Steve Purcell update

Top News US reports that:

'It has been revealed that Steven Purcell, former head of Glasgow City Council, is undergoing a police investigation. He has been alleged of being corrupt. Strathclyde Police are probing into documents to verify whether Purcell employed unjustifiable influence to obtain a £50,000 contract for friend and fellow councilor, Ruth Black.



Reports conjecture the case is being examined by the Major Crimes and Terrorism Unit.



A spokesman from the police department evinced, "Strathclyde Police are assessing the information available to them, therefore it would be inappropriate for us to comment further at this stage".



The matter came to light when SNP councilors were tipped-off about potentially incriminating data over the allocation of the publicly funded lesbian and gay drop-in centre, in the city, to Ruth Black. This information was then handed over to police.



Ruth Black, was earlier in-charge of the centre. However, the center had collapsed and left a debt of £300,000 in April 2009. The collapse came two years after Black resigned and stepped down from her chair.



According to reports, two rival bids were made for the center. The two competitors were Glasgay, an established organization, and Black who proposed to set up a new organization called Castro. The outcome of the bid was in favor of Black.'

Still not a word on the BBC who were recently all over the Iris Robinson story, it must be nice to be so unbiased.



Thanks to Rantin Rab for the spot.

BBC Poll Tracker again

On Monday I blogged about how the BBC's Poll Tracker was being updated. I have had a look this morning and see that although the latest YouGov poll has been added to Poll Tracker, a poll which shows an increased Conservative lead, it has not been included in the 'Poll of Polls' chart. The Poll Tracker 'Poll of Polls' recently became the default chart so with the trickery on Sunday/Monday to arrange the Poll Tracker database update to the benefit of Labour's figures and today's non-updating of the 'Poll of Polls', the BBC can still talk about 'narrowing polls'.

This sort of statistical chicanery is more common than you might think and is well documented in the area of climate change 'science'; take a read of Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit and/or Joanne Nova for plenty of examples. It is something that is practised by people trying to prove a point and/or manipulate opinion rather than report facts; so where does that leave the BBC during a general election campaign?

Are you addicted to porn?

Cracked.com have an interesting article which is well worth a read. Here's 'The Ten Steps to Porn Addiction' from the article:

1. You find yourself using a great deal of porn;

2. You often look at porn rather than other things that are not porn;

3. You call in sick to work so you can look at porn;

4. You look at porn while at work;

5. You apply for and take a job where looking at porn is a requirement;

6. You hide your porn habit from your friends and family;

7. You no longer feel the need to hide your porn habit from friends and family;

8. You find yourself reading porn at a funeral;

9. You read porn at the funeral of a man whom you killed for his porn;

10. You have paid for internet porn.

'an independent panel chaired by Lord Oxburgh'

The BBC joyously reported that:

'There was no scientific malpractice at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, which was at the centre of the "Climategate" affair.

This is according to an independent panel chaired by Lord Oxburgh, which was convened to examine the research published by the unit.

It began its review after e-mails from CRU scientists were published online.'

Of course the 'independent' panel was nothing of the sort, as I have previously blogged, so the conclusions are hardly surprising. However the BBC have not reported the whole story. They do manage to hide this

'Lord Oxburgh is currently president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and chairman of wind energy firm Falck Renewables.'

near the bottom of the piece. The spin continues with this:

'Professor Hand said that the CRU scientists did not use "the best statistical tools for their studies" but that this had made not significant difference to their conclusions.'

Meanwhile Steve McIntyre writes:

'The BBC reports that Lord Oxburgh of Globe International is to report his report on CRU science, perhaps tomorrow. The panel was first announced on March 22, 2010 – see here. No terms of reference were disclosed then, nor, to my knowledge, have they been disclosed subsequently.

Harrabin says that “members of the panel are said to have cross-examined CRU researchers for a total of 15 man-days”.

To my knowledge, they have not interviewed any critics of CRU or targets of the Climategate emails.'

That's odd so have the 'independent' panel interviewed anyone other than CRU researchers?

Steve McIntyre also writes:

'The Oxburgh report ” is a flimsy and embarrassing 5-pages.

They did not interview me (nor, to my knowledge, any other CRU critics or targets). The committee was announced on March 22 and their “report” is dated April 12 – three weeks end to end – less time than even the Parliamentary Committee. They took no evidence. Their list of references is 11 CRU papers, five on tree rings, six on CRUTEM. Notably missing from the “sample” are their 1000-year reconstructions: Jones et al 1998, Mann and Jones 2003, Jones and Mann 2004, etc.)

They did not discuss specifically discuss or report on any of the incidents of arbitrary adjustment (“bodging”), cherry picking and deletion of adverse data, mentioned in my submissions to the Science and Technology Committee and the Muir Russell Committee.

...

Update 9.40 am. The Daily Telegraph reports:

Professor Hand did say that “inappropriate methods” were used by a separate university to draw up the infamous “hockey stick” graph showing the rise in global temperatures over more than 1,000 years.

Uh, memo to Oxburgh. CRU produced its own hockey stick graphs in Jones et al 1998, Mann and Jones 2003, for example. For some reason, Oxburgh and his associates regrettably neglected to consider these articles.'

I get the feeling that Steve McIntyre is worth keeping an eye on in this regard as might be Bishop Hill.

"The people chose new leaders... The result was the great change... "

"They stopped government doing things... budgets were cut by up to 60%, public sector employment declined by a quarter and lo within three years the budget was back in surplus and stayed there, the currency soared and the economy boomed"

An interesting little piece I found on the BBC website.

Here is a debate on the film with Andrew Neil, Diane Abbott and Michael Portillo. Top line from David Starkey

"We have had a low dishonest 15 years... the New Labour government... was never a government it was a machinery for winning elections and it won them by lying"

Michael Portillo actually explains that the national income cake is not of a fixed size as most politicians and the BBC like to pretend - "there is no understanding of economic dynamism" and pushes 'supply side economics' a long forgotten idea.

David Starkey's prediction of public sector strikes is an accurate one and one that should be giving David Cameron nightmares.

Are the BBC playing clever with Poll Tracker updates again?

I have blogged many times before about the BBC's Poll Tracker and how its speed of update varies seemingly according to the whim of the BBC. Today is no different, as Beeb Bias Craig notes the BBC last night were reporting just two of the three polls released:
Populus (Times) - 3%
Comres (ITV/Independent) - 5%
YouGov (Sun) - 8%

Fairly obviously they were not reporting the YouGov poll, which is odd as they normally love Peter 'husband of Labour's never elected Lady Ashton' Kellner. So when I looked at Poll Tracker what do I find? The YouGov result has been added to the database but does not show up as the latest poll as that is reserved for the new 'Poll of Polls'. This means that when they update Poll Tracker with the two more favourable (to Labour) polls, the 'Poll of Polls' will show a narrowing of the Conservative lead. I believe the current expression that would cover this is 'simples'.

There is an election to saved from the Conservatives and the BBC are going to do their best to save it for Labour. All the little tricks are being pulled out and each is just a small factor, but they add up and the BBC know that.

Do you have any bull semen in your house? Does your fridge have the wrong energy rating?

This Labour government has extended the powers of various state officials to enter our houses and the gorgeous Emily Nomates has a list that she has extracted from a Caroline Spelman article.

Caroline Spelman pledges:

'Now the Conservatives plan to again protect the privacy and liberty of homeowners by taking the following actions:

* All powers of entry inside homes by state officials would require a magistrates’ warrant. These restrictions will apply to all quangos, departments and agencies which are not specified law enforcement bodies or emergency services.
* New statutory guidance will stop magistrates giving consent for entering inside a home unless a serious criminal offence was suspected of being committed, or if there was a clear threat to public safety. The provisions would not apply to illegally occupied sites (e.g. squatters, travellers) or to long-term vacant property (e.g. rundown, boarded up properties).
* The powers of the Valuation Office Agency to enter homes for council tax valuations will be abolished outright, as will town hall powers to seize and spy on people’s bins. Labour plans to give bailiffs powers of forced entry into homes to collect civil debts will be revoked.'

That's the choice Labour totalitarianism or Conservative freedom.

Is 'the Stig' actually David Cameron?

First DCI Gene Hunt and now The Stig; this David Cameron gets cooler by the day! The Telegraph have the details...

Ed Balls "Did he really say that?"

Oh dear it looks as though all is not sweetness and light at the top of the Labour party. Last night's Channel 4 News included a short post manifesto launch interview with Peter Mandelson but do watch from around 6 minutes in. The Peter Mandelson interview includes these comments: "The spirit of Tony Blair was alive and well... It's such a New Labour manifesto, he will be shining, he will be certainly grinning, you know that Blair grin (from ear to ear), I think he's got that on him today". Ed Balls reacts happily to the reports of Peter Mandelson's comments (what choice does he have) but when he thinks the cameras are off he plaintively asks "He didn't really say that, did he?" Poor Ed Balls, a bully boy but not in the same league as Peter Mandelson.


I do also like Ed Balls 'Year Zero' approach to Labour history "Well Labour was a partnership from the beginning, between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown". Yes because there was no Labour party before 1994 was there.

The paradise that is Cuba

Here is a little piece on the BBC to make us feel soft and fluffy towards Cuba but it does beg some questions, not that the BBC will ask them:

'Cuba is turning over hundreds of state-run barber shops and beauty salons to employees in what may be the start of a long-expected privatisation drive.

All barbers and hairdressers in shops with three seats or fewer will be allowed to rent the space and pay taxes instead of getting a monthly wage.

The retail sector has long been derided for poor service and rampant theft.

The country's former President, Fidel Castro, nationalised all small businesses in 1968.

'Slow and cautious'

Now his younger brother and successor Raul Castro is trying to modernise the system without jumping to full-scale capitalism.

Other communist countries such as China and Vietnam have long since pushed through market reforms while maintaining political control.

President Castro's first economic reforms involved giving unproductive state-owned land to private farmers.

Some taxi drivers are allowed to work for themselves.

This is his first attempt to deal with shops in the retail and service sector.

It is likely to be a gradual process, though.'

If in doubt, blame the Jews

The Guardian reports that:

'A furious transatlantic row has erupted over quotes that were attributed to a retired Italian bishop, which suggested that Jews were behind the current criticism of the Catholic church's record on tackling clerical sex abuse.

A website quoted Giacomo Babini, the emeritus bishop of Grosseto, as saying he believed a "Zionist attack" was behind the criticism, considering how "powerful and refined" the criticism is.

The comments, which have been denied by the bishop, follow a series of statements from Catholic churchmen alleging the existence of plots to weaken the church and Pope Benedict XVI.

Allegedly speaking to the Catholic website Pontifex, Babini, 81, was quoted as saying: "They do not want the church, they are its natural enemies. Deep down, historically speaking, the Jews are God killers."'

Of course the denials are flowing:

'As the interview appeared on Italy's main newspaper sites today, complete with the American reaction, the Bishops' Conference rushed out a statement quoting Babini denying he had ever given the interview in the first place. "Statements I have never made about our Jewish brothers have been attributed to me," he said.'

This would be convincing had it not been for the following:

'Babini has previously been quoted on the Pontifex website accusing Jews of exploiting the Holocaust, as well as criticising homosexuality.'

Nick Clegg has more balls than Gordon Brown

I see that Nick Clegg has been brave enough to undertake an interview with Jeremy Paxman, on BBC at the moment. I wonder if Gordon Brown will finally agree to an equivalent interview with Jeremy Paxman, or he still the big fearty that he often seems to be? Happy enough in front of a tame audience at today's manifesto launch or meeting Labour supporters in a cosy family setting but not happy to be questioned by a decent interviewer.

What a delightful young lady

I note that Gordon Brown's warm up at today's manifesto launch Ellie Gellard has previously twittered about Lady Thatcher's portrait unveiling at Downing Street last November, thus:

'Hope they're hanging it at top of stairs,nxt 2 where some1 carelessly left tht skateboard.'

What a delightful young lady, just perfect for Gordon Brown.

'Saint' Vince Cable exposed on The Politics Show

"It's a reasonable prediction based on their previous form"



Shock horror, Vince Cable is just as slippery and deceptive as any other politician.

The seventy-ninth weekly "No shit, Sherlock" award

This week's award goes to the Institute for Economic Affairs for coming to the staggering conclusion, as reported by The Telegraph that

'both Labour and Tories underestimate spending cuts'

Really, "no shit, Sherlocks"

Labour minister Sadiq Khan in another expenses row

The Telegraph report that:

'Senior Labour minister Sadiq Khan has been accused of abusing House of Commons expenses to support his election campaign.

Days before the dissolution of Parliament for the election, Mr Khan, a transport minister, used Commons stationary and pre-paid envelopes to write to hundreds of voters in his marginal seat lauding his own record.

The Conservatives will on Monday make a formal complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards about Mr Khan, the MP for Tooting in south London.'

This is of course the same Sadiq Khan who had recent problems over some rather peculiar printing receipts.

Back in March the BBC ignored this story of Labour malpractice and I unsurprised to note that they are ignoring this story as well. Sadiq Khan is quite clearly untouchable so far as the BBC are concerned.

Labour's manifesto promises

Labour's 'promise' not to raise income tax rates needs to be seen in context. Here's a promise from their 2005 general election manifesto, it's on page 16, ‘We will not raise the basic or top rates of income tax . . .’

That's odd I could have sworn Labour increased the top rate of tax from 40% to 50% in this year's budget - a 25% rise in tax rate.

Julius Malema shows his class again

IOL report that Julius Malema has been showing his class again:

'Julius Malema seems to have blown it. Yesterday the ANC Youth League leader had another tantrum, this time in Limpopo, where he clouted a party rival with a chair and threw journalists out of a chaotic youth league conference.

...

According to rivals, Malema threw youth league Limpopo chairman Lehlohonolo Masoga out of the conference and dissolved the provincial executive committee. Masoga could not be reached for comment later.

But Malema said the provincial executive committee had dissolved itself and that Masoga and his group had "gone to ground" and were not ejected.

And he confirmed that his national leadership had taken over the conference.

During the conference one of the delegates from the rival group went up to Malema and taunted him, prompting the youth league leader - who had just arrived at the registration hall - to pick up a chair and hit him. This is when the fighting broke out. As chaos erupted in the hall, Malema gave orders to throw out the media.

Referring to the incident later, Malema said he had merely chased the delegate because he wanted to reprimand him for dancing on top of a table.

At the conference, members of a group opposed to Malema's choice of provincial chairperson chanted "Malema, we don't want your agenda" and "No to tenders committee" - an implication that the youth leader has amassed wealth through government tenders.'

Classy guy?

Will anyone ask Gordon Brown about this at the launch of the Labour party manifesto?

The BBC are really excited that the Labour manifesto is about to be launched and they are trailing, amongst other things, a pledge not to raise income tax. Now leaving aside for the moment that this promise doesn't rule out further rises in national insurance etc., what would be an interesting question to ask Gordon Brown is:

"Are your manifesto pledges promises or are they not subject to legitimate expectation"

For chapter and verse on the source of that phrase, may I recommend Trixy from Feb 2008 when

'In the court case brought against him for breach of contract over a referendum on the EU Constitution, Brown's personal barrister has just told the court that "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation".'

So five years on from the last set of pledges and promises, many of which were broken, Labour are back with a new manifesto; I wonder which of this year's promises are actually lies?

Advances in dhimmitude (reprise)

The Sunday Times reports that:

'SCOTLAND YARD has bowed to Islamic sensitivities and accepted that Muslims are entitled to throw shoes in ritual protest -- which could have the unintended consequence of politicians or the police being hit.

News of the concession by the Metropolitan police has come to light amid a series of trials of more than 70 mostly Muslim demonstrators who were charged with violent disorder after last year's Gaza protests outside the Israeli embassy in London.

Aquib Salim, 21, an IT student at Queen Mary, London University, who was involved in a shoe-throwing incident, is almost certain to avoid a prison sentence as a result.

Chris Holt, Salim's solicitor, said he was likely to get a suspended sentence after he pleaded guilty to a single charge of throwing a stick at police lines.

"The court accepted that the earlier shoe-throwing incident was simply a ritual form of protest and therefore not a criminal act of violence," Holt said.

Judge Denniss agreed that the act of shoe-throwing should not be considered in a charge of violent disorder against the student because it was "a symbolic" political gesture.

...

The concession has already been taken up enthusiastically by Muslim demonstrators, who pelted Downing Street with shoes in protest at the Israeli bombing of Gaza last year.

Dozens of ski-boots and clogs were also hurled at the US consulate in Edinburgh in a related protest, in which three policemen sustained minor injuries....'

When the rule of law is different for different communities and some acts of violent protest by one community are traeted more leniently than for any other community you have unfairness; in this case it is just one more step in the dhimmitude of the UK.

It's a night of oohs and aahs

It's the last round of The Masters and apart from a short break to watch who gets dropped from looking for a Dorothy (Over the Rainbow), have to keep Mrs NotaSheep happy, it's going to be golf all the way tonight.

By the way Bronte should not have been in the bottom three tonight, it was a travesty, I would have put Steph out myself but that's what comes of asking the UK public their opinion.

Back to the golf and Lee Westwood is not making it a relaxing evening, especially that 3rd shot at the seventh - ooooh, aaaah. Tiger's on a charge and Fred Couples & Phil Mickelson look threatening. I've been here watching golf majors too many times since Paul Lawrie won the Open in 1999 and as for The Masters since Nick Faldo in 1996.

What worries me is that people are making birdies (and dropping shots as well) whilst Lee seems determined to make as many pars as possible; you are going to need to make some birdies Lee - especially as Phil Mickelson has just drawn level after the eighth.

Some incredible golf over the last hour and can Lee make up the ground he has lost?

Anthony Kim - birdie, birdie, eagle, birdie - blimey!

Phil Mickelson recovery shot from the woods at the 13th - blimey squared!

But Lee Westwood birdies the 13th and Phil Mickelson misses his eagle put and then makes his birdie.

Phil Mickelson two ahead with four to play. Is Lee Westwood the only one of the top four not to have made an eagle today? Great par put at the 14th by Lee though.

Looks like another third for Lee Westwood, his fourth in Majors in the last eight tournaments...

Two behind going up the 18th fairway, looks like Lee Westwood is not going to break the UK's long draught. How long do we have to wait? Let's try willing Phil's second shot into the bunker.... hmm straight at the flag and I can't see him taking more than two from there, so either Lee pops this one in or he's not going to win... he's not going to win!

Earlier today I told Mrs NotaSheep that it would be bed by midnight and it looks like I was right. Bed by midnight and no British winner. How many birdies did Lee Westwood just miss today? Too many that's for sure, if only two or three had dropped. Ah well there's always the Open...

Gordon Brown's priorities - no peerage for army chief Sir Richard Dannatt but one for prize incompetent and general disgrace John Prescott

Apparently Gordon Brown has blocked a peerage for army chief Sir Richard Dannatt, because he has dared to tell the truth about Gordon Brown's (lack of) funding for the armed forces and of course because he has come out as a Conservative supporter. Meanwhile it seems likely that he will ennoble John Prescott, one of the stupidest and nastiest men it has been my misfortune to ever have to listen to.

How should I vote in the General Election?

I have just completed The Telegraph's 'How should I vote in the general election' feature and here are my results - I chose not to knock out any party that I would never vote for as I like to see all 'options' - interesting:
UK Independence Party: 78%
British National Party: 69%
Conservative Party: 42%
Liberal Democrats: 29%
Green Party: 23%
Labour Party: 14%

Best Match - UK Independence Party


After the five refining questions I match thus:
UK Independence Party: 75%
British National Party: 70%
Conservative Party: 51%
Liberal Democrats: 44%
Green Party: 37%
Labour Party: 33%

Best Match - UK Independence Party


Very interesting indeed but I take issue with some of the questions:
As an example - Q2: Parliamentary Reform: The number of MPs should be reduced by 10% - Well I would say more than 10% so do I agree because I want to reduce the number of MPs, disagree because I want to reduce by more than 10% or vote open minded? I decided to agree as this would be a start.

What is interesting is that I least match with Labour not the Greens and that I do appear to be further right than I think. What confuses me is the high placing for the BNP, because I think of them as quite a left-wing party economically, so maybe there are not enough questions about the economy and too many about immigration and law & order matters.

So will UKIP get my vote? The problem is that whilst I might match better with UKIP, UKIP cannot win in my constituency (it is a Labour/Conservative battle) and UKIP can certainly not win the general election. Will the BNP get my vote? Not a chance, too left wing and I am not sure if they would like me as a member anyway, although I am sure they would accept my vote. So do I vote UKIP or conservative? Time will tell.

Now back to the golf.

A worthwhile bing search

I get 50 or so google searches hitting this site for every bing search, so this bing search caught my attention - dr who companions nude - which had a picture linked to this article.

Here's the rather fetching picture of Katy Manning and a Dalek

Advances in dhimmitude on both sides of the Atlantic - Medical related

In the UK, just days after Shirley Chaplin, the Christain nurse, lost her discrimination battle against Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital Trust, which said the cross she has worn since she was 16 was a ‘hazard’ because it could scratch patients, the Department of Health has announced that female Muslim doctors and nurses will be permitted to cover their arms on hospital wards to preserve their modesty and so opt out, for religious reasons, of the strict NHS dress codes introduced to prevent the spread of deadly hospital superbugs. So why is a Christian not allowed to wear a small cross around the neck in case it scratches a patient (something that has never happened to Shirley Chaplin) but followers of Islam working in the NHS will be exempted from the hygiene regulations introduced to try and stop the spread of MRSA C.Difficle and and other superbugs that our filthy NHS hospitals spread from patient to patient.


In the US I read that:

'Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be "gambling", "risk-taking" and "usury" and is thus banned.

Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this. How convenient. So I, Ann Barnhardt, a Christian, will have crippling IRS liens placed against all of my assets, including real estate, cattle, and even accounts receivables, and will face hard prison time because I refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax.

Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan will have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health needs paid for by the de-facto government insurance. Non-Muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize Muslims. Period. This is Dhimmitude.'

Sean Linnane explains that dhimmitude has two purposes, the obvious one that 'it enriches the Muslim masters' but also that it

'serves to drive conversions to Islam.' and here is why: 'In this case, the incentive to convert to Islam will be taken up by those in the inner-cities as well as the godless Generation X, Y and Z types who have no moral anchor. If you don't believe in Christ to begin with, it is no problem whatsoever to sell Him for 30 pieces of silver; "Sure, I'll be a Muslim if it means free health insurance and no taxes. Where do I sign, bro?"'

Julius Malema and the BBC

Saturday's Telegraph had a very interesting article about 'The man playing South Africa's death card' and described the tactics being used by Julius Malema to stir up trouble in South Africa. It's a chilling piece to anyone who sees South Africa as a still salvageable country. Here are some extracts:

'Malema was in Harare, feasting with Robert Mugabe and picking up tips on how best to destroy the teetering remnants of Western influence here in South Africa. Terreblanche's murder was an individual tragedy. Malema's actions threaten to destroy an entire subcontinent.

Julius Malema is a chubby man-child who rose to prominence as Jacob Zuma's attack dog, threatening violence against anyone who sought to block the Zulu patriarch's rise to the state presidency. When Zuma emerged triumphant, Malema found himself in the pound seats. A poorly educated 28-year-old, he mysteriously acquired two posh houses, a fleet of cars and an obscenely expensive Breitling watch – curious accessories for a man who positions himself as champion of the poor.

...

...he picked a fight with cabinet minister Jeremy Cronin, South Africa's most visible white Communist, who had dared to opine that his enthusiasm for nationalisation had much to do with a fondness for bling and nothing to do with the plight of the poor. In response, Malema reportedly sent Cronin a threatening SMS: "Wait to see what's coming to you."

...

On his trip to Harare, Malema was met at the airport by a clutch of notorious profiteers whose connection to the great dictator enabled them to grow rich even as their country died. These "vultures" are said to be slavering at the prospect of another killing as Mugabe moves to dismember Zimbabwe's last surviving businesses and mines in the name of "indigenisation".

By all accounts, Malema was thrilled to make their acquaintance. They organised a crowd to sing his controversial song about shooting Boers. Then they whisked him off in a presidential Mercedes Benz and put him up in Harare's most expensive hotel. In return, Malema expressed his unqualified admiration for the policies that have ruined Zimbabwe and vowed to press for their adoption south of the Limpopo River.

"In South Africa, we are just starting," said Malema. "Here you are already very far. We are very happy today that you can account for more than 300,000 new farmers, against the 4,000 who used to dominate agriculture. We hear you are now going straight to the mines. That's what we are going to be doing in South Africa. We want the mines. They have been exploiting our minerals for a long time. Now it's our turn also to enjoy from those minerals…"

On Thursday, Malema reiterated these sentiments at a press conference marked by an ugly racial attack on a BBC reporter. There has been no repudiation. The silence says something truly ominous: Malema has protection. Someone in the ANC – either the president himself, or an awesomely powerful faction inside the party – is encouraging him to rally the masses for a Zimbabwe-style obliteration of Africa's only viable economy and last surviving hope.


...

If you ask me, Malema is the point-man for a powerful ANC faction whose motive is greed and whose chosen weapon is racial demagoguery of the most primitive kind.

The trouble is that this card trumps all others. Our underclass is huge, poorly educated and desperately poor. They know what happened in Zimbabwe, but even so, the prospect of loot is irresistible, and that's Malema's bait. Mandela gave them free houses. Mbeki gave them welfare grants, leading to a situation where five million taxpayers support 13 million indigents, with the total rising far more rapidly than our ability to pay. Now Malema and the faceless vultures behind him are offering them the rest. They are playing the death card, the Ace of Spades. '

Meanwhile how are the BBC reporting the Julius Malema's verbal attack on one of their own reporters? The answer is obvious, not at all. You see after years of chanting "Free Nelson Mandela" in the 1980s and worshipping the 'living saint' that is Nelson Mandela in the 1990s the BBC still see the ANC as freedom fighters and the rightful rulers of South Africa. Thus the humiliation of one of their own interviewers by an ANC chief is just not worth mentioning. The BBC would far rather exult at the savage murder of Eugene Terreblanche as Omid Djalili and another did recently.

South Africa could be going down the same violent route as Zimbabwe and the BBC will not realise or report this until it is way too late. If you are a white South African farmer, then my advice is get out now. If you are a white South African mine owner or manager, then my advice is get out now. If you are a white South African business man, then my advice is start planning your escape. Finally if you are a white South African property owner, you may want to consider planning your exit for climes that may be less warm but somewhat safer; may I recommend the Mediterranean.

Labour links to gangsters and not a word on the BBC

Imagine the fuss if a Conservative shadow minister had had a known 'gangster' attend a fundraiser; the BBC would have been all over the story for days. However when Jim Murphy is similarly implicated; not a whisper. Here's part of what the Herald Scotland had to say:

'A convicted gangster has appeared at a Labour Party election fundraiser for Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy.

Lewis Rodden – known as Scooby, and who was jailed in 2005 for his part in an extortion campaign – was seen at the dinner last month.

Mystery surrounds Rodden’s presence after it emerged that the organiser of the event, Labour councillor and Strathclyde Police Authority member Betty Cunningham, is on first-name terms with him.'

Here's what the BBC have to say on the matter:

'


'

Phil Woolas explains (update)

A few days back I blogged about Phil Woolas's appearance on the Daily Politics show and his 'explanation' of the immigration/new jobs figures. At the time I said that 'I am confused... ' Well it seems that Andrew Neil has decided to investigate Phil Woolas's claims further, do read the whole piece but here are a few extracts (my emphasis): '...I've now had a chance to study the transcript and to read the statistical explanatory note which goes with the ONS survey. Here are the facts:

...

2. It does not distinguish between immigrants and non-immigrants nor temporary or permanent workers. It simply establishes if you are working in Britain at the time of the snapshot and, among other things, asks if you are foreign or British born. This question -- and the definition of foreign-born -- is laid down by Eurostat, on whose behalf the Survey is down. Brussels controls the definitions and parameters so that it can make like-for-like comparisons across the EU.

3. Though, contrary to the minister's claims, the Survey does not distinguish between immigrant or temporary workers, its rules would tend not to count temporary foreign-born workers. The Statistical note explains: this Survey "is a Survey of private households and excludes people in communal establishments (eg hostels, students living in halls of residence) and people who have lived in the UK for less than six months. Arguably the excluded groups are likely to include disproportionately large numbers of migrants. It would be reasonable to infer from this that estimates of migrant/foreign worker numbers based on the LFS may be a little lower than they should be." (My italics)

4. Let's just pause to reflect what that means: temporary migrants tend to live in communal residencies and many might be here for less than six months. So the Survey is almost certainly an underestimate of the number of foreign-born workers in the British labour force at any one time.

5. Just to be clear, there is no double-counting: to return to the Minister's analogy, the Survey would not pick up the cumulative numbers at an Arsenal game over time -- just the crowd at the particular Arsenal game when the Survey was taken.

6. The number of foreign-born workers in the British labour force has doubled since 1997 (from 1.5m to 2.8m). It is true that foreign-born could apply to the offspring of expats whose children were born abroad, who are now of working age and who have returned to these shores. It even applies to Boris Johnson (who was born in America). But there is no evidence of a massive return of expats since 1997 (indeed the momentum has been the other way). Though the Survey is not directly concerned with immigration it is hard not to conclude that the huge rise of foreign-born in the labour force is directly related to the huge rise in immigration since 1997. If there's another explanation I'd be grateful for it.

Now there are many possible official responses to these figures. Ministers could argue that it is a good thing that foreign workers have come here to do jobs which British-born folk have shunned. They could also point out that there are hundreds of thousands of Brits working and living abroad and that national labour forces are a two-way street in the age of globalisation. What does not look credible is Mr Woolas's explanation on yesterday's show. It would appear to be factually wrong and doesn't stack up. He needs to explain why it was right -- or come up with another one. We'll be sending this note to him.'


Also PM on Thursday analysed the Gordon Brown/John Humphrys Today interview as well as the Phil Woolas one and decides that Gordon Brown was wrong, although if you include older workers then the percentage of net new jobs taken by foreign born workers is 'only' 72%. PM also take on Phil Woolas's football crowd claim and say that 'he is completely wrong'. So Phil Woolas will you come out and apologise for your 'misdirections'?

UFO or hoax?

Thanks to The Mail for the spot.

Bjork's 'It's oh so quiet' was not the original

Mrs NotaSheep has got me watching 'Over the Rainbow' and I am having to feign interest, however one shocking revelation was that Bjork's 'It's oh so quet' was a cover version; so here's Bjork



and here's the original by Betty Hutton form 1951


Another post in the spirit of Radio London's Robert Elms "Cover to Cover" feature.

Dr Who - The Beast Below

Another Steven Moffat written story and it had the usual element of 'let's scare the children' and I am all for that. In all a good episode, not an expensive one so there should be a lot of budget left for later episodes. But the ending, oh the ending... too much emotion and easy parallel drawing and .... no best forgotten.

And then as I am primed to to turn off before next week's spouler, they incorporate the spoiler into this week's story!

Hiding the true unemployment figures

Labour's lies about who has benefited from its creation of 2.5 million jobs are well documented but less well known are the way that it has quite deliberately created a client state of people whose livelihoods depend upon payments from the state. I have remarked upon this phenomena before but an article on Burning Our Money caught my eye today:

'How many of our 6m public sector jobs are just another form of welfare?

The reason I ask is that listening to today's BBC coverage of the continuing debate over National Insurance Contributions (NICs), the question didn't get a mention.

...

This is public employment as welfare. And when we look a the high dependence on public sector jobs in the depressed regions of Britain today, we can see it's more than an empty slogan.

The one slight snagette is that welfare employees still need paying .... Which means that someone else has to part with the fruits of his own labour in order to provide the wherewithal. And all he'll get in exchange is the sight of another new pyramid, or if he's lucky, a government promise to repay the loan in some distant future, probably in debased coinage.

Getting low skill, low productivity, welfare dependents into work is going to be one of the very toughest challenges facing Cam's government. Given the catastrophic fiscal legacy, leaving them on the public payrolls will not be an option.'

IF, and it is still a big if, the Conservatives do win this general election then the exposing of the lies and manipulations that have been at the heart of Labour policy and actions for the last 13 years must be a top priority. The whole country must be made aware of what has really been happening and the culpability of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson in the ruination of this land. Of course I hope that a way is found to have the three of them (and there are others) tried and convicted for their crimes against the UK; an idle pipe-dream, probably but not a total impossibility?

Checking the global warming alarmists' statistics

Rational Optimist spots the USA Today scare story that

'If the entire Greenland ice sheet melted, which is not predicted, scientists estimate that global sea levels would rise about 20 feet, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.'

and explains the slight problem:

'what percentage of its ice mass is Greenland losing each year, so how long have we got before the 20 feet engulf us all?

The new study says Greenland lost 385 cubic miles between 2002 and 2009. Sounds a lot.

Greenland has 700,000 cubic miles of ice. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet)

So it's losing 1% per century, 0.01% per year. Funny that number never appeared in the news reports.'

.01% per year, that seems less scary...

Fighting 'climate change' or redistributing wealth?

Tory Aardvark explains that:

'...industry moving from the western world to the emerging nations, leaving behind unemployment and poverty while the Labour Government and the EU reward companies for killing British jobs, pay them billions for relocating to other countries, and not one ounce of CO2 reduced in the whole scam.

There never was a climate change problem, just snake oil and smoke and mirrors to hide the real agenda of wealth redistribution and one world government.'

Read the whole article for the background.

The BBC's obsession with Israel and portraying Israel as uniquely evil

Robin Sheperd notes the number of articles about Israel and remarks:

'Someone should do a larger study. But today’s evidence is clear. Every single article paints Israel in a negative or problematic light. One, quite nonchalantly, gives a voice to Holocaust denial. None paints the Palestinians in a negative light in any way shape or form.'

Robin Sheperd concludes:

'That is quite an achievement in a week when the Jerusalem Post — a paper freely available to BBC editors on the internet — has run a story with the following headline:

“Israel slams naming of Ramallah street after arch-terrorist” [A story about how the Palestinian Authority -- Israel's partner for peace -- has named a street in honour of Yehiyeh Ayash, a terrorist who murdered dozens of Israeli civilians]

That story comes hard on the heels of a decision in March by the same “moderate” Palestinian Authority to celebrate the worst terrorist atrocity ever perpetrated inside Israel (the 1978 bus massacres which left 38 dead including 13 children) by naming a central square in Ramallah after its perpetrator, Dalal Mughrabi.

The BBC refused to cover that story too.

This is not journalism. It’s agitprop. And it’s got to stop.'

Sky Sports ace reporter Chris Kamara

EMBED-World's Dumbest Sports Reporter - Watch more free videos

How to explain the real cause of high petrol prices to the public

Cazzy Jones has a fantastic idea to bring home to the public who is to blame for high petrol prices:

'Just imagine a dual till system on the forecourt, where the driver goes to the first till and pays £28 for the cost of the fuel and the retailer’s profit margin, and is then channelled to the second till, coming face to face with a bureaucrat who tells him: “Because you have spent money filling your car up, you must now give more money to the government.” “How much?” “£52.” “But that’s almost twice as much as what I’ve just paid the garage!” “Tough. Pay up and shut up.”'

URGENT - David Cameron I can save the country £18.3 billion a year

David Cameron is looking for necessary savings and being attacked by the BBC/Labour alliance for threatening jobs, so surely he will be interested to learn that he could save £18.3 billion a year...

Christopher Booker in The telegraph explains:

'One of the best-kept secrets of British politics – although it is there for all to see on a Government website – is the cost of what is by far the most expensive piece of legislation ever put through Parliament. Every year between now and 2050, according to Ed Miliband's Department for Energy and Climate Change (Decc), the Climate Change Act is to cost us all up to £18.3 billion – £760 for every household in the country – as we reduce our carbon emissions by 80 per cent.

...

we contribute less than 2 per cent of global emissions, while China continues to build a new coal-fired power station every week, these empty getures will do nothing to reduce the world's overall "carbon footprint". Not that this makes any difference to global warming anyway – but at least it will give the Government billions more pounds of our money, while we still have any of it left.'

So what's more important David, appealing to the man made climate change brainwashed BBC and Guardian or saving money being spent on the pointless Climate Change Act?

Bird killed by technology but 'greens' will not protest because it was killed by 'good' technology

From 1:57 in...

If one animal is killed by an oil company or similar the enviromentalist lobby are up in arms, but when killed by a pointless wind-farm not a peep... because all must bow before the new religion of 'man made climate change.

Freedom of speech in South Africa, what the BBC won't report even though it affected their reporter

That is Julius Malema, leader of the ANC's Youth League, expelling a BBC reporter, Jonah Fisher, from a press conference for daring to comment on where Julius Malema lives - "You live in Sandtown"; he raised this point because Malema had just criticised the Movement for Democratic Change for having offices in affluent Sandton. To which Julius Malema replies:

"This is a building of the revolutionary party and you know nothing of the revolution... here you behave or else you jump(?).. can you get security to remove this thing(?)... don't come here with that white tendencies(?)... you are a small boy, you cannot do anything... go out, go out, bastard... you bloody agent... "

So far The Telegraph and The Guardian have covered this story but the BBC seem less keen even though it was one of their journalists that was expelled form the press conference. Somehow I think that if a black BBC journalist had been expelled from an Afrikaaner's press conference and was told "don't come here with that black tendencies" that it would be headline BBC news.

The Guardian have managed to decipher more of Julius Malema's rantings than I could, do take a read of their article. Here's a part that I missed: "You can go out. Rubbish is what you have covered in that trouser. That is rubbish. You are a small boy, you can't do anything.".

Julius Malema seems like he's learnt a lot from his trip to Zimbabwe, mainly how to use paranoia about 'agents' and conspiracies to justify any actions. If I were Jonah Fisher I would worry about what might happen to him, Julius Malema does not like criticism and won't enjoy the publicity this action has brought him.


His Wikipedia entry includes soem interesting facts: 'His school career was undistinguished and he failed two high school grades as well as several subjects in his final secondary school examination. His highest mark attained at school was reported as a "C" for second language English and his lowest marks were published as an "H" (sub 25%) in maths and a "G" (sub 20%) in woodwork, all in the standard grade.'

'In February 2010 Malema came under fire for alleged intervening in government tenders in the Limpopo province; see below. Malema is currently a director in a number of companies that was awarded these tenders. Malema denies these allegations, but is still listed as a director in all these companies. He is especially under fire for his lavish lifestyle, where he drives a number of expensive cars, and lives in a expensive house in Sandton. When questioned about his lavish lifestyle, he blames the allegations on racism in South Africa, and that white people do not want to see black people succeed in SA. When asked about his Mercedes Benz C63 AMG, he says "its nothing compared to what white kids drive on Sundays".

Malema has recently been criticised for not paying any personal taxes nor business taxes for his four registered companies for the two years since his election as the president of the ANCYL. He is apparently being investigated by a senior team within the South African Revenue Service.'

The seventy-eighth weekly "No shit, Sherlock" award

This week's award goes to David Cameron (as reported in The Telegraph) for noticing that 'Labour has made people afraid to discuss immigration for fear of being called racist, according to David Cameron. '

Labour brainwashing tactics and of course using 'racist' as an argument ending killer comment was deliberately planned to stop disagreements with their deliberate policy of mass immigration, so 'Labour has made people afraid to discuss immigration for fear of being called racist' - "No shit, Sherlock" and a bit late to realise this.

Blimey, what happened?

The Today interview with David Cameron was a surprise. Evan Davis pushed but not too much, was politely aggressive but interrupted less than I expected and certainly less than John Humphrys interrupted Gordon Brown in yesterday's equivalent interview.

What struck me was how much better an interviewee David Cameron is than Gordon Brown. David Cameron sounds controlled and engaged, rather than in a temper and dismissive of criticism. There is warmth in David Cameron's voice, maybe too much 'sincerity' but he sounds human and actually reacts to questioning, whereas Gordon Brown just bags on and on and on and on on his chosen line and ignores the actual question.

To sum up, a good interview by Evan Davis and, apart from his jokey "Daily Star" favourite newspaper answer, I think David Cameron came out ahead and I'm not even a great fan of his. I wonder how Gordon Brown would have reacted when asked what his favourite newspaper was?

I have used a new label for this post - 'BBC impartiality', I hope this won't be the only time I can do so in this election campaign, but somehow I think it will feature less than 'BBC bias' and 'BBC/NuLab'.

The Today programme interview today with David Cameron

I shall be listening with great interest to this morning's Radio 4 Today 08:00 interview with David Cameron and comparing it with yesterday's with Gordon Brown. Unfortunately I will be driving and so unable to blog about it until later this morning. I have expectations that the interview will be more confrontational than yesterday's and probably more personal as well, but no doubt Beeb Bias Craig will provide analysis.

Malcolm McLaren R.I.P.

Malcolm McLaren, the godfather of punk, PR genius, impresario, performer, manager of 'punk' and 'pop' groups and of course supreme self-publicist has died at the age of only 64. Malcolm McLaren, the man who supplied or inspired much of the soundtrack of my youth, has died and I will miss his ocasional forays into the modern music business. I will post a more complete tribute tonight or tomorrow but in the meantime...
Sex Pistols live in 1976 - "Anarchy in the UK"

Phil Woolas 'explains'

Today's Daily Politics programme has Phil Woolas explaining to Andrew Neil that 98.5 per cent of the 1.67m new jobs for those of working age created since 1997 have not gone to foreign workers. I am confused...

More interesting is the second set of figures on foreign born workers in the private sector.

Nice try by Phil Woolas to try and make out that those making these claims are in some way racist. Just look at Kevin Maguire's face as he tries to not get involved in any way.

Prime minister Gordon Brown said there will be no rise in the basic rate of 20 per cent tax should Labour win the election

I hear that our 'honest as the day is long' Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has said there will be no rise in the basic rate of 20 per cent tax should Labour win the election. So that means one or more of the following:

* Increases in National Insurance which is Income Tax by another name for most people

* Below inflation increases in personal allowances

* The 20% basic rate will stay but a new 30% rate will be introduced at a lower level and in addition to the 40% rate

* Rises in VAT and applied to currently zero rated items

* Rises in fuel duty

* A new annual tax on the capital element of savings (not the interest, the capital)

* A tax on the sale of main properties (currently tax exempt)

* Rises in any other stealth taxes that Gordon Brown can think of


Yes I am so f**king happy that Gordon Brown has said that there will be no increase in the basic rate of Income Tax, that's really convincing and reassuring.

Mind you since this is the same mendacious c**t that promised us a referendum on the EU Constitution & reneged and that promised an end to boom and bust before leading us into the biggest bust for generations; I wouldn't be too reassured.

Hold on a moment isn't he also the same lying t**t that (alongside Tony Blair) in 2005 promised no increase in Income Tax and promptly increased National Insurance. Looks like he's trying the same trick again.

This is definite 'Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me' time - so get angry and get even by ensuring that Gordon Brown, Peter Mandelson and the rest of the Labour leadership have the smug grins wiped off of their faces on 7 May.

Interesting posts on a Thursday

Busy day so here's a few items that caught my eye and you might find interesting:

1) Burning Our Money has an even more worrying than normal post on UK debt that could stop you from getting a good night's sleep tonight, here's an extract:

'The Bank for International Settlements disagrees. In a recent paper on the international outlook for public debt, they point to the UK as being the worst placed of any major economy.

On current policies, they project that by 2040 government debt interest payments in the UK will have ballooned from their current level under 3% of GDP up to nearly 30% - worse than any other country.

...

Or to put it another way, by 2040 the average family would be paying (in today's money) over £10 grand every year just to pay the government's debt interest bill.

And by 2040, the BIS estimates that our official public sector debt (ie excluding Enron items like public sector pensions) will be a staggering 550% of GDP'

2) Letters from a Tory explains 'The painful reality of 13 years of Labour’s benefits system' and it is a painful read. LFAT explains how

'a scarcely-reported document released yesterday by the Institute for Fiscal Studies gave a devastating assessment of how Labour’s benefits culture has done its bit to drive this country into the ground and tear families apart... On page 18, there is a fairly innocuous-looking table which details the average gains and losses for different people in terms of tax and benefit reforms that have been introduced since 1997. The data and, perhaps more importantly, the messages that these changes send out are deeply troubling and go a long way to explaining how Labour have bred such a disturbing culture of welfare dependency. Here is a summary of what Labour have done to our tax and benefits system in terms of changes to annual income:

* If you are single, you’ve lost out. It’s as simple as that. If you’re single and working, you have seen your income per year drop by 4.6% on average. However, if you’re single and not working, you’ve only seen your income drop by 1.8% a year.
* Lone parents have had money thrown at them by Labour. If you’re a lone parent who works, your income has rocketed by 12.4% under Labour, but if you’re a lone parent who doesn’t work then your income has shot up by 16.1% instead.
* If you’re in a relationship in which neither partner is working and you have no children, your income had dropped slightly by 1.3%. However, if you’re in a relationship in which no-one is working and you have children then fear not, because your income will have increased by a massive 16% under Labour in return for… well… not working and having kids.
* Unfortunately, if you’re in a couple and at least one of you is working then its bad news all around. If one of you is working and you have no children, you’re down 5.3% a year under Labour, and if you have children then you’re down 1.3%. If both partners work and you have children, you’re out of pocket by 3.5% a year, and if you’re in a relationship where you both work and have no children you’re down by 4.7%.
* Pensioners have done quite well out of these changes, with the income of single pensioners up 9.9% a year, but if you’re in a couple then your income is only up 3.2%.
* The average change of income under Labour across all age groups and households is a loss of 0.9% a year.

Something else for Gordon Brown to be tackled on and no doubt something else he will answer with waffle and guff whilst the BBC interviewer looks on adoringly. The thing is that this has not happened by accident it was part of Labour's plan to create a client sate that would vote labour no matter what and they have succeeded.


3) Iain Dale reports that: 'Dragons' Den star James Caan has today backed Tory economic policy' and here's the James Caan press release in full (my emphasis):

'James Caan, champion of entrepreneurship and star of BBC TVs Dragons’ Den, analysed the policies of the Labour and Conservative parties today, in search of solace for small business prior to the General Election.

“Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SME’s) obviously have a huge part to play in the economic recovery and providing employment growth,“ said James Caan. “Currently, all parties are claiming to have prioritized help to SME’s, but that help comes in various policy forms.”

“Labour and the Conservatives seem to be offering alternative policy focuses for economic recovery, and their plans for deficit reduction depend upon the successful impact of their respective policies. I believe that the recovery needs to be business-led, with particular support for SME’s, and the Conservatives are most convincing on this aspect at the moment.”

“Labour have outlined a series of encouraging measures as part of their £2.5bn Growth Package to help small businesses, but Alistair Darling’s budget claimed to be based on the lowest end of Bank of England growth estimates,“ said Caan, “but I am convinced that his growth figures are exaggerated. If this is the case, his borrowing projections also look imprudent.“

Caan states that viable SME’s are continuing to struggle to access the credit that they need, and emphasises that Labour have largely failed to ensure that access over the past year. Moreover, “their plans to ensure that Lloyds and RBS lend to SME’s by setting targets and creating a Credit Adjudicator Service (CAS) are ambiguous“ said Caan. “Their plans to raise National Insurance Contributions will also cost of thousands of jobs.“

Caan believes that the Conservative Party has a stronger focus on business and will also be more successful in reassuring the financial markets.

“The Tories place a different and greater emphasis on making it easier for SME’s to operate, and are willing to actually cut taxes here. Their plan to keep NI at its current level will protect jobs in the private sector, and it will act as an incentive for business.“ he said.

Caan is impressed by George Osborne’s promise to cut the deficit faster than Labour, and to put more emphasis on spending cuts rather than tax rises. “Cutting the deficit will be easier given a stronger business-led recovery.”

“Regardless of who wins the election, market led growth will be crucial, but this needs to be implemented with minimal transitional cost in terms of jobs,“ said Caan. “At the moment, the Tories will be receiving the entrepreneurial vote, and I think that current employees and jobseekers will also welcome the NI relief on employers to employ them.“

James Caan has a good understanding of the needs of small businesses. He has created many millionaires, and has launched his Entrepreneurs’ Business Academy. James Caan has co-chaired the government’s Ethnic Minorities Business Task Force, reporting directly to business secretary Lord Peter Mandelson. '

Peter Mandelson won't be happy, I wonder how he will take revenge?


4) ITV's Tom Bradby explains that 'interviewing Gordon is unlike interviewing any other politician.' and here's part of his reasoning:

'Most encounters with party leaders or MPs form a distinct pattern. We come in. We sit down. We chat pleasantly. We do an interview, which is probing, highbrow or a bit brutal, as circumstances demand. Then we exchange more pleasantries as we shoot a few ‘wide’ shots. And we go away.

End of story.

Simple, huh?

Tony Blair was like this. David Cameron is. So are Alastair Darling, Nick Clegg, George Osborne and just about every other front rank politician I can think of.

Not Gordon.... interviewing him is emotionally complicated.He doesn’t seem to understand that we are here to ask difficult questions and test his arguments by establishing contrary positions. He nearly always tells us we are wrong, both on and off camera, and that we have not done our research. He often gets angry, sometimes sulks and from time to time looks brutally hurt.

I really don’t know what to make of it. It’s not politics as we know it.'

I know what to make of it Tom; Gordon Brown is an evasive, aggressive, obsessive ****.

Gordon Brown, employment and immigration - the truth?

This morning in his interview with John Humphrys on the Today programme (listen here from 18:00 to for the next week) Gordon Brown made some rather odd remarks regarding the amount of jobs his government had created and how many had gone to immigrants. Here's my transcript:

GB: "... we're getting more people back into work and therefore there are savings from people not staying.."
JH (interrupting): "mostly foreigners actually (but there we are)..."
GB (reacting to interruption): "John I think that's a bit unfair"
JH (interrupting): "Well 97% of new jobs going to foreigners"
GB: "That is just simply not the case, there are two and a half million more people in work in this country.."
JH (interrupting): "That's not the point, there are more people in work, but half of them are foreigners, anyway go on..."
GB: Jon I think you are going too far there, because if you look at the numbers of people who've got into work over the past few years; it's young people... the over 50s... more women working... more single parents working..."

So what's the truth of it? The Mail reports claims that

'Figures suggested an extraordinary 98.5 per cent of 1.67million new posts were taken by immigrants.'

The Express reports that:

'Official figures revealed that more than nine out 10 of the 1.7 million jobs added to the economy since 1997 have gone to workers from overseas.

They also showed that nearly 300,000 fewer British-born workers were employed in the private sector than when Labour came to power.'

What we need is for an interviewer to get Gordon Brown in a studio and ask him to accept that whilst 2.5 million jobs might well have been created since 1997, 98% of them have gone to foreigners. Asking Gordon Brown once, twice or even three times in not enough as he will just evade the question. I suggest that someone might need to 'do a Paxman' and keep asking the same question over and over again until the interview ends. Maybe that is why Gordon 'fearty' Brown has refused to be interviewed by Jeremy Paxman in during the general election campaign - Gordon 'Courage' Brown? Don't make me laugh!

The trouble is that this is one of the main problems with Gordon Brown, he does not answer questions and for the good of democracy he needs to be tackled properly on this issue and others.




As an aside, let's look at Hansard's record for Wednesday's PMQs:

'Q7. [325645] Damian Green (Ashford) (Con): The Prime Minister once notoriously promised "British jobs for British workers". Can he confirm that the latest official figures, produced this morning, show that the number of UK-born private sector workers is several hundred thousand lower today than it was in 1997?

The Prime Minister: Net migration to this country has been falling as a result of actions that we have been taking, and it has fallen in the last three years. It is falling because there are more people here locally getting the jobs that are available. The Conservatives should think twice about their policy on quotas for migration, because the very businesses that they are quoting want to be able to bring people into this country to do the jobs that are necessary. We propose the Australian points system on migration. The Conservatives' policy of a quota for immigration, without giving a number, would do great damage to British business.'

Why The Election Means Nothing To The Markets

Harvey Jones on Motley Fool writes an interesting article but it was this line that really caught my eye:

'But the truth is that the speed at which we pay down our debt won't be dictated by Westminster, which now only pretends to be in charge of this country's financial destiny, but by the credit rating agencies and the bond markets. They are the masters now, and will be pulling the strings of Alistair Darling, George Osborne, Vince Cable or whichever puppet Chancellor is nominally in charge of our finances after 6 May.'

A reminder of the BBC's shameless bias at during the 2005 general election

Riehl World View reminds me of this from 2005:

'The BBC is under fire for controversial actions that blur the lines between state sponsored allegedly free media and political speech after it equipped hecklers at a campaign rally for Conservative leader Michael Howard with microphones to repeatedly yell charges which included, "Michael Howard is a liar", "You can't trust the Tories" and "You can only trust Tony Blair".

While the BCC claims this was part of a documentary on political heckling and events of other parties events were also attended, the Telegraph has determined that no events for Liberal Tony Blair have been infiltrated or disrupted.

A spokesman for the BBC has attempted to minimize the controversial event and BBC camera crews were seen focused on the hecklers, causing conservatives to charge the BBC with manufacturing negative news as regards the Conservative Party.

The spokesman was unable to provide details of any other campaign meetings attended by the BBC3 crew. He said that the hecklers had not been paid a fee, but could not say whether they had received expenses.'

Keep an eye on the BBC this general election.

Robert Peston and 'one important counter-argument'

Robert Peston's piece entitled 'National Insurance: Who's got it right?' starts 'Welcome to Reality Check. Today I'm examining the political argument over National Insurance.' but unsurprisingly it editorialises in an unsurprising way:

'There is, however, one important counter-argument, about the nature of the good society.'

Beeb Bias Craig takes Robert Peston to task...

Gordon Brown takes responsibilty, without accepting he was responsible

John Humphrys actually tried to take Gordon Brown to task in his 08:10 interview, a lot of the interview was about Gordon Brown's culpability for the financial crisis in the UK and do listen as Gordon Brown says he takes responsibility without really accepting responsibility. Gordon Brown also refused to explain why the 60+ business leaders were deceived and still claimed that the 2.5 million new jobs are not primarily made up of immigrants - here Migration Watch explains the truth of that statement.

The BBC news bulletin immediately after the interview, of course, summarised the interview from a very positive angle of what Gordon Brown claimed.


As an aside who would you trust on economic matters: Gordon Brown who is sees a 0.4% rise in GDP as a positive sign that we are coming out of recession or Sir Stuart Rose who managed his company to a 5.1% rise in sales in the last quarter.

"We'd just mutter a bit..."

The BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning had John Humphrys interviewing Chris Patten and others about the built-in anti-Conservative bias in the way constituency boundaries are constituted. John Humphrys ran the discussion as an interesting academic discussion. Somehow I think that if the system favoured the Conservative party and left the Labour party needing proportionally more votes per elected MP than the Conservatives, then the discussion with a Labour greybeard would have had more urgency and claims of unfairness. You see Conservatives (and the Republicans in the US) are meant to just 'suck it up' when they are the victims of unfairness whilst Labour (and the Democrats in the US) moan, whinge, whine and maybe 'man the barricades' in protest.

"Why did he sell the gold... was it a good decision?"

Andrew Slaughter MP (at the moment) 'defending' Gordon Brown's incompetent selling of half of Britain's gold on LBC.

How is this taking £6 billion out of the economy and why does Gordon Brown never answer the question?

Watch Gordon Brown thought of as an economic genius when he obviously doesn't know what he is talking about. What the fuck is he talking about when he says that the Conservative plans to cancel the 1% NI increase will take £6 billion out of the economy? How is that the case? Will the £6 billion just disappear or will it be available to spend by the companies who will not have to pay it? Perhaps the companies will use it to invest in equipment or take on new staff, what does Gordon Brown think will happen to the £6 billion not taken in higher taxation? I get the feeling that Gordon Brown is such a centraliser that he cannot conceive of money being spent other than in the public sector, for what he means is that his public sector will be denied £6 billion, that his carefully constructed client state will be denied yet more money.

To give Nick Robinson some credit he does gently push Gordon Brown as to why he claimed the businessmen had been deceived, but Gordon Brown just doesn't answer. He really seems to think that only he understands what is happening as everyone else has been deceived. In Gordon Brown's mind he really does bestride the world as an economic genius whilst we are all idiots. Gordon Brown really needs to be pressed on this subject again and again and maybe Jeremy Paxman would do that but Gordon Brown has apparently chickened out of a Jeremy Paxman interview; that's Gordon 'fearty' Brown in action again.

Also didn't Tony Blair also promise to serve a full term before the 2005 election?

The truth about Barack Obama's past?

The Examiner reports that:

'In what is being called 'the biggest hustle in human history,' a special investigation has discovered numerous bogus claims on Barack Obama's resume, including the outright lie that he was a 'Constitutional scholar and professor.'

The claim turns out to be false.'

Read the whole article and decide for yourselves...

"When we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya"

Was that Michelle Obama admitting that Barack Obama is indeed Kenyan?




Thanks to Theo Spark for the spot.

What Gordon Brown said and what the official transcript says he said

The FT has spotted some very interesting discrepancies between what Gordon Brown said yesterday and what the Labour official transcript says he said. Here's a few examples:

'# Brown forgot to say the headline phrase “the future is ours to win”. His final lines were “It’s a future fair for all, now all of us let’s go to it” but these altered by Labour to “the future is ours to win, now let’s get to it”
# Brown claimed he was from a “middle class” family, but this disappears from the official version
# Brown referred to “our police, our schools and our hospitals” which Labour HQ altered to “your hospitals, your schools, your policing”'

Interesting?

Zimbabwe yesterday, South Africa tomorrow?

The Zimbabwe Mail has some worrying information for South Africans:

'Controversial South African youth leader for the African National Congress has said ANC will follow the example of Zimbabwe's Zanu PF and start to take over white-owned farms by the end of the year.

The comments were made by Julius Malema at a mine 160 kilometers outside Harare in Zimbabwe.

The ANC Youth Wing leader, enthused by rented Zanu PF crowd, said Zimbabwe had led the way in fighting over land and promised to unleash Zimbabwean tactics on South African white farmers.

He encouraged Zimbabweans to also take over white and foreign-owned companies. Malema said the people must embrace liberation and continue to fight against what he called Western imperialism.

He said: "You are not alone. Your struggle is our struggle."

Malema also said he would continue to sing the song: "Kill the Boer," a former ANC chant against the apartheid regime. The song was last week banned in a South African court.

The ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema, shot to fame by expressing his undying support for the South African President, Jacob Zuma, by saying: "We are prepared to take up arms and kill for Zuma."'

South Africa's future as the 'rainbow nation' looks less likely by the day.

The election 'narrative' has been set

The day the election was called gave us all the opportunity to see the 'narrative' and tactics that the Labour/BBC alliance have agreed upon.

All Labour policies are to be accepted as wise and their funding or economic assumptions not questioned. All Labour spokesmen will be allowed to state that Gordon Brown got the big decisions right without being challenged, the same will be true for Vince Cable. All Labour spokesmen will be allowed to make disparaging remarks about George Osborne and claim that he and David Cameron got all major decisions wrong and were alone in the world in proposing cuts. Labour spokesmen will be allowed to conflate reducing the deficit by 50% over four years with reducing debt; two completely different matters but the public should not be reminded of this. All Labour spokesmen will be treated with respect and not interrupted except in extremis. Labour will be allowed the first and last word and in some cases the only words on some matters. The views of ex-Labour bigwigs that Gordon Brown should be re-elected will be treated as major news rather than as obvious and will be covered in full and over and over again. All speeches by Labour chiefs (past and present) will be treated rather as the sermon on the mount and given full coverage.

Lib Dem spokesmen will be allowed to make as many ridiculous claims as they like even to claim that Nick Clegg could become Prime Minister without being challenged too hard. Vince Cable's remarks will be treated as if presented on tablets of stone. A hung parliament will be discussed as if it will be a good and exciting outcome and speculated upon based upon a Uniform National Swing, even though the swing in the marginals will almost certainly be different (Channel 4 News last night covered this point well, the BBC continue to ignore it). Opinion polls will only be mentioned when there is one that is positive for Labour and the commentary that the public should be left with is that the polls are narrowing, even if the gap is actually opening up again (Norman Smith on Radio 4 news yesterday evening was a prime offender).

All Conservative pledges will be treated as unfunded or dangerous to the economic recovery. Any slight difference in emphasis between any two Conservatives will be treated as indicative of a major split (meanwhile any major discrepancies on economic policy between Gordon Brown, Peter Mandelson and Alistair Darling will be ignored). As many as possible interviews with Conservatives will mention Eton, privilege, hunting and Lord Ashcroft. All Conservative spokesman will be treated with a mixture of disdain and disbelief and interrupted as often as possible to ruin their flow and make them sound permanently on the defensive.


So that's the Labour/BBC plan as I see it; any other tricks you have spotted?

An iPad or an ObamaPad?

Which would you choose?

A socialist hypocrite

Funny how being in power has changed socialist apparatchik Maxine Waters's view of political dissent.


Thanks to Moonbattery for the spot.

How much money has Gordon Brown taken from your pension?

In 1997 Gordon Brown is one of his first acts as Chancellor of the Exchequer changed the tax treatment of pension funds. His first Budget removed the tax credit on dividend income and an estimated £5 billion from Britons’ pension funds each year. Do you want to know how much that one act has cost you? The answer should be calculable at Pensions Time Bomb.

Gordon Brown has made poor or evil decisions ever since 1997, so make sure he's kicked out of office come May 6th.


Sourced from "the other blog".

Gordon Brown's totalitarian instincts shine through

"We will renew the contract between the people and those that they are sworn to serve"

From Gordon Brown's speech launching his election campaign. Surely in a democracy the government is meant to serve the people not the other way around; but under Labour who really believes that the UK is a proper democracy?

Is the BBC's Nick Robinson calling Gordon Brown a liar

The BBC's Nick Robinson in his piece today on the calling of the general election writes:

'Image Two: Alistair Darling emerging from the famous black door at Gordon Brown's side. The chancellor the prime minister planned to sack is now seen as a key electoral asset.'

Hold on a moment, didn't Gordon Brown flatly deny that he was ever planning to sack Alistair Darling? Here's the video...
So was Gordon Brown lying at that press conference or is Nick Robinson misleading the public now? It surely has to be one or the other...

The seventy-seventh weekly "No shit, Sherlock" award

This week's winner is Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union, who is reported to have said:

"I have to say to you this, that if you judge a government by how it behaves as an employer, this is the worst government in the history of this country"

I disagree with his reasons but it must be true that "this is the worst government in the history of this country". So "No shit, Sherlock"

Johnson Beharry is now a non-person on the BBC

When Johnson Beharry was awarded his Victoria Cross, the highest military decoration which is awarded for valour "in the face of the enemy" to members of the armed forces, his name and details were all over the BBC website. Oddly neww that he refused to shake Gordon Brown's hand at a ceremony has not made it to the BBC website.

If you want to keep an eye on the BBC's 'unbiased' news coverage, keep an eye on this search, until the BBC mention Johnson Beharry's comments at Remembrance Day that:

'he said the Prime Minister was “fidgeting and moving” during the two minute silence.

“I've got head and back injuries that put me back in hospital in a lot of pain quite regularly, so if I could do it there's no reason he couldn't," he said. "It was very rude.

“I was absolutely furious with him. All that was going through my head was to knock him out.

“So on the official line-up that time, I decided I'd get his attention and let him know how I felt.

“When he offered his hand to me I just turned around and walked away. I wanted him to think about his actions and it worked.”'

then I will have to assume that they are irredeemably pro-Labour.

Not really believable

The Guardian quotes the BBC director general, Mark Thompson, as saying that:

'the corporation will "show neither fear nor favour" in how it reports the imminent general election campaign.

Thompson, outlining some of the BBC's plans for its election coverage in a BBC blog, said it was "vital that the BBC is able to provide a strong and independent place where the big debates can take place – free from political or commercial influence".'

Anyone who has spent some time on this blog, at Biased BBC or Beeb Bias Craig will know that claims of BBC impartiality are at best a joke.

The BBC's cheerleading for the Labour party has been obvious for some years now but standby for a ramping up beyond anything you have ever experienced before.

A glimpse inside Number 10 as Gordon 'courage' Brown prepares to visit The Palace

Iain Martin in the Wall Street Journal captures the flavour of the atmosphere in Number 10 as Gordon 'fearty' Brown prepares to go to Buckingham Palace to call the general election. Do read the whole piece, here's an extract:

'GB (getting up and pacing around the horse-shoe shaped hub with his hands over his ears): “Everybody stop shouting! Just let me think. (Another long silence) Look… look… Ed, I’ve been working on some numbers overnight on the Tories national insurance plans, and boy we’ve really got them. Their numbers don’t add up. It’s gonna be just like the old days! Ed, if we can keep going, I know we’re going to get that big breakthrough. I know it, I can feel it. Just a few more days now, then I’ll call the election. I promise.”

Sue Nye (leaving the room in a hurry): “I knew this would happen. I’m going to get Sarah.”

Ed Balls (patiently): “Gordon, you remember how we talked about why there has to be an election every five years? And that it’s almost exactly five years since the last one, and that rather than waiting until the final, final date possible, we’ve all agreed, and you have decided, haven’t you, remember, that it’s best to do this thing on May 6. And everyone out there (points out of the window of Number 10) expects you to go and see the Queen and get her permission and then tell the country it’s election time. Today, now.”

GB: “Can I call Peter? Just for a second?”

Charlie Whelan: “Nope. You’ve had more than enough of Mandelson and his advice. We’ve taken your mobile phone away.”

...

Sarah (quietly): “No. No more delays. (Quickly brightening again). But what did we discuss last night? What did I tell you Gordon?”

GB (looking pleased as punch): “That I’m going to win the election.”

Sarah (nodding patiently, taking his hand and leading him out of the room and down the corridor toward the front door of Number 10): “Of course you are. And why are you going to win Gordon?”

GB: “Because I saved the banks and then I saved the economy. I’m a serious man for serious times, not like him (glowering now)… that Lord… Lord… Lord Snooty Cameron and his pal Osborne… I am serious and I am going to win and still be prime minister and lead this country into a fairer future for another five years. Or maybe even a bit more than that… anyway, until I can hand over to Ed to continue the work of change.”'

Obama's army is on its way

I have blogged previously about Barack Obama's stated plans for a civilian army to match the US armed forces in size. So was interested to see the above video; what Obama wants, Obama gets - for the moment anyway. A 6,000 uniformed and armed 'army' - the Ready Reserve - at the disposal of The President. Now are you scared?

A short piece of Victor Borge magic

Two Michelin stars for the cooking but not much for the spelling

The Gidleigh Park Hotel has a list of Easter treats for its guests' children, including (my emphasis):

'Should you be joining us over the Easter weekend then the children are treated to an Easter egg hunt, with prizes strategically placed in the grounds buy the Easter Bunny!'

Schoolboy error there. Maybe Gidleigh Park need a better proof-reader, maybe not as good a proof-reader as Michael Caines is a chef, but certainly better...