Walk like an Egyptian, but talk Turkey

I must admit to having a certain sympathy for the demands of the Egyptian demonstrators.

They say they want more democratic freedom, more open government, less corruption. They want president Mubarak to go as a symbol of corruption, stalled progress and all they see is wrong with their country. Hard to argue against those ideals.

Muhammad Hosni Sayyid Mubarak has been in charge for 30 years or so. He can’t argue anyone else is responsible for how Egypt is.

It is true there is a lot wrong with Egypt, high unemployment amongst the under 25s for one. But there is also a lot that has changed for the good in the lives of ordinary Egyptians in the last 30 years or so.

Some of the problems they are experiencing must be related to the current world downturn.

If they are hoping for some sort of velvet revolution though, I fear they need to ease back on their impatience.

It was not all that long ago that a not dissimilar ruler and regime was toppled in Iran. A lot of educated middle class young people were in the vanguard of that with hopes of a democracy and freedom. They foolishly imagined they could trust the hard eyed clerics, so-called “men of god” to be honest, upright and fair.

What they ended up with was a theocratic state and ill educated “black shirt thug” type religious police beating people forcing women to wear the veil and men to grow beards.

Those people who thought they were toppling a dictator in favour of freedom.. and their grown children are still crying out for real freedom and real democracy.

The Egyptian protestors should think very carefully lest they end up far worse off than they are now. They should be very wary of bringing down the system. They should be looking for changes and schooling themselves to some further patience. Firm robust patience, but patience and restraint never-the-less...

They should be looking at the example of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk the father of modern Turkey and "Kemalism"

It is perhaps Mubarak’s failure that he did not take Atatürk as his model and use his years in power to deliver a more modern democratic state.

They need to insist on change but allow the organs of the sate to maintain stability and prosperity yet deliver the change they need.

A difficult path requiring compromise and benefit for everyone

What the Egyptians need is far more akin to evolution, than revolution.

FIFA foe fum Pantomime season

The initial furore over the abject failure of England's bit to host the soccer word cup has subsided.

New things take attention away from it and it sometimes seems that there is quite a limited public attention span for such things. Politicians and officials probably rely rather strongly on that. I imagine Joseph (Sepp) Blatter and his cronies are... having arguably decided attack is the best form of defence.

England's bid to host the soccer world cup was solid. It offered a concentration of some of the finest actually existing venues anywhere on the planet. There is a transport infrastructure and the country is stable.

It seems unlikely that, all else being equal, the bid should have secured more than two votes. while there is no guarantee of victory it seems unlikely such a solid bid would fare quite so badly.

One might also wonder at the countries FIFA actually selected, Russia will need to do a fair bit of building and one wonders at the attraction of a tiny hot middle eastern state such as Quatar with very little soccer related infrastructure that if built might be considered to be overkill, given their population (less that that of the county of Derbishire., much less than the City of Birmingham)

It seems clear more than two votes had been confidentially promised to the England bid team. At least 6 to be precise.

It says something that the English Football Association's acting chief Roger Burden, known for being 'above board', has unequivocally stated that he can no longer trust members of Fifa.

Three prominent members, Nicolas Leoz, Issa Hayatou and Ricardo Teixeira are implicated it taking money from a Sports Marketing company in exchange for being awarded contracts.

There is a strong suggestion, apparently backed by evidence that FIFA is blighted by dishonesty, and corruption.

Now Fifa vice-president Jack Warner, (allegedly one of those who had indicated, apparently inaccurately if they did, that they would support the England bid) has justified what looks suspiciously like a planned 'revenge' by claiming: "Fifa could not have voted for England having been insulted by their media in the worst possible way." "... To do so would have been the ultimate insult to Fifa."

It is perhaps time the England no longer lent FIFA credibility by taking it seriously.

In any event England are unlikely to get a look in. Members of FIFA have apparently taken against England because the UK press reported on some of their corruption.

One suspects it will likely be a cold day in hell before FIFA gives England the time of day, let alone anything else. Seeing England have little to loose it would seem to make sense to take the lead in an unenviable task and to do its best to unrelentingly root out any corrupt individuals and attempt to force some real anti corruption rules upon FIFA.

Unleashing if not the dogs of, war, then the press, upon FIFA. Possibly even with a quiet information related nudge or two from MI5.

It might also be worth seriously considering starting something like a Commonwealth Football cup. Maybe put our money where our mouth is and show how things can be done.

Possibly it could be based around nations, possibly around teams. Possibly best of all more on the lines the FA cup. We should ensure it is absolutely honest and above board. Matches could be played in many nations improving the game across the board and earning smaller nations the chance to earn money also to develop and showcase talent. It could be a fresh breeze and good for the game.

What is this doing to democracy?

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, or rather their pet Lawyers, went to court and actually argued that no one sensible believes manifesto promises. The phrase used was that they were “not subject to legitimate expectation.”

Fair enough It seems. No one can claim they weren’t warned.

Really - voting slips and manifestos should carry a public health warning stating it clearly, possibly with graphic pictures of something like - the Ark Royal being broken up, A harrier Jump Jet being scrapped, or a student turning their pockets out.

Up to now we had to put up with Labour telling us that an EU constitution was not a constitution if it was an identical document... but they called it a treaty instead. We could imagine the other parties might have more respect for the democratic process or the truth.

I must admit I was sceptical of Nick Clegg, once he took the same line as Labour over that “treaty” in Lisbon.

But now it seems that coalition is a marvellous excuse to chuck out your principals and firm “watch my lips” promises. You can handily blame it on the other party in the coalition.

So we are treated to a positive Christmas market of pork pie salespersons. Nick Clegg supporting hikes in university fees despite signing some pointless piece of paper that he would oppose them. We see good old Dave Cameron not only back pedalling on his talk of no more giving up sovereignty without a referendum. Now apparently the EU Constitution Lisbon “Treaty” can’t be pulled out of, or re negotiated.

But more telling he is making agreements to pool our armed forces with the French - Again with not a hint of consulting the citizenry.

And given that the only really credible (before he got his hands on them) armed forces in Europe are British and the French then that is basically what would comprise a European Defence Force. Well we can see where he is going with that.

So basically - any promises, no matter how apparently firm, that any politician makes in order to get you to vote for them are just not to be believed. They will be dumped for the sake of expediency at the first hurdle. It seems there can be no doubt that the only reason to “Watch their lips” is to be able to spot when they are - lying.... through.... their.... teeth.

The question is: What does that do to the democratic process? How does someone who is not dangerously self destructively naive actually decide who to waste their vote on vote for?

When they do get in and utterly fail to do what they promised, even if they do the exact opposite, you have absolutely no comeback - apart from voting for some other collection of proven liars, when it suits them, every 5 years or so.

Another brick in the wall?

Cameron and Sarkozy have signed a deal to share military resources. It was kept pretty much off the public’s radar until it was a done deal. Did parliament get any say so?

It seems Cameron has locked the UK into it for the next 50 years. It is not clear if it can be got out of.

It is doubtful if any of the UK’s politicians will ever seriously try.

Cameron is busy trying to spin it up into great news and it is for the pro EU political elite.

It is difficult to reconcile this with his earlier bluster about not signing away any more of the UK’s sovereignty without a referendum. But this will be yet another instance where a slight change in the newspeak name of the thing magically utterly transforms it, so an old promise can be safely ignored and discarded. He is taking a leaf out of Gordon Brown’s book, on the Labour Party election lies manifesto.

What it actually is is a tacit acknowledgement that thanks to his incompetent butchery of the UK's defence capability the UK is no longer capable of acting effectively on the world stage without support.

What it actually means is that the UK can now no longer act militarily, in many respects, without France’s agreement.

A mutual defence pact is one thing, even military co-operation, or joint expeditionary forces - but signing over a veto on when you use your military to a foreign power is a whole other ball game, more akin to treason.

Not that UK politicians have not been happily signing away sovereign power for decades, so he can reasonably expect the supine UK electorate to put up with that as they have done with so much else that more self respecting citizens would do something about.

Sadly it is probably unlikely there will ever be a tea party movement in the UK.

What is Cameron’s agenda? One suspects ever closer European integration and the construction of a seed of a EU military. How long before a "money saving treaty" with Germany comes along?

Then there is the argument that can now be used by the political elite that If co-operation works in this areas then why not others? They will then subtly suggest, as they so often do, that it will allow ‘Europe’ to be more ‘independent’ of the US.

US politicians still somehow happily seem to imagine the EU is an unmitigated good thing for the US, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. Is it that they think they know the nature of the beast? It wasn’t so long ago they thought it was a good idea to fund the Taliban...

Jumped or pushed?

Well – He of the clunking fist, the old lady dissing, Gordon Brown himself is offering to resign, for the good of his party.

And all the pundits are going “Really!?!” amazed - at least the CNN ones seem to be.

How is this anything other than to be expected?

Gordon knows perfectly well that he has, whatever Labour spin MDs may try to say, led his party to a pretty bad, not to put too fine a point on it, defeat.

The only thing that kept the “dead man walking” actually walking, were the electric shocks supplied by the Dark Lord and puppet master himself – Madleson.

Really it was a choice of jump or be pushed.

Someone had to be the fall guy for what they could see was coming. The Labour leadership was a poisoned chalice no one sane wanted before the election... once they decided they had little chance of an outright victory.

They must all have been thinking “Let's fight like hell for what seats we can save, let Gordon take the bullet and maybe let Dave Cameron make himself seriously unpopular trying to sort the mess we made out - Back in 5 years time”.

It didn’t work out quite like that and now it is a real mess.

Labour clearly had no chance of hooking up with the Liberal Democrats while Gordon was in nominal charge, given his reported relationship with Nick Clegg. Could not make a majority with the Liberals either, not without minority Nationalist parties - and that would be an unstable mess that would barely have any majority anyway.

Maybe on alternate wednesdays if they were lucky.

Unless the Liberals and Conservatives can come up with something that is not Schizophrenic any coalition they make will not be able to last, or function effectively either.

Maybe what we really need is a general election?

The Bookie always wins

Here is an excellent example of why, when I was young, my Mother always advised me never to bet my money.

The house always wins.

This is the cautionary tale of hapless punter Cliff Bryant who trustingly placed an accumulator bet with British Bookmaker Ladbrokes that snow would fall on 24 towns and cities across the north of England on Christmas Day.

Well as it happened he was right, but like one or two insurance companies Ladbrokes were reluctant to pay out when they realised it would cost them £7.1 million - So they found a handy technical reason to avoid it and refused.

They were happy enough to take the bet, but when it came time to actually pay up they said they had accepted the bet by – get this ‘mistake’ and so would not be honouring the bet. Apparently it was somehow against their rules, even though they did take the bet.

Magnanimously they are willing to refund the punter back his original stake.

Curiously and it seems foolishly I had expected better of Bookmakers than politicians. I had thought they might actually honour their promises.

Now it seems to me that if they had honoured the bet it would have been a massive boost for their credibility and good publicity. Probably over a year it would have netted them what it cost and more.

As it is they now have a reputation of not honouring their bets, of welching - and who would trust someone with a bet who has so spectacularly shown they don’t always honour their bets?

So, next time you are thinking about placing a ‘fun’ bet, or any bet, especially with Ladbrokes, perhaps you would be better advised to think twice and spend your money on something you might actually get when you part with it.

Lies, damned lies, and - Government Inflation Figures

Inflation has been much in the news recently. It will probably feature frequently enough it the months and years to come. It is of course an official government measure despite it’s (probably intending to) sounding like it could be done by Which. The Consumer Price Index (CPI), Apparently annual inflation – the Government’s target measure – was up from 2.5% in March to 3.0% in April.

Not all that much one might imagine. And what is inflation anyway? Inflation is rising prices and costs. Anything that puts up a cost, such as an increase in road tax, or the cost of electricity, or the cost of your mortgage. Effectively it means your money is worth slightly less. You can also get the reverse.

So an accurate measure of inflation really tells you something about what is going on in the economy. The only trouble is the government figures are effectively a lie.

In almost standard New-Labour operating rules the measure and the target have become all important. Reality seems to come a poor second. They are basically fiddling the figures, like they do with ‘A’ level passes and it seems, almost everything else.

The official measure of inflation depends on what particular prices and costs are being officially kept track of. If they aren’t being measured then they don’t contribute to official inflation figures. If you only kept track of the price of video recorders and Ladas for instance inflation would probably be pretty low, maybe falling.

The real inflation experienced by us all in our daily lives bears little resemblance to what the New-Labour amusingly attempt to claim are accurate figures. I expect they will have arguments marshalled to justify why they leave some things out and measure others, probably almost as good as those Gordon Brown used to deny the promised referendum on the Lisbon treaty.

As disposable incomes become squeezed, people are increasingly forced to limit their spending to essentials like food, energy, housing. These are the things going up the most steeply. As our spending shifts more towards “non-discretionary” items and services our experience of inflation also get worse. If you spend a larger portion of your income on energy bills, for example, you will then also experience a much higher rate of inflation.

The index is also biased towards relatively cheaper goods like clothing, CD players, etc. rather than more expensive services like transport and childcare.

Who cares how much a new flat screen TV costs when they can put the purchase off, you have to buy groceries and have the energy to cook them. You may not be able to avoid paying for child care if you want to work. You need petrol to get to work. The rate of inflation as experienced by many households in the UK is probably multiple times more than the official figure.

Probably the CPI's worst omission is that it doesn’t factor in domestic costs like council tax and mortgage interest. There will not be many people who’s council tax has not risen well over inflation over the past 10 years.

Oh – and if you try to save for a rainy day inflation slowly (or maybe not so slowly) eats into your savings.

At just 2% it will reduce the value of £5,000 put away to £4,712 after just 3 years and that's with inflation of 2%. Imagine what's happening to your savings if your personal inflation rate is running at 5%, or even 10%. If the return you are getting on your money is less than the inflation you experience you might as well spend it all now because it will have less buying power later.

House of Lords may yet force a rethink on Lisbon Treaty referendum

It’s quite not over yet…

The house of Lords may still force New Labour and the Lib-Dems to honour their manifesto commitments to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

New Labour have consistently tried to pull the teeth of the house of Lords and destroy it’s more impartial, longer term view, in order to force through legislation unopposed, since they came to power. Now it seems they may not have done quite enough.

The Bill to rubber stamp the treaty without a referendum squeaked through the Commons in March with a majority of 63, thanks to the slavish unwillingness of new Lab and Lib-Dem MPs to honour what Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg presumably now regard as inconvenient election promises.

Now there is a possibility the house of Lords may yet try force them to honour their election commitment to a referendum anyway, by amending and returning the bill to the house of commons.

Lib Dem peer Lord Falkland, who clearly likes to be able to look himself in the eye in the mirror, unlike so many of his colleagues in the commons, said: ”I will be voting for a referendum and, if I am brave enough to withstand the glares of my colleagues, I will speak in the debate.”. “When you give an undertaking, as we clearly did in our last manifesto, you cannot have it both ways. A manifesto commitment has to be sacrosanct.”

Still, it is the whole weight of the European political elite and the European ‘Project’ behind the ‘Treaty’ - don’t hold your breath waiting for a referendum folks.

Every bond you break

This week I shall mostly be posting little, or nothing, as the opportunities will be few and far between. In any event one begins to wonder what the point is anyway - I am having a ‘Clegg’ moment on the futility of attempting to impede the unstoppable New Labour Fascist-Lite TM juggernaut, though unlike Clegg I am not inclined to actually assist them.

I was watching a music channel the other night with Mrs CFD when who should come on but The Police - no not the protest song the police have coined to remind the reluctant to venture out after dark Jacqui Smith of the fact that New Labour have decided to ignore the system that sets their pay because it is inconvienient for them.

I am talking about Sting (Gordon Sumner), Andy Summers, and Stewart Copeland, The Police. They were playing Every breath you take and I had a little epiphany - don’t worry I cleaned up after myself ;-).

Sting said of it; “The tune itself is generic, an aggregate of hundreds of others, but the words are interesting. It sounds like a comforting love song. I didn't realise at the time how sinister it is. I think I was thinking of Big Brother, surveillance and control.”

But the thing that occurred to me is that it almost perfectly encapsulates what politicians are to the voter - and the ‘relationship’ the voter should have with the politician. They really should represent and in a sense belong to the voter, as should parliament.

It works very well as a song for the voter to sing, as a model of how the voter should relate to the politician (watch them like a hawk), with the possible exception of the four lines beginning “Since you've gone…”.

So here is a version for the voter to take to their heart, without those lines. I have changed them, but if you think you can do better - comments, baby, baby, please…

So let’s call it, a:

Quote of the Day

Every breath you take.
Every move you make.
Every bond you break.
Every step you take.
I'll be watching you.

Every single day.
Every word you say.
Every game you play.
Every night you stay.
I'll be watching you.

Oh can't you see, you belong to me?
How my poor heart aches, with every step you take.

Every move you make.
Every vow you break.
Every smile you fake.
Every claim you stake.
I'll be watching you.

If it’s gone my liberty is lost without a trace.
It’s a loss, that I just don’t care to face.
It’s one thing that you really can’t replace.
So I try, to make sure that it’s not the case…….

Every move you make.
Every vow you break.
Every smile you fake.
Every claim you stake.
I'll be watching you.

Every move you make.
Every vow you break.
Every smile you fake.
Every claim you stake.
I'll be watching you.......

Clegg betrays Lib-Dem manifesto promise

As predicted Gordon Brown is a step closer to his eventual EU commissioner hood. He has ridden roughshod over democracy to force the Lisbon Treaty down the nation’s reluctant throat.

Lib-Dem leader Nick Clegg was interviewed last night on Sky News 24 on the 19:00 slot.

They were mostly asking some difficult questions about his sacking of the only honourable members of his shadow cabinet/front bench team, the ones who had voted for a referendum.

The presenter was interested in if he was going to punish any of the other Lib-Dem MPs who had defied the party whip imposing his will, in order to vote as their manifesto had promised they would.

He blustered a bit, but tellingly when they asked what he thought people would think of the way he forced many Lib-Dem MPs to vote against their consciences he suggested the Conservatives had somehow been ‘mealy mouthed’ in trying to make acceptance dependant on a referendum. He said as closely as I can recall “If the Conservatives had their way it wouldn’t change things for one moment”.

He seemed to be acknowledging that even a no vote in a referendum wouldn’t stop, or even delay, the European project, or the constitution – and in this he is probably right. The previous no votes haven’t made a jot of difference, so why should a referendum result?

He is wrong though and it says something detrimental about his character that he thinks this way. Not necessarily wrong about the eventual outcome, but wrong about the futility of standing up for what you believe in, even if you may be doomed to ultimately fail, there is still a chance you could make a difference.

This is something he apparently does not understand. It is to their credit that some of 'his' MPs do.

UK parliament to vote on Lisbon Treaty

Today the so-called mother of parliaments betrays the people of the UK, if things go Gordon Brown’s and Nick Clegg’s way – and it is likely things will.

Having stood on a platform offering a referendum on the subject, New Labour MPs have been instructed to vote for the Lisbon Treaty - and avoid a referendum. Lib Dems, after making some noises about principles, will be permitted to abstain and thus not oppose it. Of the 3 main parties, only the Conservatives appear to be doing the honourable thing.

That vote is today.

Some 90% of the electorate want a referendum and these people, these MPs know it. These people, who allegedly represent the population of the UK. These people, who if they vote for the treaty without it being dependant on a referendum, can not avoid knowing they are deliberately doing the exact opposite of their job.

They know full well the will of the people in this matter - and yet they are prepared to crush it under their heel.

Any one of them who fails to stand up and demand a referendum is betraying the trust of the electorate, their promises made to it in order to get elected and twice over the principles of parliamentary democracy.

Does anyone expect this to influence their behaviour? It’s not as if it might immediately increase the chances of concealing out what they have been claiming ‘expenses’ for…

Anyone at all…. You madam, what about you, the elderly lady over there… No?

Nine in every ten UK voters want a referendum of Lisbon Treaty

A recent series of large scale mini-referendaorganised by I want a referendum.com on the issue of a demand for national referendum to ratify the so-called Lisbon Treaty reveals that 88% of voters would like UK ratification of the treaty be subject to a referendum. The turnout to these was higher than in a national election.

The Treaty is effectively identical to the rejected European constitution and hands large chunks of parliamentary power to the EU.

Presumably the voters don’t trust MP’s with the powers they have loaned them. Don’t trust them not to sell all our birthrights for a mess of pottage (lentil stew or soup). Hardly surprising really, when they apparently can’t even be trusted over expenses.

Will this result influence parliament?

Not very likely, based on Gordon Brown’s - and now for some unfathomable reason Nick Clegg’s ludicrous insistence that a referendum is not needed. They are desperately and entirely unconvincingly trying to maintain the lie that the treaty is not effectively identical to the constitution that they agreed did need one. This in the face of continental insistence that it is.

Gordon Brown seems to have forgotten that power is not his by natural right. His power is loaned to him by the electorate. It is given based upon promises his party made before the last election that they would allow a referendum.

Clegg is trying to confuse the issue with suggestions of a referendum on remaining in the EU, presumably because he feels this can be used to fudge the issue as it is less likely the electorate would actually completely repudiate the UK’s EU membership. Brown does not even want to chance that.

If he will not allow a referendum on the treaty, then no matter what he says, his position is not legitimate. Nor his authority. Nor will the treaty be.

Lib Dem election promises “not subject to legitimate expectation” either

Those who voted Liberal Democrat in the last general election presumably did so on the basis of their manifesto – that, Like New Labour’s, promised a referendum on the European Constitution.

Now their new Leader, Nick Clegg, who holds his seat as a result of that election, is also disingenuously claiming, like Gordon Brown, that the microscopic differences in the Lisbon Treaty somehow remove any need for a popular vote. He wants Liberal Democrat MPs to help New Labour block an amendment demanding a referendum and force the treaty through.

So now you know. With Nick Clegg in charge you can’t believe the lies the Fib Dems print in their manifesto any more than you can New Labour’s.

They will apparently say whatever is expedient to persuade people to vote for them - and then do as it suits them with no regard to their vain promises.

And they wonder why the citizen is loosing faith in politicians…

New Labour Manifesto Promises are: “Not subject to Legitimate Expectation”

This has been aired elsewhere - but quite frankly can’t be drawn to the attention of the voters often enough, so I make no apology for raising it here.

UKIP took Gordon Brown to court over his reneging on New Labour’s manifesto promise to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution now renamed the Lisbon Treaty.

The case was brought by former New Labour activist, Stuart Bower. He stated:

"From the papers I have been sent, it seems that the Prime Minister is denying the pledge made in his government's manifesto. Surely this is a desperate act as everybody knows the commitment was made and that is why many people gave their votes to his party.

"To me, it is a clear case of breach of contract. They made a written promise and broke it. That was a contract between the government and the people. “

Everybody does know the commitment was made - and it certainly was a factor that many of those who in the end voted New Labour took account of when they voted.

What is (hat tip to the ‘Is there more to life than shoes?’ blog) soooo worth noting though - and seems to be of such little interest to MSM, was Gordon Brown’s Barrister; who blithely informed the court that: "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation "!!

In other words, the Prime Minister’s personal representative, is saying in open court, that the electorate can’t really expect any manifesto promises to be kept.

Now we all know that it may not be possible to deliver of a manifesto promise, due to unforeseen circumstances, including the non co-operation of opposition MPs, but there is a world of difference between that and actively wriggling out of keeping them, deliberately avoiding keeping them.

Even these days, we at least expect them to make the effort.

So there you have it. You don’t just have to rely on personal observation any more - It is official.

You would have to be a mug to be swayed by the blandishments contained in any future New Labour’s manifesto - you really can not expect them to even attempt to honour them.

Gordon, the Pork Pieman, may have been reading his Machiavelli again; Perhaps: “The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present.”.

Brown expects his current rolling string of Crises to be forgotten

It shows the truly cynical direction that Gordon Brown’s thoughts are tending, after his bottling out of legitimising his regime with an election.

He evidently thinks he can get away with truly screwing the sheeple now, because he is gambling that if he can get his many chickens (suspicion, incompetence and broken promises) home to roost now the sheeple will be too myopically stupid to remember being fleeced by the time he decides to allow them to vote again.

Speaking at his regular monthly Downing St press conference he primly suggested: "Many of the things that have been written about for the last few weeks would be forgotten quickly,"

What is dispiriting is that on past performance he may not be as far wrong as he ought to be.

Then again, if Government incompetence and betrayal continue to come to light on a regular basis, as is quite possible based on past performance, then he may still have plenty of prominent roosting chickens on display when he is finally forced, by time, to go to the people with a reputation as solid as a northern rock.

Then who knows, even sheep can get nasty sometimes…

New-Labs promises on education look empty ten years on

If you had ordered something ten years ago and paid through the nose for it you might have expected to have, at lest, had sight of it by now.

Lancaster University has conducted research into New-Lab’s specialist schools programme and it’s Excellence in Cities initiative. They have concluded that, despite billions being spent on them the government’s policies have provided "meagre" benefits.

Cambridge University have published an interim report from a wide-ranging, independent, two-year review of primary education pointing out that despite some £500m spent so far on literacy standards of reading have been "more or less static since the 1950s".

New-Lab’s ‘National Literacy Strategy’ had "a barely noticeable effect" on reading ability and has apparently managed to significantly reduce any actual enjoyment children get from reading – bound to make them want to read then – not.

Further the literacy levels of the poorest children have dropped even further behind their peers than anywhere else in Europe.

It is a damning indictment on the Government and it didn’t need the universities to find that out, as virtually any parent with school aged children will attest, though perhaps it does to provide concrete evidence of it that the government can’t ignore.

We can only hope that the government pay more attention to what actually really works and less to educational and political theory, though one fears it is unlikely given that government interference is so often the kiss of death to anything they take an interest in with their regulations, policies and omnipresent measurements and targets.

“Schools ‘n’ Hospitals”, “14 Days to save the NHS” - but only if you are actually com-pet-ent. It all rings rather hollowly now but the spin goes on.
It seems that the official reaction to the reports were right in the river with the Egyptian crocodiles :-)

Gordon Brown betrays Electorate

Gordon Brown today betrayed parliamentary democracy and those who elected him, proving no one can ever trust a Nu-Lab manifesto ‘promise’ again.

He seems to be set to get away with it, as the opposition parties appear too weak to prevent him from doing so and he has ignored a petition for a referendum signed by thousands.

EU leaders in Lisbon emerged, not long after midnight, full of self congratulation, hugging and slapping each other on the back. Barroso crowed what a "great achievement" the Constitutional treaty was.

It seems only Ireland has the courage of it’s convictions. Brown is clearly desperate to avoid any sort of encounter at all with the will of the electorate.

Brown is lying if he says this does not hand parliaments right to the EU – The ‘treaty’ gives the EU power to sign international treaties on it’s own. Being members this can effectively bind Parliament and Britain in treaties they have not been able to debate or decide upon. That is relinquishing power that Brown does not have the right to give away.

It’s like lending someone your car and finding they have sold it.

If those entrusted with power by the electorate can not be trusted to guard that power and use it as intended, then they no longer have any moral right to it and should hand it back.

Brown heading to EU summit set to betray electorate over Constitutional Treaty

Dave the Chameleon has called Gordon Broon Breeks on the promised NU-Lab Referendum on the EU Constitutional Treaty that Gordon is blocking. Gordon’s arguments are thread bare, as Ireland is planning a referendum and other nations are looking at the idea.

Gordon Bottled on an election and he is bottling on a referendum. The only logical reason for him to bottle on a referendum is that he does not believe he would get the result he wants in that, any more than he had confidence in his ability to succeed in a general election.

It is quite clear, that if he felt he would win a referendum he would organise one in a trice - and then claim a mandate to betray parliamentary democracy. As it is he is left trying to come up with excuses to avoid a Referendum and getting in Barroso’s bad books.

Broon Breeks tried to claim it was not actually a constitutional treaty at all, only an (is this a new one?) “amending” treaty. He is making out that this is because we have ‘red lines’, or opt outs - as if they will be safe from being over ridden and nullified by the European court.

It is difficult to imagine he actually believes any of this guff.

Given Nu-Lab were elected on a manifesto promise of a referendum that the average voter will interpret as having been broken, for all Broon’s hot air, it is clear he is not acting in the interests of those who elected the Government - or British Parliamentary Democracy.

Noted public figure notices that the UK Government does not deliver on it’s promises.

You would think that a seasoned pressure group campaigner would be a little less naive.

Sir Jonathon Porritt, a leading environmentalist, is complaining that ‘soaring’ speeches made by Gordon Broon Breeks, at the Nu-Lab party conference, about making the UK a global leader in fighting alleged anthropocentric Global Warming; "make Britain a world leader in tackling climate change", were not backed up by action.

Hello! Exactly what else was he expecting? This is a man who will not even honour his party’s manifesto pledges. This is a party that was promising to ‘save’ the NHS over a decade ago. That spoke of instant fines for antisocial behaviour where the police were going to march offenders to the nearest cash point – Yeah right.

That is exactly what this party does – make ‘soaring’ speeches and memorable sound bites.

Sir Jonathon should do the decent thing , not call them on it and let it get forgotten and buried, like previous ‘soaring’ speeches, under other, newer, ‘soaring’ speeches promising the earth. Just like the electorate is expected to do…

PM puts brakes on ‘Snap’ UK Election

Evidently Gordon Broon Breeks, having considered all the options, has now decoded against calling a snap general election.

This is clearly because he calculates that if he were to have called one he would be in danger of reducing his majority, possibly even to the point where it actually became a minority – So Snap election, not a good move then.

The problem is that he has apparently been teetering on calling one for some time. Doing it by remote control of course to try and maintain deniability. Hence his minions have been dropping hints and scurrying round laying the ground for one and generally talking the idea up. There is no way all this would have been going on without Gordon’s approval behind the scenes. If it was it would have to make him a pathetically weak leader.

Plus, no doubt he calculated, it might help steal, or drown out, some of the opposition’s conference thunder.

Never-the-less he must have felt pressured to decide, with his window due to close.

Like a hesitant motorist at a roundabout, he had almost plucked up the courage to go - when he realised the opportunity had gone and he would have to wait if he wanted to be safe.

This must have seriously damaged his reputation. Especially after all his hot air about running stuff like that past parliament first, rather than the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show.

Maybe he will argue that all MPs had the chance to watch the show so he was actually using it as a means to address parliament. It’s the sort of dodgy spin Nu-Lab love so much.

Still, as PM he is in a position to use the resources of Government to do his best to undo the damage over the coming months and take the wind out of the opposition’s sales.

We can probably expect some smoke and mirrors to distract us from his brown breeks any minute. Taxes? Troop withdrawals? Maybe even a referendum – though he probably is not that keen to distract us.

So now we have a Government that was elected with a different leader, on a manifesto they have not honoured, quite the reverse in fact Gordon himself has, to date, been twisting to avoid honouring it - If Gordon’s Government can not be said to have a mandate, then where is his?