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?

Janus

There is something inherently dishonest about the Liberal Democrat's current attempt to appeal to voters.

They are desperate to keep facing in both directions and be all things to all people, including new.

Nick Clegg and his advisors are perfectly well aware that for many disaffected Conservative and Labour supporters an x in their box is a protest vote against their own parties.

Many disaffected Conservative supporters could never bring themselves to vote Labour, but feel it is important to vote, so they vote Liberal, less so in a general election that in Local elections, but they definitely do it.

The same holds true for disaffected Labour supporters. They also can convince themselves that the Liberal Democrats are enough like Labour to vote for them.

So Nick Clegg's dilemma is he needs support from both disaffected Conservative and disaffected Labour supporters. To do this he has to play coy with who and what the Liberal Democratic Party are.

Even today on the eve of the election when directly asked Nick still desperately avoids answering that question as to who he might support in a hung parliament.

He needs Conservative Supporters to see him as practically Conservative and a potential partner to a Hung Parliament Conservative Government and Labour Supporters to see him as practically Labour and a likely potential partner in a possible hung pearliest Labour government.

Obviously the two positions are mutually exclusive. One group of supporters that he is so assiduously attempting to woo are going to be severely disappointed if there is a hung parliament.

Nick Clegg of course wants to put off betraying them and blowing his carefully implied political fellowship until after they have voted for him and it is too late.

If he can get his hands on power just once for just long enough he can push for whatever change in the electoral system most favours his own party at the expense of the others and possibly the UK too.

The Liberal party is dreaming being serious contenders - for the fist time since the Great War.

Oh... remember how sanctimonious Nick Clegg was over Gordon Brown's Gillian Duffy open mike gaff? He had his own moment, maybe he should have been a little less self satisfied about Gordon's


Janus, or Ianus, was the god of gates, doors & doorways, bridges and passages of beginnings and endings. He was also the god of the entrance of the home.

Elections - A bed voters will have to lay in afterwards

It is finally election time in the UK. The date has been set for May 6 and currently there is much talk about the possibility of a ‘hung’ parliament.

This is a parliament where no party has a proper working majority - so basically they are usually pointless, weak, ineffectual and short lived.

There is talk amongst the MSM pundits that some voters may actually be hoping for a ‘hung’ parliament. I wonder if it has been explained to them it does not involve nooses and the lamp posts of Westminster as some sort of public participant entertainment of the type previously associated with Tyburn.

Why? Well it’s since the first televised ‘presidential’ style debate (that were not really debates as such) between the leaders of the parties, Nick Clegg, the leader of the unofficial “None of the above” party. The Liberals, who should not under any circumstances be confused with ‘Laissez faire' Liberals, is benefiting from doing quite well in them and from managing to distance himself from much of the recent corruption and the government’s incompetence.

It is worth noting that there is nothing to stop any, or all, of the parties changing their leaders immediately after the election, as the party leaders are chosen by the parties and are not presidential candidates at all and not voted for by the people.

UK voters, ignorant as many are, should bear in mind they are actually voting for their local MP, who again can switch parties if they wish, just as soon as they are elected if they so desire.

They are not voting for next British Prime Minister.

It will now be in Nick Clegg’s interests to be a little coy as to who he might be willing to do a deal with to help form a government in the event of a hung parliament.

Why? - Because many of his potential votes will be from disaffected Labour and Conservative voters who convince themselves in their disillusionment with their own parties that Liberals are practically the same thing. He will want to keep them all thinking he is the next best thing until after the election. Much like the Welsh and Scots Natonalists who in addition care very little about anyone outside their own areas.

The Liberals can’t be both - and someone will end up being disappointed, possibly both Labour and Conservative supporters who vote Liberal afterwards in the harsh light of day.

Liberals don’t do too badly in local elections where they can’t do harm on a national level with some of their more half-baked ideas.

That is the problem. If we think of it in evolutionary terms, some of the weirder ideas they have tucked away (think harmful genes) have never needed to stand the harsh light of day and never to date had the chance to do any real harm and harm the fitness of the organism that is the UK by becoming active.

I don’t mind what they may do to the Liberals themselves - Mostly keep them out of power since after the first world war so far.

I do care what they do to the UK, as I live in it.

I care in much the same way as I would if I were floating in a small boat taking on some water with some bright spark who thought it might be a good idea to poke holes in it with a screwdriver in order to let the water out…

"Fire up the Quattro Bolly"

Up till now I wouldn't have actually really questioned the Milliband Brothers intelligence, only their good sense.

Seeing them launch their latest poster attack on David Cameron by trying to compare him with Philip Glenister's no nonsense cop character Gene Hunt from the popular TV series Ashes to Ashes made me do just that though.

Now I can see where they are trying to go with it. Labour see the 80s as unmitigately bad with Maggie in power and all that. I am not sure we all hated the 80s like Labour, but Labour certainly did, so they are probably making the mistake that we will all think 80s were entirely bad.

I know the 80s wern#'t perfect by any means, but the thing is the country also kind of turned it's self round and we beagn to feel just a little bit better about ourselves for the first time in ages too.

What Labour seem to have missed is that the character of Gene Hunt is really a kind of hero. Whatever else he is A. Incorruptible B. Tough C. Direct D Kickass and C Pretty Cool, etc. none are things that I had particularly previously associated with Dave the bloke.

Quite Frankly if Gene Hunt were running for PM he might well get my vote.

Up to now I couldn't help feeling Dave's greatest asset was that he was sligtly less awful and possibly slightly less incompetent than the clunking fist Gordon Brown. Who knows.. maybe he does share some of those characteristics with Gene Hunt :-)

If I were the clunking fist I would think twice about putting the Amaising Millibandis in charge of any more posters. It seems the Tories were quick to both spot and take advantage of this spectacular own goal and have gleefully hijacked it.

“Fire up the Quattro Bolly" - If anything it’s well overdue for change.

Labour's abrupt 'U' turn on no impropriety claim

The clunking fist Gordon Brown, was busily dismissing demands for a Whitehall investigation into the Byers, Hoon, Hewitt, etc. and the secret political influence for cash scandal, one strongly suspects hoping to sweep it under the carpet as soon as possible.

"Nothing to see here folks, move along please..."

He was desperately claiming it was not necessary to have a formal inquiry into whether Government ministers changed policy after being approached by bought colleagues.

Amid demands that the Prime Minister order a formal enquiry Brown let it be known he was "satisfied" that there had been no impropriety on the part of ministers in the Transport and Business departments. A spokesperson said "The Prime Minister has seen the statements from the departments and is satisfied that there is no impropriety."

Well it seems that after Byers and his chums were outed by the Channel 4 programme which secretly recorded the former ministers and everyone could make their own minds up directly the pretence could no longer be kept up.

One wonders how happy Mandleson and Adonis were to have been implicated in the matter, and how much truth there was in the original claims.

One wonders if Byers is now falling on his sword having belatedly realised he has transgressed against omertà. It must have finally dawned on him they know where he lives...

Those involved have finally been suspended from the Parliamentary Labor Party. Apparently the party's chief whip, Nick Brown finally decided enough was enough after back bench pressure, probably largely motivated by fear of the electoral damage Labour might suffer over the matter if they carried on pretending such behaviour was acceptable.

Maybe one day these so-called honourable gentlemen Wouldn’t that be refreshing…

Meanwhile... I am also contemplating the acquisition of a reinforced umbrella against the day geneticists develop a winged pig :-) In the previous case I am not planning on holding my breath waiting as the need for that umbrella is sadly probably far more pressing.

Crooked influence peddler's looking for buyers?

Well Labour’s former Transport minister the Honourable Stephen Byers along with some of his colleagues, Former Labour ministers the Honourable Geoff Hoon and the Honourable Patricia Hewitt have been caught in a sting operation touting for business.

Pedalling what political influence they have secretly to the highest bidder.

In his own words he was like “A cab for hire”.

He had boastfully claimed during a sting operation that he had surreptitiously engineered a deal with Transport Secretary Lord Adonis over the termination of a rail franchise contract. And that he had persuaded the Business Secretary Lord Mandelson to alter food labelling regulations on behalf of a major supermarket chain.

The chance of these being the only former ministers currently doing this are, one suspects, vanishingly small.

In an echo of the moral ambivalence MPs so amply demonstrated at length when caught fleecing the taxpayer by dubious expenses claims that would have resulted in any normal employer suspending the miscreants. Certainly reporting likes you or I to the police, probably followed by sacking.

He and his colleagues are insouciantly claiming they have done nothing wrong and they had complied with all the rules.

If that is the case it is simply another example of how endemic the failure of MPs moral compass is

After being confronted Byers tried to claim he was not actually like “a cab for hire” after all and that he had in fact “exaggerated”. Well we know that - his lips must surely have been moving when he was speaking after all. It is a polite way of putting it.

Those less inclined to be kind to him might interpret this to mean that the man is a self confessed liar..

The problem is deciding exactly how he is lying.

Lying to cover up his secretly influencing legislation for money?

...Or lying to all comers about how he can, for a sufficient bung, influence legislation to his potential customer’s advantage?

Difficult call...

A future - but would it really be fair for all?

It seems that Labour, or rather the ideologically dedicated ;-) Saatchi and Saatchi, have come up with an election campaign slogan.

'A future fair for all'

Apparently it is supposed to capture Labour and particularly the (possibly literally) clunking fist’s "own personal point of view”.

No wonder they want to distract us from looking at their record in power with airy waffle of the future. A future they know will involve tax hikes and spending cuts that they are even now allowing to grow larger as they try to play them down dragooning their pet economists much as when they wrongly as it turned out attacked Geoffrey Howe.

“Fairness” is one of those Labour newspeak words like “Community”.

As near as I can tell, to Labour and their fellow travellers, fairness essentially means that no one should be allowed to succeed more than anyone else. The thought seems to be that if someone does, or aspires to do so, then it is somehow unfair. They are somehow “unfairly” taking advantage of, intelligence, hard work and plain good luck, or possibly that of their parents in order to succeed.

Essentially to cut people off at the knees so to speak in order to prevent them standing head and shoulders above anyone else. Because to their minds the very act of doing so is of course “unfair”.

S&S’s director of strategy to Richard Huntington would like us to believe that the new slogan “highlights that change is a process”. Really?

Apparently it also rather worryingly “locks together a destination for Britain”

Oh and it seems outrageously contends “that the future for Labour is for the many, compared to the Conservatives”, where he would have us believe the future would “always be for the few."

So then, they are apparently (and possibly allowing their Freudian slip to show) taking a leaf out of the early Russian communists little red book.

Up to a certain point in 1903 they were part of the relatively innocuously titled “Russian Social Democratic Party”. A minority, who didn’t feel they were necessarily destined for success there, going on the way they were, spit away from the party and formed a breakaway group.

Much like our Gordon it seems they presumably cunningly and misleadingly, (rather than ironically), they referred to themselves as “members of the majority”. Possibly in order to sucker those who don’t look too closely at such claims and go with the feel of a slogan rather than it’s relationship with reality.

The Russian word for “members of the majority” is of course Bolsheviks, after 1917 they managed a much longer stint in power than Tony Blair ever did. Such an extended term in power is surely the stuff of the clunking fist’s private fantasies.

It seems to me more realistic to argue that if you want a future where you really do have a fair chance to succeed, without the ball and chain of the incompetent nannying of the repressive Labour state dragging you down then the last thing you should do is vote Labour.

Climate Change

With the recent UK Met office predictions of Barbeque summers and mild winters that don’t materialise, the subject of ‘Global Warming’ never seems far from mind these days.

Belief in the theory influences may public decisions and where much public money is expended.

Possibly even Met office predictions, confounded by cool damp summers and frozen snowy winters. Predictions, it has been suggested, that are influenced by an evangelical conviction in Anthropocentric Global Warming of the Met offices boss and his hiring policy.

Lots of shorthand terms are bandied about. “Global warming”, “Climate change”, etc.

So lets examine the facts. Climate Change is an incontrovertible fact. There is overwhelming evidence accrued over years and over recorded history to back it up.

At various times the earth has lazed under balmy tropical temperatures over much of it’s surface, at others ice has covered vastly more of it’s surface than it does today. There is evidence that the climate has swung from warm to cold and back again countless times.

It did so before mankind existed and could not possibly have influenced it. It has continued to do so since he walked the earth, again before mankind could conceivably had any impact on it.

So then, climate change incontrovertibly exists - and would still exist if mankind had never existed, it will continue if we were to cease to exist.

What causes it? Well probably a complicated mix of many things. How far the earth is from the sun, cloud cover, the arrangements of the continents, sunspot activity, volcanic activity, how much dust and particulate matter is in the atmosphere to list a few.

Even Mars apparently undergoes variations, these must surely be entirely natural. It is difficult to imagine one or two solar powered rovers having much impact on climate.

It is questionable that we and so-called climate scientists have the definitive answer to all the causes of climate change and how they interact. To be honest I suspect if they are honest they are still trying to work it out.

Now currently all the evidence suggests we are in the middle of a series of coolings and warmings that fluctuate over millennia, with smaller fluctuations, or beats within the larger ones.

Most of recorded history happens to have taken place within a period of warming where the ice sheets retreated and vast amounts water, locked up in ice sheets on the land melted and the sea levels varied as water was added to them and some parts of the earth that had been squashed down under the weight of miles of ice rebounded and rose and surrounding areas that had been pushed up correspondingly sank.

One suspects we have been able to advance and support increasing numbers at least partly because warming of the climate has helped us survive and prosper.

So global warming? Yes that too must exist along with global cooling and the current warming has been going on since before the start of recorded history.

35,000 years ago, not so long in the grand scheme of things, There was ice sheet just north of where London is now. To the south tundra with caribou. There was no north sea or channel.

The ice began to melt, things began to get warmer. If that hadn’t happened then right now, where I am just now you could probably see a wall of ice.

This was not influenced by Cro-Magnon or Neanderthal four wheeled drive vehicles, or by the methane emitted by cows that went into their burger chains. Maybe planes full of teeming bison, caribou, wooly rhinoceros and mammoths are just as windy…

The logic is inescapable global warming can and does happen absolutely independent of the influence of mankind.

Left to it’s own devices it is overwhelmingly likely that some time in the next few thousand years things would have all changed round and started to get colder again.

The earth has seen much colder climate than it is now, but it has also seen much warmer, even in recorded history.

There have been little fluctuations over the last few thousand years that made things more or less comfortable for humans.

Most recently there was what is known as “The little ice age” a cooler period where the river Thames in London froze regularly enough for there to be annual ice fares held on it. When we regularly had snow.

Before that, around 1,000 years ago, there was what is known as “the little climatic optimum”, when the climate in Greenland was relatively balmy and vineyards did well in England.

So the real question is have our actions had any effect on top of all that? Over and above the large natural fluctuations that are incontrovertibly continuously taking place even now.

Can we really definitively spot anything we may have done to influence the climate amongst the complicated backdrop of what we know must be naturally varying the climate? Do we really know enough to be able to?

It seems we can’t really fully understand the natural mechanisms yet so we are left trying to spot trends in statistics and trying to work out if they correlate in any way and if any do is it direct or indirect. One suspects there is a lot of interpretation involved.

It is interesting to note even the UK’s Met Office, prominent proponents of the theory of manmade global warming doesn’t seem to be bale to get it right, having apparently got their long range forecasts wrong for the past decade by it seems inflating expected temperatures in line with theory and being consistently disappointed.

One thing that concerns me, as (I like to think) a reasonably educated and informed and logical layman are the instances of mistakes, exaggerations and possibly outright fraud in the so-called science of man made global warming. From sea level ‘adjustments’, to models that produce a hockey stick, no matter what data is input, to the scandal of the recently leaked emails.

Speaking of which it has now come out that Professor Phil Jones’ Climatic Research Unit according to the Deputy Information Commissioner Graham Smith committed offences from 2007 to 2008 under section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act in that they intentionally prevented the disclosure of requested information.

They have apparently only avoided prosecution because of the way the statute of limitations on the offences are being generously interpreted.

There is also now an independent review chaired by Sir Muir Russell attempting to establish if there is evidence that data was manipulated or suppressed in a way which was "at odds with acceptable scientific practice".

These are cutting edge so-called climate scientists of world renown who have committed offences by concealing or destroying data that they feel might me ‘misleading’ and who are apparently essentially suspected by the authorities of fiddling their results.
These same results are certainly still being used to bolster warmist claims/predictions.

Then there is the sheer vitriol, name calling and reflexive denigration heaped by all ‘believers’ (including the PM recently) on anyone who remotely seems to question the warmist agenda or theory. I don’t trust it.

That to me reeks of the rage and offence taken by a true believer when their deeply held religious or political beliefs are challenged.

It is my experience that the word of such people is not particularly reliable. There is a danger that their deeply held beliefs may make it seem ok to basically lie to bolster their case, especially if they are convinced they are right anyway.

The data in the IPCC reports is now revealed to be of extremely dubious merit, especially concerning dodgy claims of the rate of deglaciation. So dubious that scientists are daring to complain about a lack of proper peer review.

If these claims and it seems others as well are not to be trusted then just how much else that comes out of the IPCC can be?

So for myself I find myself in the position of being unable to trust the so-called data, those ‘climate scientists’ who earn a good living out of the theory and the politicians who find it such a good excuse to raise taxes and enact progressively draconian laws. I am also equally unsure of the motives of many deniers. I am left in a position of not knowing what to believe either way on the anthropocentric theory.

These are many of the same politicians who brought us WMD and the 45 minute deployment claim. It could be those claims were over egged too.

Of course the argument will probably be settled in 25 years time. Either the warmist predictions will have come to pass or not. If they are still arguing by then with nothing definitive to show then the theory is probably wrong in some way. I still wonder exactly what is responsible for the cycle of ice ages.

So meanwhile what to do?

Well it seems to me that we do need energy self sufficiency and it is desirable to avoid air pollution. We don’t want to be breathing smog, chemicals, particulate matter. It might also be good to avoid deforestation and the loss of species and complex habitat involved.

So in some respect it would seem to be desirable to proceed with developing green power generation and energy self sufficiency regardless of the accuracy of the theory of manmade global warming or not. I do feel strongly it would be very desirable to avoid crippling our economies with prohibitive taxes and red tape while doing it , especially after the recession has focussed our minds.

Maybe better if done with logic and honesty, without the largely unnecessary argument and without the quasi-religious zeal and vitriol. Done efficiently and cheaply. There could be manufacturing and employment benefits too.

Clearly the existing wind technology is not nearly as effective as is generally advertised by the warmist camp as it can only harvest energy when the wind actually blows and then only in proportion to how much it blows. It occurs to me that if it was used to pump water up a column or compress air it could at least be used to store energy from a windy day until it was needed.

Tidal energy is ever present unfailing and surrounds us. It would seem a far more reliable bet Unfortunately the energy harvesting technology seems much less developed and effective.

Finally there is the nuclear option. Personally I believe this can fill the looming energy gap, exacerbated by green Luddite resistance to the construction of new power stations, particularly nuclear. More effectively and efficiently and much sooner than anything else.

Currently the entire volume of high level nuclear waste from the entire life time energy use of a single individual takes up a lump of matter about the size of a household roll of duct tape.

The merits, benefits and dis-benefits of nuclear energy are material for another entire post.

Democracy at work?

Earlier this month I posted on Lord Moynehan’s proposed bill to give the police the power to raid homes in order to search for so-called "performance enhancing drugs". Allegedly to prevent cheating at the 2012 Olympics.

I took my own advice and wrote to Eric Pickles Chairman of the Conservative Party and Conservative MP to voice my concerns. Nothing like going to the top.

He replied fairly promptly and actually answered the basic thrust of my letter, so good for him in that. The relevant section of his reply was as follows:

“I understand your concerns about this issue. Whilst I believe these measures are necessary to safeguard against the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport, it is important that they are not used unfairly against members of the public who have been prescribed these drugs for genuine medical purposes.

Please rest assured that my colleagues and I will press the Government to ensure that these powers are used for their intended purpose.”

Do you know... I really don’t think he did understand half my concerns about the issue based on his response.

Sports are a game. There may be money tied up in them, a lot in some cases - and prestige, but they are in the end still a game.

What’s more they are essentially a private arrangement between individuals, or groups of individuals, who agree a set of rules they will abide by. It may even go so far as being a contract, but that is still essentially between the individuals involved.

If someone cheats on those rules then it is a matter for all the other participants and the organisers. The governing bodies of the sports. The rest of us may form opinions about what was done and the people who did it, but that is it.

Even if the state decides to organise a sporting event it is still essentially a private matter.

I, like the overwhelming majority or citizens, have entered into no agreements. I am not involved in it, except possibly to be inconvenienced by it when travelling and directly, or indirectly, involuntarily having to pay towards it.

Also possibly watching a fraction of it on TV, after having paid again to do that too, either by means of the UK TV tax, or directly to one of the other content providers.

I don’t care particularly strongly about the games, not nearly so much as I do about how much I pay in tax. They let them use advanced materials and equipment in some events.

If they gave athletes carte blanche to use performance enhancing drugs as much as they liked the performances might even be more entertaining. They would certainly be on a guaranteed level playing field then… except some would not have so much money to put into training and equipment or time. Maybe they should insist on equal funding as well.

The thing is the staggering majority of us are not a part of it or involved in it in any realistic sense any more than we would be involved in horticulture if we had a day out and visited a country fair that had a vegetable growing competition.

It is simply wrong for the state to pass any law relating to the rules of a private competition. Would the government seriously consider making a law to ban overacting on the football pitch? Giving the police the power to curtail a footballer’s thespian leanings?

You can hear the catch slogan now… “Two to five for taking a dive? – It’s the LAW”

So… no Mr Pickles. If you believe for a second the measures are necessary then you clearly feel the state has far more right to interfere with my liberty than I do.

The state has no business whatsoever attempting to safeguard against the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport.

It is interesting to note the measures are proposed by an unelected Tory Lord who is completely unaccountable to the electorate. And that Mr Pickles, occupying a safe Tory seat as he does, is effectively only practically accountable to the Tory hierarchy.

The legislation in it’s very conception is anti democratic and authoritarian.

As for his assertion that “I will press the Government to ensure that these powers are used for their intended purpose”, at best I fear this simply demonstrates grossly misplaced optimism on his part.

We are all well aware that very little recent legislation that has been passed granting powers to the police of councils or virtually any public body has actually been used as they were allegedly intended. In practically all cases there has been creep. As I mentioned in my previous post on the subject and my letter to Mr Pickles.

So from his letter it seems he has a touchingly misplaced faith at variance with the observed facts that this legislation will, unlike most other recent legislation not be abused by those executing it. Plus a certain authoritarian belief that the state has a God given right to be intrude where it should not even be considering intruding.

Is it worth telling him do you think?