Non-stories, gubbins and gibberish.

There’s practically nothing else about at the moment, so I’ll summarise.

The Hague thing. A non-story about him sharing a hotel room with his special advisor, who is a bloke. Salacious nonsense obscuring the only legitimate question, which is whether Hague misused public funds in any way.

On-going denormalisation of smokers in the rented property market. A non-story based on a poorly interpreted marketing survey. Most landlords are pragmatic in my experience, and the ones that aren’t don’t remain landlords for very long.

It’s remains to be seen whether or not the matter of #metgate is a non-story or not.

Not so much a non-story as a ‘well, what a surprise’ story, in which a front company for Tesco buys up a town centre, allows it to become run down, then along comes Tesco offering to ‘do the town a favour’ by building a massive Tesco store in its place.

Someone called Tony Blair has a book out. In it, he reveals that always was, and still is, a complete and utter cunt. Still, with any luck, it will cause enough enmity in the Labour party to keep the wrecking bastards in unelectability hell for a generation or two.

The Director General of the BBC seems to have taken to referring to the present in the past tense. He has ‘has admitted the corporation was guilty of a ‘massive’ Left-wing bias in the past’. As if it’s gone away. Pfffft.

In other news, top fungal blogger Simon Cooke has decided to poke Jack of Kent in the eye over his apparently contradictory definition of his own liberalism.

I’m fast arriving at the conclusion that Jack of Kent is a cult leader & I have little doubt that he’s in the process of setting up a compound for all his faithful believers in deepest Kent. Jack of Koresh more like.

Mr  Cooke has also, in case you missed them previously, written some good stuff on the emergent New Puritans.

More anon, doubtless.


Twisted terms of engagement

Much jollity today about ‘Cunto di tutti cunti’ Blair coming to the aid of Labour’s election campaign.


I think there’s something wrong with that strapline. Specifically that the inverted commas are around with word ‘failure’ and not around the word ‘modernise’

What I think they mean by ‘modernise’ is ‘transform into a mealy-mouthed, politically-correct, social democratic Labour-lite irrelevance’.

Hence my confusion about how that strap-line is parsed. Because when it comes to Cameron transforming the Conservatives into a mealy-mouthed, politically-correct, social democratic Labour-lite irrelevance, he seems to have succeeded in spades.

If Blair manages to convince me that what we have here is the same old Tories from 1979, I’ll vote for them in a heartbeat.


Bringing the law into disrepute

I’m becoming quite a follower of Henry Porter’s dispatches on liberty in The Graun.

It’s long been a bug bear of mine that most of the senior politicians involved in dismantling our liberty, our checks and balances and our civil protections have been lawyers.

Porter picks up the theme:


It’s no coincidence that the four politicians who took us to war – Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Lord Falconer and Lord Goldsmith were all lawyers. Of course there were others involved, but let us be quite clear that each of these was in a position to stop the headlong rush to war by using the rule of law as an argument against the Bush regime.

Only Lord Goldsmith attempted such a course, but he was flattened by Lord Falconer and Baroness (formerly Sally) Morgan and sidelined by Number 10 until it was too late for Britain to withdraw. The point is that the same people who ignored the opinion of legal advisers Sir Michael Wood and Elizabeth Wilmshurst – in fact the entire legal team – also carried out the attack on liberty and the rule of law that has been the subject of columns in the Observer and this blog for the last four years.

To make the connection between the two may seem opportunistic, but I believe that it is fundamental to the understanding of New Labour to see that the attack on the international rule of law goes hand in hand with the steady erosion of rights and liberties in this country: both were carried out by people who were trained as lawyers and who should have been nourished by the law and its long traditions.

This is obviously not to say that all lawyers are bad: the people who fought for the rule of law inside the system, such as Wilmshurst and Wood, were lawyers, and many lawyers outside government, such as Philippe Sands QC and Clive Stafford Smith, have staunchly defended the international rule of law, particularly concerning British involvement in torture and rendition. Most lawyers I talk to are appalled at what has been done to the rule of law and to our own constitution.

One of the very basic tenets of the rule of law in Britain was expressed by AC Dicey in 1885: "In the first place, no man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of the law established in ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land." Blair, Straw and to a lesser extent Falconer were responsible for countless tiny cuts to this principle – and in other areas, as in the decision to go to war, the knowledge of rendition and MI5’s collusion in torture sessions – for instance in the interrogation of Binyam Mohamed – have outraged standards set in international conventions and charters.

My own belief is that Blair, Straw and Falconer should be disbarred from their professional organisations. There may be a case for Lord Goldsmith’s disbarment as well. Though I am not sure how this could be satisfactorily achieved, I believe that both barristers and solicitors will want to make a statement about the steady attack on all that the Bar and Law Society stand for. It would be a symbolic gesture but an important one, given that we are unlikely to see any of these individuals prosecuted for what they have done.

Each of them was fully aware of the damage they caused to the rule of law at home and abroad, and while we may wait for a proper analysis as to what gave New Labour lawyers the confidence to defy public opinion and the law, the action of disbarment, perhaps merely its consideration, could send out a signal that Britain is at last passing from this long and shoddy episode.

Another prominent lawyer who has been responsible for illiberal lunacy is, of course, Harriet Hormone.


10 of the worst things Labour have done to the UK

Shamelessly stolen in full from the Tellygiraffe Blogs.

1. Tony Blair led the country to war on the basis of a lie – the 45-minute dossier was a disgraceful manipulation of some very sketchy intelligence. More than 200 soldiers have been killed, a similar number grievously wounded, while tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have lost their lives.

2. The suicide of Dr David Kelly after he had been exposed by Downing Stret as the source of leaks to the BBC about the soundness of weapons intelligence (see above). The most nauseating moment in this episode came courtesy of Alastair  Campbell, an unelected Labour functionary, who summoned a press conference to crow over the findings of the Hutton inquiry into Kelly’s death which inexplicably decided it was all the BBC’s fault.

3. Tony Blair’s warmongering extended beyond Iraq – there was Kosvo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan – but a common theme was that British forces were routinely expected to put their lives on the line with inadequate kit and equipment. Much of the responsibilty for that lies with Gordon Brown who, as Chancellor,  just did not “get” the military.

4. Brown’s uncontested accession to the premiership – after years spent undermining Blair – revealed just how rotten Labour had become. This was more akin to the Politburo than a modern democratic party. The one consolation is that it has proved an unmitigated disaster for Labour.

5. While Chancellor, Brown perfected a whole armoury of tricks to obscure what he was actually doing – double and triple counting, endless re-announcements of the same policy, stealth taxes by the score. So intent was he on his smoke and mirrors games that he seemed not to notice he was sending the economy down the tubes.

6. Bernie Ecclestone’s £1 million donation to Labour was an early indicator that Labour’s moral compass was non-existent and that Blair’s claim to be a “pretty straight kind of guy” was to be taken with a sackful of salt.

7. Parliament under Labour has been utterly marginalised. Both Blair and Brown have treated the Commons with contempt and we now have the weakest (as well as most dishonest) legislature in memory.

8. Labour’s failure even to attempt to control immigration has led to profound changes in this country that people did not want. Yet any attempt to debate the issue was branded racist by Labour – until it finally dawned on them (far too late) that their own supporters were furious about the changing nature of their communities.

9. A spending binge without precedent in this country’s history has delivered the most paltry improvements in the public services. A great opportuntiy to modernise Britain has simply been frittered away.

10. Labour’s Big Brother intrusiveness into all aspects of our lives is without precedent outside communist or fascist regimes. A government that has trumpeted its commitment to human rights has systematically eroded them.



Suicide watch…

Eamonn Butler is the head of the Adam Smith Institute – a free-market think-tank.

But I’d not be surprised to hear that the Dignitas marketing folk were keen to retain his services.

I say this because, ever since I started reading this:


I’ve been increasingly curious about their services.

It’s an unceasing catalogue of the things that Gordon Brown and his coterie of bastards has done to our country.

Oh sure, there’s not much in there that you couldn’t find on most libertarian blogs, but the sheer scale of their destruction wrought upon the fabric of our economy, society, liberty, privacy, justice system and democratic protections is breath-taking.

I may, in fact, never finish this book, because I decide that I want to live. On the other hand, I may neck a fistful of vallium and get it over with. The book, I mean.


Blair will not be the new High €unt…


Splendid.. now I just need Juncker to bag it late tonight.

And I really hope he does, because the front-runner wants to introduce a new EU wide tax:

image The man tipped to be Europe’s first president is already considering new EU taxes to fund the rising cost of Brussels and the welfare state.

Herman Van Rompuy, the Belgian Prime Minister, broke his silence before Thursday’s summit to choose the president — but only at a meeting of the secretive Bilderberg group of top politicians, bankers and businessmen.

The Bilderbergers? Oh great.

Anyway, what could they possibly need to raise taxes for… oh.

“The financing of the welfare state, irrespective of the social reform we implement, will require new resources,” Mr Van Rompuy told European and American guests

Yep – an EU welfare state.

But don’t worry, here comes Billy Vague with some more fine sounding words, signalling yet more undeliverable promises at relates to the EU.

William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, said: “Britain would not be the only EU country that would find a proposal to give the EU tax-raising powers totally unacceptable. Advocacy of such a policy is not a fruitful use of anyone’s time.”

We’re not buying it, Billy.


Silvio, Silvio, Silvio…

Corruption? Heh – bless Italian politics…

Consorting with hookers? None of my business…

Procuring young girls? Age of consent is 14 over there…

Multi-billionaire media mogul? Ain’t capitalism wonderful.

Wait…. what?


WHAT? You pasta guzzling, white-flag waving, dolmio-felching, 6 reverse-gears-having motherfucker.



I hope Boris is right on this…



Blair was the man who connived in the creation of this federal role, on the understanding that people would be allowed to vote on it. That was the promise he made in the 2005 manifesto, on which he was re-elected. The people have been cheated of that vote by Labour – and now we are seriously being told that Blair is in the frame for the job. Can it really be possible? Is this infamy really about to come to pass?

As it happens, I think probably not. Jonathan Powell, Blair’s chief of staff, is said to be conducting a tour of European capitals to drum up support for his master. He has been to Prague, to Brussels and is off to Paris. And yet I have a feeling that the Blair Euro-presidency will turn out to be a mirage.

If we are going to have a European President, there is a good case for having Blair rather than anyone else – and that is precisely why he won’t get it. For all his faults, Tony Blair is an Atlanticist, who understands the vital role of America in the world. He is instinctively a free-trader. He has earned such phenomenal sums from speaking to audiences of Right-wing Americans that we can safely assume that he is a defender of the Anglo-Saxon market economy. And that is why his candidature – if it ever really emerged – would not get off first base. It is not just that he is permanently and irrevocably identified with George W Bush and the dodgy pretext for war on Iraq.

Can you really imagine Nicolas Sarkozy being willing to share the international limelight with our Tony, when Blair is British, charismatic, and not remotely frightened of appearing in photocalls with people of more than five foot five inches in height? No, I will wager a fiver with any reader – proceeds to charity – that Blair will not be chosen as Europe’s president, if and when the Treaty of Lisbon proceeds.

The job will go Buggins-style to some relatively inoffensive Luxembourg socialist or superannuated Finnish environment minister. At which point, of course, the question is posed with even more force. Who is this person? Who elected them? By what right will he or she be purporting to speak for us in the UK?

Yes, but at least as I’ve got cash on Juncker, I’ll be a little happier.

Anyone but Blair. Anyone but Brown. Anyone but Labour.


Hope and Experience…

In today’s Tellygiraffe, Charles Clarke is sticking the knife into Brown.


Mr Clarke said that Mr Brown should consider resigning, perhaps citing ill-health, to avoid the humiliation of leading Labour to a shattering defeat.

"I think his own dignity ought to look to that kind of solution," said Mr Clarke.

Mr Clarke said that a huge defeat can only be avoided if Labour makes fundamental change, including appointing a new leader.

In an interview with the London Evening Standard, he described Mr Brown’s team at No 10 as the “weakest I’ve seen ever”.

He said that said some Labour ministers and MPs are now resigned to losing the next election.

"Are we just going to stand by and watch the whole Labour ship crash on to the rocks of May 2010?" he asked.

Instead of focusing on the next election, senior figures are positioning themselves “to win control of the defeated Labour Party”, Mr Clarke said.

Meanwhile, in the Faily Dail, Billy Lair’s sticking the boot in…


They do like to keep us hoping, guessing and praying, don’t they… It’ll be an interesting time, since I have a selection of bets that will come in, or not, over the next 6 months, regarding when Broon will go, when there’ll be an election and who’ll succeed Brown.

He could still go at conference next week… I have everything crossed…

Meanwhile I heard a bit of him on 5 live earlier, and he sounded well drilled, but heavily medicated, IMO.


Banging the electric drum again…

This has been a bit of a hobby horse of mine for quite a while now

The establishment voices are finally waking up to what is ahead for us…

image  image

SOUTH AFRICAN burglars pay close attention to electricity. A moratorium in the early 1990s stopped new power stations from being built, and by 2007 demand was overwhelming the country’s electricity grid. So Eskom, the national power company, began cutting supplies to specific suburbs for hours at a time. One side-effect of the rolling blackouts that afflicted Cape Town and Johannesburg was that they disabled the electric fences, spotlights and alarms that adorn richer people’s houses, making them easy pickings for thieves. At first the blackouts were announced in advance; later, aware of the risks, Eskom imposed them without notice. Fortunately for South Africans, the economic slump has trimmed demand (and a huge, rushed building programme boosted supply), but it will be 2013 before order is properly restored.

Britain is running short of power too—so quickly that some economists claim, only just tongue-in-cheek, that the economic slowdown is useful. “A recession is the best demand-reduction policy ever invented,” says Dieter Helm, an energy economist at Oxford University. Many power stations are due to close over the coming decade (see chart 1), and supplies are getting tight. The government reckons that, of a total of around 75GW in generating capacity, 20GW will disappear by 2015.

The private sector is less optimistic. EDF (a state-owned French firm that wants to build nuclear plants in Britain) puts the size of the hole at 32GW, and E.ON, a German competitor, reckons it will be 26GW. One survey of experts before the recession (conducted by Mitsui-Babcock, another power-station builder) found that three-quarters expected blackouts by the time of the London Olympics in 2012. When the BBC did a similar poll in 2008, the downturn had pushed the date back to 2015. “There’s a risk of blackouts somewhere between 2013 and 2016, depending on how fast the economy recovers,” says Mr Helm. “It may not happen,” says an engineer, “but we’d be lucky”.

Blair and Brown are leaving yet another legacy that will see this country pushed to the brink of ruination long after they’re gone.

Is there anyone who doesn’t want these fuckers assassinated?

In other news, if my portfolio had survived Brown’s end to boom & bust, I’d move a shitload of money into diesel generator manufacture & servicing, as well as UPS providers.

Datacentres are going to be fucked & goddamit, I’m going to make some cash out of it.

When life gives you lemons….