oh dear, oh dear.

David Cameron’s “calm down, dear” performance yesterday at PMQ’s in the HoC was I believe nothing much but a joke, which the Labour party has used as an excuse to gain a bit of media attention, which they are struggling to achieve- what with no policy or anything representing an alternative to the coalition government.

But Cameron’s recent performances in the House of Commons have proven to be of the flashman type, he is often accused of.

When Gordon Brown was Prime Minister, the arrogance of David Cameron was plain to see, only now that he is the Prime Minister, he has an authority and powers which are unsuited to the attitude he has. I would not call it bullying, but given the nature of his title and the office he holds, it would be a good idea if he toned down the pretentious act.

Camerons performance has been portrayed as arrogant, watching it again, it is clear to see that the ‘most annoying’ politician Ed Balls is egging him on, even so, Cameron is starting to gain a reputation of a flashman type, exactly what he seems not to want to portray to the public. His insistence on trying to hide his background; the bullingdon club photo’s, his attire, are some of the reasons for  his ‘detoxification’ project of the conservative party, it is coming undone. Cameron speaks before he thinks, not only in his put-downs, but policy announcements and in interviews. he is an accident waiting to happen.


Huhne are you kidding?

Andrew Grice of the independent amongst others have made speculations of an early election, which may seem farfetch to some but I would not go as far to say it will not happen, for the easter break saw Chris Huhne, Nick Clegg, Simon Hughes etc, all wade into the AV debate criticising their coalition partners in the most undignified language.

Nick Clegg spoke at the weekend of a “right-wing clique”/ elite and of lies coming from the conservative party and its opposition to AV, one has to wonder if the liberal democrats realise they are in coalition government not in opposition, the tone of such talk is suited best to the schoolyard not British politics.

Calling their counterparts liars and cons, hardly promotes the type of government which last year both conservative and liberal democrat parties said would be in the national interest; concilliatory and colliegiate. thus the whole AV debate is unsurprisingly, putting much of the public off political interaction and is actually not concerning the issues of voting systems anymore.The liberal democrats have turned it into a political point scoring match which they are sure to lose.

If an early election is called, the outcome would not be anymore decisive as the 2010 election, the conservative party is on a par with Labour in most polls and the liberal democrats stand to lose a fair proportion of the vote, similar to their desired PR voting system they would end up with a handful of seats  due to their performance in government and reneging on manifesto promises.

Cameron is unlikely to secure a majority, even though some see him as fitting to his position as PM in number 10, it is likely I believe another coalition would have to be formed only this time Ed Miliband would likely gain enough votes to form a coalition with the libdems, if one were to be held any time soon.

The fact that this country has only the current lib/lab/con as any possible government is a travesty, all three leaders are unrepresentative of the people they purport to represent. And the present debates being had in politics are false, the real issues that need to be discussed are Europe; our membership, the economic consequences of membership and sovereignty of both our nation and laws made in Parliament. Only when these viable candidates i.e. lib/lab/con start talking about this will this country move forward and prosper once again.

As an early election is being discussed, all three leaders have people within their own parties seeking their positions, Ed Balls is obviously waiting in the wings for Ed Milibands place, Cameron faces regular rebellion with the conservative party now seeming to realise they chose the wrong David (Davis) and Nick Clegg has one Mr Huhne on his tail making the most transparent moves over the weekend -on the AV referendum- seeking approval from the leftist majority in the party.

The early election though, greatly depends on the outcome of the AV referendum, if a ‘no’ vote prevails Clegg suffers and Cameron will be safe for a while while the opposite is true if a ‘yes’ vote is given. we shall wait and see.

no confidence

The NHS proposals put forward by Andrew Lansley and the coalition seem to be going nowhere, fast. yesterday the Royal College of Nursing gave the Lansley plans a vote of no confidence which is apparently unprecedented.

on the question of competition in the NHS and thus european regulations involvement,    here is an article by , yes, Toynbee back in January of the Lansley plans for the NHS reforms

“For the first time the entire NHS has been put under competition law. The financial and clinical safety of NHS foundation trusts used to be the responsibility of the regulator, Monitor. Now its website proclaims: “The first of Monitor’s three core functions is to promote competition.” That means “enforcing competition law” and “removing anti-competitive behaviour”. Few yet understand the nuclear nature of this. It compels every NHS activity to be privately tendered. If the NHS is the preferred provider, that can be challenged in the courts or referred to the Competition Commission. Red-in-tooth-and-claw commercial competition breaks all partnerships.”

it is worth taking a look at the monitor

website and following the link to its various publications to get a clearer picture of just what this coalition government plans for the NHS, the economic regulations which they call ‘liberating the NHS’ if implemented will in fact be in line with EU directives (no surprise).

The current ‘listening exercise’ may result in changes to legislation yet, the Bill is more than half way through Parliament, it looks like another stitch up by the liberal democrats, whereby they continue to be the tail wagging the dog. At first Clegg and co. were in favour of the Health Bill only now it seems with media attention have they backtracked and realised their influence in the coalition can be used to alter the health reforms and are hoping to gain a bit of public support in the process, (they need it and May 5th is ever closer)

Whichever way you look at the Health Bill and the process the government has taken, much blame should be put at Camerons door; his style of governing is pitiful to say the least. Taking the back seat in every area until it is picked up by the media, is no way to run the country.

United States of Europe; at what cost?

That the EU is an undemocratic institution is well known, in its pursuit of a United europe, all members in unison; implementing policies emanating from european (unelected) elites, economic, agricultural, energy, fisheries, tranport, every aspect of government policy is infected with europhilia.

What was once a dream of peace and cooperation between the nations of europe is now a dictatorship, much like what in the beginning those at the top in public life claimed the european union would put a stop to.

The current economic crisis in the periphery countries in the eurozone, has shon a light on the characteristics of the dictatorial and coersive methods used by our masters in Brussels; all in order to achieve the ultimate goal of a federalist united states of europe. Portugal, Ireland, Greece (and possibly Spain) are being sacrificed in the most brutal ways. The austerity packagess delivered to these countries will not solve the problems they have, the debt they owe will increase, the debts will only be transferred to a different lender and those that will pay the price are the public, who are least to blame. It was inevitable from the start of the euro, in creating the eurozone, without working through the political consequences, was a disaster from the beginning.

Economic policy is central to any governing nation, and by joing the euro, these countries gave up that essential right; thus deceased to be sovereign.

Though the UK has not joined the eurozone, being a member of the EU, has landed us with similar consequences, the UK is liable to ‘help’ struggling economies of the eurozone, the City has been restrained through european directives, and the chancellor is following the EU guidelines of economic policy and governance Amongst all other areas; the judiciary; transport; human rights etc… the power of the government of the United Kingdom is extremely limited, as are all european member states.

The situation in Portugal exemplifies the handicap members of the european union and eurozone (especially) suffer. Socrates when letting the press know he was seeking a bailout for Portugal told those gathered that it was in the ‘national interest’ (where have we heard that before) The outgoing Irish prime minister said much the same when the Irish government went to the European union with begging bowl for their bailout, and Greece much the same, all after merely days or weeks before, having claimed that their nations were sovereign, they did not need any ‘help’ and would not be seeking any bailouts. After pressure behind the scenes all succumbed and took the offers.

As seen in both Ireland and Greece their economies are no better now (and are in fact worse) than before the bail outs, many citizens are emigrating, prices for essentials have risen sharply and the governments and opposition politicians are offering no alternative. The situation is much the same in the UK whereby the economy is pretty much flat, prices are rising, there are fewer jobs available, higher unemployment and politicians at Westminster offer no alternatives to the course already set out by the coalition government.

With Portugal embarking on a similar plan to that of Ireland and Greece, and with Spain possibly  to follow, the European union project of a united states of Europe, nears ever closer. Practically held to ransom these countries are stuck, the only ways out is default and decouple, leave the union  and go back to being a nation state, with their own currencies. Though it is known our masters in Brussels will not give up so easy, the fact that all EU nations  are following the economic and austerity plans set out begs the question what do they know that the people don’t.

While the economy is not the only factor, it is economic policy that is central to governance,  the fact that 17 countries are in the eurozone seems not to matter, bailouts involve all members  of the European union, austerity measures being enforced in the UK are along the guidelines of EU monetary policy as are France, Germany and the periphery etc. It is in effect a transfer union.

The most used excuse, given by this coalition government and previous governments of the benefits of membership are that of trade benefits, where it has been proven many times not to be the case, what the benefits of being a member are still not clear. Are governments happy to allow unelected figures in Brussels coordinate policy in every area? Every initiative that comes from the government can be traced back to the EU, so the question is ;is there any point to our own governments, since they are all too willing to comply.

If Britain did finally manage to exit the EU, what would happen? For more than 50 years governments have followed/complied with EU rule, like a lost puppy they’d be at a loss as to what to do and how to govern.

falling like domino’s

Portugal has finally asked for a bailout from the european union, though it is not clear who will be doling out the money the european commission, the european central bank and/or the international monetary fund, though the figures being bandied about are up to 90 billion euros which the UK will be liable for about 5-10% of this.

the conditions are yet to be set out and a clearer picture is likely after EU finance ministers meet on the 8th and 9th of April this weekend. though what is apparent is the bailouts of the PIG countries thus far have seen the countries economies stagnate and the populations stuck with quite extreme  austerity measures.

What is obvious is, these bailouts are taken through near force and that the beneficiaries are those in Brussels willing to do anything to keep the euro afloat, whatever the consequences. It may be that these countries deserve the harsh punishment, but was the EU and the euro not meant to unite the european nation states, as in one for all all for one.

Not so, and it never will be, This says it all really — “Democratic legitimacy? It’s not necessary. Apparently they had some mandate when they made the request last night. So if they were empowered last night to make the request, they are empowered to progress with negotiations,” from the commission economy spokesman Amadeu Altafaj speaking after socrates asked for the bailout merely hours before.

in relation to the current portugese government being a ‘caretaker’ government ( thus not having the legitimacy to agree a bailout package, without a popular mandate)   he goes on to say “It’s not their programme any more. It’s ours,”

It is surprising the portugese hadnt realised that they would be sacrificed for the sake of the project, many British realised long ago that it is our masters in Brussels running the show. In or out of the euro it does not matter, membership of  the EU means the EU rules.

Though when our own government(s) will wake up to the fact and DO something is another matter.


don’t forget where you came from

And I thought Nick Clegg was the culprit for the anti-Britishness of the coalition; not so Cameron thinks that “As with so many of the world’s problems, we are responsible for the issue in the first place.”

The link is to an editorial in the telegraph for tomorrow, and quotes Brown actually standing up for Britain, how thing’s change, ‘eh.

engineer Clegg

As we have come to expect of Nick Clegg, the public is always ‘clegged’, from the general election television debates and the pathetic Liberal Democrat manifesto which did not stand up to scrutiny, to the tuition fees debacle and now the social engineering he is pushing through, along with IDS, which they call ‘social mobility’. It is another collection of policies straight from the Blair playbook, Clegg has been on the airwaves, making speeches and writing articles all day, about his plans for ‘social mobility’ a key theme being, getting the poorest or less well off onto the ladder through internships and the like, without the young having to know the right people or have the cash to pay for such internships and ladders up.

Though we learn of Clegg’s own step-up came from his own father, the standard has an ‘exclusive’ of how his daddy got him a leg up and an internship at a bank, the same applies to his education at Westminster and Cambridge. Though, not one to bash the rich or bankers etc, it is ironic that Nick Clegg feels the need to follow the Blair rules of designing the way society looks and works through policy, yes it may be unfair that poorer children cannot go to the top schools, but this approach is also unfair.

I could not agree more with David Davis bringing back grammar schools would be a better option than those proposed by the coalition government, the new schools as Davis says will enable those already ‘well-off’ to give their own children a good education while that said education remains free unlike the private sector schools.

Rather than forcing the top universities to take on adolescents who are not up to standards or cannot afford the tuition, academic selection would allow those children to shine through, and most likely achieve a scholarship. The free schools at the moment, are few, so even if poor children are given a place, the numbers are not significant.

Michael Gove’s educational policy (what children will actually learn) is good, but with Clegg interfering the direction of government education policies as a whole are muddled and I believe going in the wrong direction.


The most alarming proposal of all coming in the social mobility package is the so-called ‘report card’ which will track the advance (or decline) in social mobility over seven stages, again out of the nulab instruction manual; quotas, targets and in the end probably manipulation of the figures. As though the people are not intruded upon enough this is another abuse of our liberties and should not go ahead.

Another example of the coalitions abuse of power, it has NO mandate for this policy, like so many others, I do not recollect this social engineering idea being put forward to the country last May and if it had, I do not think it would have been accepted nor voted for. When will those in number 10 Downing St recognise the fact that their policies have a limited mandate, and that they cannot force their ‘revolutionary’ plans upon the country?


Lack of blogging is due to the ‘provider’ Vodafone, and their pathetic service, connection chooses when to work and when it cannot be bothered, and the people manning the phones are inevitably thick. the costs of mobile broadband with vodafone (purchased btw in a somewhat emergency last year) are high and the value is nil, the network is extremely patchy and usage limits mean I have been charged double the costs some months, not much I can do now until june when the contract ends and has been cancelled for then.

The government, is continueing the trend set by Gordon Brown, as chancellor, punishing smokers etc. with their sin taxes, this article states what the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out in the Budget book, yet quite missed telling the nation in his speech, only saying that there were no changes from the last budget.

Anyhow, the price of the tobacco at 25 grams, that I purchase has jumped up to £7.10 in some shops at the corner shops £7.49+, this is extortion, as Big Brother Watch has stated . This is a jump of over one pound since george osbornes first budget.

It is social engineering, an apparent slap in the face of liberty and freedom, Smoking may be harmful to your health, but over the years with both the prices rising extremely fast, and the persistent campaigns to encourage stop smoking, the public has been inundated with anti-smoking propaganda, if those who want to smoke still are why are they being treated like criminals, receiving penalties beyond belief.

This will surely encourage smuggling and fraudulent behaviour, it was already the case that people were resorting to buying counterfeit tobacco and cigarettes, I refuse to buy these since you may as well buy crack on the street not knowing what is in it.

So there is no real option (I can think of) but to give up, if you do not want to pay these extortionate prices or buy counterfeit products, other than stop smoking or going on holiday quite often to buy them it flies in the face of the aims set out by the coalition document and the objective of the Freedom Bill.

As for the social engineering this is, theres more today from Nick Clegg and IDS in the telegraph.