Lib Dem Friends of Palestine are that nasty

' "no Brit should consider voting Labour as long as it is ran by a Zionist Jew… the time is ripe to cleanse British public life of Zionists and Jerusalemites"

LibDem Friends of Palestine is the official pro-Palestine organisation in the party, with stalls at party conference every year and a photo of 'Jihad' Jenny Tonge at the top of its Facebook page. Oy vey ist mir! 

UPDATE: A spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats says:"This is not the party view in any way whatsoever. It is clearly inappropriate and offensive. The link has now been removed, LibDem Friends of Palestine recognise it was a mistake."'

Somehow I think that the mistake they refer to is making their views public.

More about this horrible group here
http://order-order.com/2014/06/26/libdem-friends-of-palestine-pushes-anti-semitic-miliband-slur/

The one hundred and eighty seventh weekly "No shit, Sherlock" award

The Telegraph  reports that 'The Liberal Democrats are prepared to jettison any of their manifesto promises in order to get into power again, the party's policy chief indicated last night.'

The Lib Dems are unprincipled in pursuit of power? No shit Sherlock

Those 'liberal' Lib Dems

Guido Fawkes  reports that the Lib Dems have withdrawn the party whip from MP David Ward. This is as a result of his rather intemperate remarks about Israel. Good news you might think, the Lib Dems making a stand on Israel. Well not really as this section of the letter makes clear:

We wish to reiterate that this is not about telling you what your views should be. Indeed, we have all visited the occupied territories and we have all experienced an instinctive and liberal reaction to the humanitarian suffering we have witnessed. You will know that Nick, Simon and I have a consistent track record of being outspoken about illegal settlement activities of Israeli governments and the threat this poses to the two-state solution for which the party has long argued.

Yes because the Israelis are entirely responsible for the humanitarian situation in the 'occupied territories'. As for the 'illegal settlement  activities of Israeli governments' and how they pose a threat to the two-state solution, I wonder if the Lib Dems are so stupid that they believe that the Palestinian Authority, let alone Hamas, want a two-state solution.

Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament "denigrates" Holocaust - The Commentator

Another Lib Dem with a Jewish problem...
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3957/liberal_democrat_member_of_parliament_denigrates_holocaust

Game over for Greece and the EU?

I hear that Standard & Poor have cut Greece's credit rating to CCC, the lowest in the rated world. To give you an idea of how Greece's likelihood of repaying debt is viewed, that rating places Greece below Pakistan (a country in a state of near civil war) and Jamaica. Standard & Poor says that it believes there is a higher likelihood that Greece will see one or more defaults over the next 12 months than not.

The Greek government is trying to push through austerity measures whilst Greek 'workers' complain in the streets; apparently they don't see why they should have to work beyond their mid 50s like workers in the rest of the EU. It also seems that the Germans are getting fed-up with throwing money at the feckless Southern EU countries (and Ireland) whose massive increase in living standards have come largely as a result of EU transfers of money from Germany, the UK and some other mostly North and West European countries.

Meanwhile the whole EU, the eurozone countries and the IMF are in discussions over a second bailout for Greece; this time one expected to total up to €120bn. The talks have hit a problem as the German government has decided that it will not keep footing the bill and is insisting on the involvement of private investors. Somehow I doubt that private investors will chip-in.

So if Greece is more than likely to default on its debt within 12 months, where does that leave the EU and the UK in particular? The EU project of ever-closer union needed monetary union as a precursor to full union. The Sovereign debt crisis affecting chiefly Greece at present but also Ireland, Portugal and Spain may cause the splitting of the Eurozone into two strands of countries; in effect the solvent and the insolvent. In a sensible world this should mean the end of the EU's ever closer union but the leaders of the EU project do not live by sensible rules and they are more likely to say that the debt problems require closer union.

One thing that I have not heard is an acceptance that those of us who argued that the Eurozone project with its single currency would not succeed because of the impossibility of running a single currency to suit the needs of such disparate countries were correct and the Euro-enthusiasts were wrong, very wrong. I have heard not even a whiff of an apology from Tony Blair, the multitude of Lib Dems who supported it or especially the BBC who gloried in portraying us EU-realists as 'Little Englanders' at best and raving xenophobes at worst. Come on BBC apologise, you got it wrong and in any case you should not have taken sides. I suppose the EU money you receive may have helped sway your coverage though...

Very simple but wrong (or at least not quite right)

In this latest Yes2AV video Dan Snow confidently tells us that AV is the system used to elect local mayors. Well actually the London Mayor is chosen by the Supplementary Vote system. Ah Yes2AV will say but Dan Snow actually said "AV or systems like it". Yes the Supplementary Vote is similar to pure AV but there is one big difference: under the Supplementary Vote 'voters express a first and second choice of candidate only, and, if no candidate receives an absolute majority of first choice votes, all but the two leading candidates are eliminated and the votes of those eliminated redistributed according to their second choice votes to determine the winner.' So under Supplementary Vote only one of the top two candidates in the initial voting can win and there are just two rounds of voting. Under AV candidates are eliminated one by one and it is possible that the candidate coming third could win - now do you see why Lib Dems like AV?

An interesting opinion polling result

YouGov report an interesting finding:

'Our latest daily voting intention shows the Conservatives at 40%, Labour at 41% and the Liberal Democrats at 7% - the second time in a week they have hit this new low.

While our polling is now giving Labour a consistent lead in the polls, if asked a forced choice question on whether people would rather have a Conservative government led by David Cameron or a Labour government led by Ed Miliband, the Conservatives lead by 41% to 36%. Partially this is probably the effect of including the leaders' names in the question, as David Cameron has much higher net approval ratings than Ed Miliband. Mostly, however, the difference comes down to how the preferences of supporters of the Liberal Democrats and other parties split between Labour and the Conservatives.

This is more than just of academic interest, it is also a good rough guide towards which parties the alternative vote would help. The alternative vote is generally perceived to be most helpful to the electoral chances of the Liberal Democrats and to Labour, a belief that is backed up by polling at past general elections. This is because as a centrist party, the Liberal Democrats have been well placed to get second preferences from both Labour and Conservative voters, and because historically Liberal Democrat supporters have tended to say they are far more likely to give their second preferences to the Labour party.

In our recent polls the remaining Liberal Democrat supporters say they would prefer a Conservative government to a Labour one by 51% to 16%. This is not a reflection of shifting Liberal Democrat opinion, rather it is that many Labour-sympathising Liberal Democrats have deserted the party. Regardless of the reasons though, it suggests that if AV were to be introduced, the remaining Liberal Democrat voters would tend to give their second preferences to the Conservative party. AV may in fact end up helping the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives rather than Labour.'

Now I find that fascinating, I wonder how the LibDem preferences have changed since the election...

The LibDems, the party of principles - "should have been more careful"

The last general election was no different from most that I can remember in that the LibDems and especially their leader endlessly portrayed themselves as the honest party, different from the two 'old' big parties. I knew it was rubbish and I am sure you did too, but the BBC lapped it up - anything to hurt the Tories. Unfortunately for the BBC, it seems that the LibDems just couldn't face propping up Gordon Brown and Ed Balls was a step too far as well, and so entered into a coalition with David Cameron's Tory 'lite' party.

The fuss in recent days has been over university tuition fees, a matter brought into sharp focus by the London student riot. So I was intrigued to read on Sky News that:

'The Liberal Democrats drew up plans to abandon Nick Clegg's flagship policy to scrap university tuition fees two months before the general election

...

A confidential document drawn up in March concluded that insisting on the move - which was opposed by the Tories and Labour - would be a "headache".

It is detailed in a new book about the formation of the Tory-Lib Dem administration by Conservative MP Rob Wilson, extracts of which are published today by the Guardian.

Mr Clegg, now Deputy Prime Minister, admitted this week that he "should have been more careful" when he signed a pre-election pledge to oppose a rise in tuition fees.'

Something makes me think that Nick Clegg is going to take a long time to live that comment down - "should have been more careful"!

The LibDems have tried to defend themselves thus:

'"These are selective extracts of documents which discussed a range of options ahead of any possible negotiations.

"As the Liberal Democrats made clear throughout the election and in negotiations, they had four key priorities which were set out on the front page of the manifesto.

"All of these priorities were agreed in the coalition document."'

However I don't think that this will be enough for the media or the Libdem voter. The pressure on Nick Clegg is going to increase and he will have to be strong, stronger than I think he is, to keep the coalition going past the next set of local elections. If, as I think will be the case, the LibDems suffer a massive electoral defeat then the left-wing of his party will either try to unseat him or cross to the Labour party. The latter move would at least have the virtue of honesty as the left-wing of the LibDems have more in common with the Labour party than a party with the word 'Liberal' in its name.

I have mused about the LibDems future before now and maybe it is now more possible for the Lib Dems to split: mostly to Labour with the Orange Bookers to the Conservatives. That would be an interesting development in UK politics but I wonder if the Conservative party could also have problems soon as the 'right' wonder if David Cameron rather than being a closet Thatcherite as many hoped, is in fact a closet Heathite as some feared.

Chris Huhne and taxation

Christopher Murray Paul-Huhne was born to a middle class family and was educated at the exclusive fee-paying Westminster School. Christopher dropped his double-barreled surname before arriving at Oxford University and shortened his first name to Chris; thus becoming 'Chris Huhne'. After completing his education at the Sorbonne and Magdalen College, Oxford, he graduated from Oxford with a first-class degree in PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics). Whilst at university Chris Huhne was active in student politics supporting, you will not be surprised to learn, the Labour Party.

Chris Huhne went into financial journalism after university working as an economic commentator for The Guardian, The Independent and The Independent on Sunday; a nice collection of left wing papers. After finishing journalism he went into the City where he amassed a fortune of what was estimated as around £3.5 million. This was from his company Sovereign Ratings which claimed to "scientifically measure the risks of investing in different countries". Later on he became managing director of Fitch IBCA, and then vice-chairman of Fitch Ratings.

Remember the above when the exceedingly rich Christopher Murray Paul-Huhne, who used his City amassed fortune to buy seven homes is lectures the British public on belt tightening and the evils of City bonuses.

And that is why Proportional Representation is not necessarily more democratic

The BBC are reporting that:

'Lib Dem MPs should have a veto on policies put forward by the coalition government, the party's deputy leader says, as the coalition reaches its 100th day in power.'

Remember that the next time someone sings the praises of proportional representation as a voting system, the small parties gain too much power over the large ones - why else do you think the Lib Dems are so in favour?

Nick Clegg's negotiating notes?

The Guardian have a oddly angled photo of Nick Clegg's notes and claim to have deciphered them. Here's what they say the notes are:
'Red Lines - Europe... Immig... Trident'

'AV - 'wider constitutional convention... referendum'

'Money - Hayden Phillips etc.'

'Fixed Term - Timing...'

'Posts - Ratios... Me'

'MPs...'

Do read the whole Guardian article it's fascinating, especially if the rumours about what concessions Nick Clegg has wrung from David Cameron.

Where does this leave Vince Cable?

This morning The Telegraph was telling us that:

'Sources close to the negotiations between the Lib Dems and the Tories suggested that Mr Cable, the Lib Dem deputy leader, played a significant role in resisting an agreement.

Mr Cable has not been part of the formal talks with the Tories and has made few comments on the issue.

A source close to the power-sharing talks said Mr Cable stayed out of the negotiating team because he did not support an agreement with the Conservatives.

Mr Cable is said to have privately urged Lib Dem MPs to resist any deal.

A source said: “It’s significant that he’s not in the delegation. He is one of the party’s biggest players but he is not in the room. That doesn’t happen by accident.”

Another source suggested that Mr Cable’s rivalry with Mr Clegg played a part in delaying a deal.

Mr Cable, who is extremely popular with grassroots Lib Dems, is a former Labour member who later joined the Social Democratic Party. '

If Vince Cable is so anti this deal then I presume he will refuse to serve in a Conservative lead Cabinet or is he not as principled as he pretends and the BBC suggests?

Strange times

It seems that the Labour/LibDem alliance is over, maybe they were surprised by the level of anger in the country and realised that the public just wouldn't wear it. Rumours abound that Nick Clegg will be deputy Prime Minister and that there will be a Lib Dem Minister in every department. I wonder how many Cabinet level ministers will be Lib Dems - my money would be Vince Cable as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, a senior LibDem getting Foreign Secretary and a couple of minor positions - any more than that and David Cameron has given too much away/Nick Clegg has negotiated very well. I presume that Chancellor and Home Secretary will be Conservative positions, maybe with David Davis as Home Secretary. Ken Clarke is one problem, will he be happy with staying at Business and not having an expanded portfolio as a number 1.5 to George Osborne? Mind you he will be happy to have some more Europhiles in the government. William Hague also loses his non-official deputy Prime Minister spot, what will he require to placate him?

First the coup, next the enabling act?

We've had the coup as a defeated Labour party and a third place LibDem party try to take power regardless of losing the election.

We've had the BBC pushing 'fair votes' as what is needed.

Next will be the introduction of a 'proportional' voting system before the next general election obviously without a referendum as it is 'the right thing to do'. Such a voting system will ensure perpetual left of centre government - is this the equivalent of the 1933 Enabling Act? How long before all political parties not to the liking of the Labour/LibDem/BBC alliance are banned? First the BNP, then UKIP, then the 'evil Tories'? I am sorry, but this is what happens when totalitarians get hold of power, they keep it until force is used to expel them, and I just don't see anyone having the balls to force them out.

So is Nick Clegg willing to break his word on supporting the party with the biggest mandate?

The news that Gordon Brown is to stand down as Labour leader sets in motion two things: one a Labour leadership election, or on previous form the coronation of someone unsuitable and two the formation of a Labour/LibDem government.

At 16:05 today I posted on Guido Fawkes that: 'I get the horrible feeling that the LibDems will end up propping up a Labour government that has changed leader. If so who wants to stay and who wants to flee the country? The two ‘beaten’ parties form a government; if Labour had come first and Conservatives and LibDems formed the government you know that riots would ensue and the BBC would be casting aspersions about ‘legitimacy’ but this way round there will be no protests.'

The BBC are in seventh heaven, they will gladly sacrifice Gordon Brown for a Labour/Lib Dem government that will continue the mismanagement of the economy and change the electoral system to ensure they are in permanent government.

You have to admire the way that Peter Mandelson, Gordon Brown and the BBC have played the last four or five weeks. As soon as it became clear that Labour could not win the general election they boosted the Lib Dems, then talked up the possibility of a hung parliament and then questioned how the Lib Dems could possibly work with the Conservative party.

So the second and third parties in the general election will stitch together a government and who will protest? I am so sick of this f**king country, it's left-wing commissars and state propaganda broadcasting service - I want out as it's me and other taxpayers in London and the South of England who will end up paying the price of Labour's failure and to support the rest of England and the Scottish and Welsh.

Of course the markets that had been cheering up with the likelihood of a Conservative government (aided formally or informally by the Lib Dems) have now taken fright and the pound has dropped a cent against the US Dollar and almost a cent against the Euro since the announcement.

Did Cameron's refusal to come to an arrangement with UKIP cost the Conservative party a majority?

Conservative Home have a list of the 21 seats where the UKIP vote was more than the difference between the Conservative candidate losing the seat and winning it. Now not all the UKIP voters would have voted Conservative but I believe that a very high proportion would have. Conservative Home headline this piece 'Did UKIP cost the Tories a Commons majority?' but I believe the fault lies with David Cameron and the Conservatives. David Cameron preferred to push his liberal credentials in an attempt to seem fluffy and nice and take votes from centrist Labour and LibDem supporters and ignored the Euro-sceptics in his party, UKIP and in the Labour & LIBDem parties. A deal with UKIP over the calling of a referendum might have prevented UKIP standing against Conservative in many if not all seats and could have meant a small Conservative majority. Instead of which the Conservative party is looking to deo a deal with the most EU friendly of the main parties.

UKIP supporters must be angry, EU-sceptic Conservatives must be angry; I am definitely angry.

Is Nick very forgiving or just very hungry for a taste of power?

So Gordon Brown allegedly vents his 'rage at Nick Clegg when the Liberal Democrat leader suggested that the Prime Minister had no right to cling on to power after losing the Election'; a conversation that was also described as a ‘diatribe laced with threats’. Yet today it is reported that Nick Clegg has had a meeting with Gordon Brown.

Far be it for me to describe Nick Clegg as a serial flip-flopper, but it does look like he cannot decide what to do. Of course Nick Clegg's problem is a tricky one; part of his party would never countenance any sort of alliance with the 'nasty party' whilst he the 'Orange Book' group may feel more at home allied with the Conservative party rather than the socialist Labour party.

So "what's it going to be boy, what's it going to be...?"



Meatloaf - 'Paradise by the Dashboard Light'
I love this song, take a listen to the lyrics and the energy. The above lines comes at around 6:12.

In case your pencil wavers in the booth later today

Remember:

A vote for Labour is a vote for more years of Gordon Brown's abnormal grin, Ed Balls' endless arrogance, Peter Mandelson's vile sliminess, Harriet Harman's incessant nannying and so on and on. It is also a vote for more of the surveillance society, road pricing, stealth taxes and all the things you have grown to hate over the last 13 years.

A vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for more policy flip-flopping and undeserved claims of moral rectitude. It is also a vote for more eco-nuttery; including the introduction of a multitude of recycling containers, more anti-car measures and worshipping at the altar of 'man made climate change', regardless of cost. It is also a vote for keeping Labour in power with all that that entails (see above).

A vote for UKIP means taking votes away from the only one of the mainstream parties that, Ken Clarke aside, is not totally pro the EU and might just give us a vote on staying in.

A vote for the Conservatives is a vote for giving the UK a chance to get out of the hole that Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and their cabal of the talentless and misguided cronies have dug us into. It's a chance to tell Gordon Brown that we haven't forgotten his economic mismanagement and that we think he deserves to be punished for it. It's a chance to get your own back on every idiotic nannying policy churned out by New Labour apparatchiks over the last 13 years. It's your chance to say we want freedom, we want a chance, we want our lives back.

Should the LibDems be allowed the moral highground?

Obviously no; first Michael Brown and now 'LibDems Break Rules on Donations - 73 Times Over'. Iain Dale has the details:

'In the last twelve months there were 75 donations reported to the Electoral Commission up to a year late - and therefore illegally.

Of these, none were from the Conservative Party, two were from the Labour Party and seventy three were from the Liberal Democrats - the whiter than white, holier than thou party.'

The LibDems are whiter than white in a similar way to Tony Blair's New Labour party; ie: not at all.

Another LibDem 'apologies' for anti-Israeli comments

To add to Ms Tonge and Nick Clegg's friends we can now add another anti-Israeli LibDem. This time it is Madeleine Kirk as reported in the JC:

'Madeleine Kirk, standing for the party in the new seat of York Outer, was speaking at the York University event on Wednesday afternoon.

A question was asked about whether the candidates believed arms sales to Israel should be banned.

Ms Kirk, a long-standing local city councillor, replied that an embargo should be in place, but was not, "because of the Jewish lobby”.

She then went on to back disgraced Lib Dem peer Jenny Tonge’s call for an inquiry to disprove allegations that Israeli army medical teams in Haiti “harvested” organs of earthquake victims.

Baroness Tonge was stripped of her role as the party’s health spokeswoman in the Lords following her comments in February.

When contacted by the JC, Ms Kirk said: “I apologise unreservedly for any offence caused by my remarks.

“I recognise that the allegations against the IDF's humanitarian operation in Haiti are completely unfounded and utterly reprehensible. I was not aware of the allegations when asked about them at the hustings and responded without considering their full implications.”

Ms Kirk has been a regular critic of Israel. In January last year she spoke at a rally against the Gaza conflict organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

She told the crowd: “I wholeheartedly condemn the attack on Gaza by the Israeli forces.

“The vicious attack is completely out of all proportion to the threat posed by Hamas in the region and will only serve the militants in both the Gaza strip and Israel.”'

Her apology seems bogus, why did she make such a claim if it was "unfounded and utterly reprehensible"? Is she in the habit of making "unfounded and utterly reprehensible" claims? Has she ever spoken out against Islamic jihadists or just people defending themselves against attack for decades? Maybe Madeleine Kirk would defend herself by pointing out her Jewish friends.