they also trade more Euro than Frankfurt. Which is presumably why the EU is trying to shut down the City by bringing in damaging regulations like the Market in Financial Instruments Directive, which will be one step further to the financial centre switching to New York.

M is for market The single one of goods and services has been a boon for European consumers
Too small. Too Fortress Europe. And the protectionist policies of the EU have harmed British consumers. Like higher prices for shoes, and an extra 20 quid a week on a food bill because of the CAP.

N is for nationalism It ain't what it used to be
True. Now it's EU nationalism. Well, apart from the rise of nationalist parties like Front National and the BNP because of the desire for the EU to erase national identities and cultures. Force people together, and the split will be bloody.

O is for openness What the EU has done best in expanding from an original six to a current 27 countries
Any back up for this? I don't understand why those countries in Eastern Europe went from Communism to, well, borderline Communism. Apart from money in the short term, I suppose.

P is for peace Don't take it for granted in the continent that gave us Auschwitz.
Back to attacking those Germans again! Look, matey. It was NATO and trade and a lack of money and desire to have another war that kept the peace.

Q is for queueing Less and less of it on the borders between EU countries
I'd rather queue for a bit and know who was in the country, personally. Maybe that's just me being fickle?

R is for regions Remote and poorer areas of Europe benefit from structural funds that amount to a great social democratic exercise in wealth redistribution

Yes, they get hand outs instead of developing and being competitive. What a jolly good idea! I mean, it's worked so well in Sub-Saharan Africa...And I also really don't see why my money should go to pay for the public services in other countries, when the ones in the UK are shite.

S is for soft power if the EU's so bad, why does everyone else want to join?

I would have thought that the comment above would go some way to explain that. Or have you already forgotten that you wrote it?

T is for transport All of Europe is being knitted together by road and rail infrastructure projects
Like road pricing controlled by Galileo! Hurrah! Like the open skies deal which means foreign airlines can pinch slots at LHR instead of making their own airports work properly. Jolly good!

U is for unification In 2004, when eight post-communist countries joined, made Europe whole (nearly), democratic, and free for the first time ever
Except that the EU is not democratic, so that kind of blows that one out of the water.

V is for variety From Krakow to Florence to Edinburgh to Seville, no union has ever comprised such splendid diversity
So why try to eradicate it? Why, if it's so good, can't we have imperial measurements, for example? Or different currencies? (which I think you said earlier were bad...)

W is for welfare The European social model cushions the effects of globalisation
THAT IS A BAD THING, YOU FUCKING MORON!!!!!!!!! Jesus. I mean, where do you start? Have these people no brain? Globalisation makes everyone better off, except the lazy people who are currently being propped up by spastics in the EU.

X is for xenophobia National prejudices start to break down the more the citizens of Europe mix and meet
Were we not allowed to talk to people from other countries before the EU, then?

Y is for yard Europe encouraged all countries to unify measuring systems
Which means we won't be able to use yard. And since most of our exports go to America, where they use imperial measurements, how is this good? And also, I thought you just said above that differences were a good thing? So why are these ones not good?

Z is for Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe and his henchmen are barred all over Europe, at British insistence, but only because Britain is in the EU
How do you know that? What a stupid thing to say. Again. The UK has not done enough towards Zimbabwe, but I don't understand how us crawling to the EU to try get something done about sanctions is in any way beneficial.

here's hoping

According to the UN, nearly a third of the world's species of animals and plants may become extinct within 50 years.

Hmmmm. I wonder if creatures living on the earth have ever become extinct before due to climate change?


It must have been all those naughty humans taking holidays on nasty airplanes.

If this is true, I hope 'scientists' who say what their paymasters tell them to say are included in the list.

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Can Timmy Replace Polly?

Or, at least, can we have some kind of annotation from Timmy, or DK, or someone else informed, along side her ill thought out and badly researched articles?

£5bn is a gnat bite compared with the cost of pension holders' extra longevity.

The woman has no grasp of anything, except caravans. Certainly not maths, that's for sure

As Timmy points out
whacking £5 billion a year off means a fall in capital value of some £100 billion.

Monday, April 02, 2007

message for Alan Rusbridger

Dear Alan,

I have seen your article in the Independent today, and correctly surmised that you are a moron.

Thus, out of the kindness of my heart, I have provided you with a handy guide which you may find useful.

Yours sincerely



DK told me he was away on a stag weekend and yet not only did he confirm to me that he didn't see a single stag, but I found this tucked away in the cover of the latest Sweet Valley High book he is reading...\

Some stag weekend! I feel so betrayed....

Sunday, April 01, 2007

Pensions theft

The Tories are calling for an investigation into the theft by Brown on pensions:

The chancellor is facing calls from the Tories for an inquiry into the pensions gap after claims that he ignored warnings of a funding shortfall.
Confidential Treasury papers have shown he was told in advance of scrapping dividend tax in July 1997 that it could wipe £75bn from pension fund values.

During the last term of Conservative government, one of their MPs wrote a policy proposal which called for the elimination tax relief on pensions* so they should know:
This implies the abolition of at least thirty current forms of relief from Income Tax, including mortgage interest relief, relief on employee’s contributions to occupational and personal pensions, reliefs for TESSAs, PEPs and profit related pay, National Savings certificates,employee share schemes and charitable giving.

about which he says

Furthermore, the working assumptions of such a measure of tax reform do not allow for any other changes to the tax system, such as the elimination of tax relief on employer’s contributions to pension schemes and on investment income within pension funds. If these changes were added to the overall package of reform, it would have yielded an extra £7400 million revenue in 1994–95. Any plausible updating of this figure to 1996–97 levels would probably bring it up to at
least £8000 million, which means that in those circumstances the actual first year cost to the Exchequer would be somewhere between £12,000 million and £4000 million and almost certainly at the lower end of that range

So there we go.

*Single Rate Tax: The path to real simplicity by Nigel Foreman MP

Own up...

Okay, own up. Who came to this site from a google search of 'shitting in shoes'?