HIPs are to be extended to 3 bedroom or larger propoerties from 10 September 2007 according to the BBC and we know how reliable their news presentation is. "Shadow housing minister Grant Shapps called the plan "pointless red tape", adding that it would lead to extra costs and bureaucracy. "Pushing ahead with Hips will just make life harder and more expensive for people buying and selling property," he said. " Mmm just what the country needs as we head towards a massive recession, heck let's call it what it is - a depression, an extra tax on labour mobility as house prices crash around us. I don't think the income to the Treausury from HIPs will make up for the loss in income from stamp duty as house prices fall.
By the way, has anyone seen Gordon Brown since the financial markets started to fall? Surely he has some comforting words about how he has ended boom and bust for ever...
Friday, 17 August 2007
Thursday, 16 August 2007
More on the BBC versus John Redwood and a promise from me re Gordon Brown
I blogged recently about how the BBC covered John Redwood's policy announcements by showing the footage of him not correctly singing along with Mae Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau. Insulting and irrelevant to the story but indicative of the BBC mind-set. Helen Boaden has commented on this story here by saying "In retrospect we weren't right to use that footage again, which came from a long time ago". It did come from a long time ago, but the BBC mind-set is - John Redwood... ooh ooh there's that funny video of him making a prat of himself when he was Secreatry of State for Wales, let's show that it always makes me laugh and it will remind people of how horrible and strangely funny the Tories were and that they must vote Labour, especially now that lovely Gordon Brown is in charge...
The discussion at the bottom of that BBC page is interesting, I especially like James K's comment "Why do you include "The secretary of state for business, John Hutton, said the Tories were now more right wing than they had been under William Hague and Michael Howard" at all. It has no relevance to the story whatsoever. If John Hutton had said "The Tory Party is now the Fascist Party and also they beat their wives", would you have repeated that. You are biased and you simply cannot ever see it."
Also William Batterby's comments appeal to me "If I was a member of the Labour Party, I'd be entirely happy with the way you reported John Redwood's announcement, and I'd also be happy with seeing old footage of him making a fool of himself as that's waht I'd want to see. But I'm not. I'ma Conservative Party member (or 'Tory') so I don't like any of this and the story to me was seriously biased. And since I'm forced to pay you a large poll tax each year in order to own a television, I'd like to see you adopt an non-Party bias in your news reporting"
Roland Deschain wrote "Next time Gordon Brown makes an announcement, will you consider broadcasting pictures of him picking his nose? If not, why did you consider showing these pictures of John Redwood?"
This is a point that I have been making for a while and it does give me the opportunity to make this promise; from now on every mention of Gordon Brown on my blog will be accompanied either by a link to the video of Gordon Brown picking his nose or by a picture of the nose picking - here's both
The discussion at the bottom of that BBC page is interesting, I especially like James K's comment "Why do you include "The secretary of state for business, John Hutton, said the Tories were now more right wing than they had been under William Hague and Michael Howard" at all. It has no relevance to the story whatsoever. If John Hutton had said "The Tory Party is now the Fascist Party and also they beat their wives", would you have repeated that. You are biased and you simply cannot ever see it."
Also William Batterby's comments appeal to me "If I was a member of the Labour Party, I'd be entirely happy with the way you reported John Redwood's announcement, and I'd also be happy with seeing old footage of him making a fool of himself as that's waht I'd want to see. But I'm not. I'ma Conservative Party member (or 'Tory') so I don't like any of this and the story to me was seriously biased. And since I'm forced to pay you a large poll tax each year in order to own a television, I'd like to see you adopt an non-Party bias in your news reporting"
Roland Deschain wrote "Next time Gordon Brown makes an announcement, will you consider broadcasting pictures of him picking his nose? If not, why did you consider showing these pictures of John Redwood?"
This is a point that I have been making for a while and it does give me the opportunity to make this promise; from now on every mention of Gordon Brown on my blog will be accompanied either by a link to the video of Gordon Brown picking his nose or by a picture of the nose picking - here's both
More BBC bias
There is a new word sweeping the blogosphere and starting to impinge on the consciousness of the MSM, that word is "Wikigate". In case you are new to this concept, I will explain; Wikigate concerns the politically biased editing of Wikipedia entries by organisations or people working within organisations. If you do not frequent the blogosphere then the first you may have heard about this in the UK would probably have been from this page on the BBC web site. This page within the technology subsection of the news area started by concentrating on claims that the CIA had been editing Wikipedia entries on the Iranian President and others. The page has now been amended to include claims that others have been doing the same, including: the Vatican, the Democratic Party in the US and Microsoft. One example this page does not include is that of the organisation that was the first to be accused this week of amending entries - the BBC.
Take a look at this page from the Wikiscanner website, it shows the ip addresses used by the BBC and you can dig into the Wikipedia edits made from these addresses. Now we know that the BBC is unbiased and reflects the full spectrum of the British people so these edits must have been to correct factual errors only, mustn't they? Don't be daft...
Here is one edit made from a BBC computer, the changing of George Bush's middle name from "Walker" to "Wanker".
Here is another changing "terrorist" to "freedom fighter".
Here is another where changes were made to Tony Blair's entry to make it seem as though his heart problems were brought on by drinking "vodka" rather than "coffee" and by exercising too much in the "bedroom" rather than the "gym".
Here is one that shows the level of BBC journalism off beautifully; a long diatribe against Islamophobia containing such phrases as "last year during the 7/7 attacks all muslims in britain were under threat. the media managed to hang a hook on them and whenever they refer to terrorists its allways Muslim terorists" and the beautifully crafted "just like how the press make up stuff about celebrities, they also make up shit about muslims. just because 4 people decided to something because of their own personal beliefs does not mean all muslims beleive the same way"; don't forget, it's our licence fee paying for these entries, do read the rest of that "edit" it's a real insight into the BBC mindset.
Here are some edits to the Wikipedia entry on the Balen report that tones down the original.
Here is one regarding the expulsion of Syrian Jews, changing "The Jews slowly left Syria after years of torture at the hands of former president Hafez Al-Assad and his government{{fact}}. Most were not allowed to leave and had to pay government officials to get out, or risk their lives by sneaking across the borders." to "Many Jews left Syria after agreement with the US in the 1990s allowed them to immigrate to Israel, although important Jewish communities still thrive in Damascus and Aleppo. Jews in Israel maintain ties to their homeland". Another insight into the BBC mind-set there.
Here is just the addition of a "?" after "Economic competence" on the page concerning the Conservative party.
Here is an addition to the entry on Tariq Aziz regarding George Bush's Christianity.
Here is an addition to the page on the Jewish National Fund which adds "Palestinians regard it as a key element of what they call Israel's 'apartheid' character in that its existence prevents non-Jewish use of the land it controls." and other claims of apartheid to the entry - I wonder if any claims regarding the apartheid nature of Saudi Arabia where non Muslims have no rights to religious assembly etc. have ever been made by someone at the BBC.
Here is a nasty one that tries to depersonalise Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier captured by a Palestinian terrorist organisation in 1994, by changing references to "Gilad" to "Shalit" or "he".
There are more to be found and I will try and put a list up when I have the time to collate one, some are major, some are minor but they are all posted from a left wing, anti-Bush, anti-Blair, anti-USA, anti-Israel stance. For an unbiased organisation their employees do seem to all post from one political point of view.
As a nice bureaucratic organisation, the BBC do have a policy on "the responsibilities of all staff when using the email and Internet. The main principle is to safeguard the BBC network and its data." You can read it along with links to the "Obligations for Users policy" here.
The BBC has "form" in it's political bias, watch this video regarding a poster comparing George Bush to Adolf Hitler being on the wall of a BBC news room.
The bias is relentless and the licence paying public are now catching up with the blogosphere and are realising and resenting what is being promoted in their name and with their money, more strident protests may not be far off.
UPDATE:
The BBC have added a rather weaselly recognition of their part in Wikigate, right at the end of the original article is this sentence - "BBC News website users contacted the corporation to point out that the tool also revealed that people inside the BBC had made edits to Wikipedia pages."
Come, come BBC - some examples would be nice; there are some within this article, please use them.
UPDATE:
Take a look at the News Sniffer records of the changes to the BBC page on Wikigate as time has passed. A lovely change occurs between version 1 and version 2 which shows how the BBC are still smarting from George Bush's victory in the 2000 election. Version 1 includes this sentence "One in particular is Diebold, the company that supplied electronic voting machines for the controversial US election in 2000.", version 2 drops the attitude and reads "One in particular is Diebold, a company which supplies electronic voting machines in the US.".
A query on News Sniffer, why does this page show a highlighted sentence in each version when they are the same?
Take a look at this page from the Wikiscanner website, it shows the ip addresses used by the BBC and you can dig into the Wikipedia edits made from these addresses. Now we know that the BBC is unbiased and reflects the full spectrum of the British people so these edits must have been to correct factual errors only, mustn't they? Don't be daft...
Here is one edit made from a BBC computer, the changing of George Bush's middle name from "Walker" to "Wanker".
Here is another changing "terrorist" to "freedom fighter".
Here is another where changes were made to Tony Blair's entry to make it seem as though his heart problems were brought on by drinking "vodka" rather than "coffee" and by exercising too much in the "bedroom" rather than the "gym".
Here is one that shows the level of BBC journalism off beautifully; a long diatribe against Islamophobia containing such phrases as "last year during the 7/7 attacks all muslims in britain were under threat. the media managed to hang a hook on them and whenever they refer to terrorists its allways Muslim terorists" and the beautifully crafted "just like how the press make up stuff about celebrities, they also make up shit about muslims. just because 4 people decided to something because of their own personal beliefs does not mean all muslims beleive the same way"; don't forget, it's our licence fee paying for these entries, do read the rest of that "edit" it's a real insight into the BBC mindset.
Here are some edits to the Wikipedia entry on the Balen report that tones down the original.
Here is one regarding the expulsion of Syrian Jews, changing "The Jews slowly left Syria after years of torture at the hands of former president Hafez Al-Assad and his government{{fact}}. Most were not allowed to leave and had to pay government officials to get out, or risk their lives by sneaking across the borders." to "Many Jews left Syria after agreement with the US in the 1990s allowed them to immigrate to Israel, although important Jewish communities still thrive in Damascus and Aleppo. Jews in Israel maintain ties to their homeland". Another insight into the BBC mind-set there.
Here is just the addition of a "?" after "Economic competence" on the page concerning the Conservative party.
Here is an addition to the entry on Tariq Aziz regarding George Bush's Christianity.
Here is an addition to the page on the Jewish National Fund which adds "Palestinians regard it as a key element of what they call Israel's 'apartheid' character in that its existence prevents non-Jewish use of the land it controls." and other claims of apartheid to the entry - I wonder if any claims regarding the apartheid nature of Saudi Arabia where non Muslims have no rights to religious assembly etc. have ever been made by someone at the BBC.
Here is a nasty one that tries to depersonalise Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier captured by a Palestinian terrorist organisation in 1994, by changing references to "Gilad" to "Shalit" or "he".
There are more to be found and I will try and put a list up when I have the time to collate one, some are major, some are minor but they are all posted from a left wing, anti-Bush, anti-Blair, anti-USA, anti-Israel stance. For an unbiased organisation their employees do seem to all post from one political point of view.
As a nice bureaucratic organisation, the BBC do have a policy on "the responsibilities of all staff when using the email and Internet. The main principle is to safeguard the BBC network and its data." You can read it along with links to the "Obligations for Users policy" here.
The BBC has "form" in it's political bias, watch this video regarding a poster comparing George Bush to Adolf Hitler being on the wall of a BBC news room.
The bias is relentless and the licence paying public are now catching up with the blogosphere and are realising and resenting what is being promoted in their name and with their money, more strident protests may not be far off.
UPDATE:
The BBC have added a rather weaselly recognition of their part in Wikigate, right at the end of the original article is this sentence - "BBC News website users contacted the corporation to point out that the tool also revealed that people inside the BBC had made edits to Wikipedia pages."
Come, come BBC - some examples would be nice; there are some within this article, please use them.
UPDATE:
Take a look at the News Sniffer records of the changes to the BBC page on Wikigate as time has passed. A lovely change occurs between version 1 and version 2 which shows how the BBC are still smarting from George Bush's victory in the 2000 election. Version 1 includes this sentence "One in particular is Diebold, the company that supplied electronic voting machines for the controversial US election in 2000.", version 2 drops the attitude and reads "One in particular is Diebold, a company which supplies electronic voting machines in the US.".
A query on News Sniffer, why does this page show a highlighted sentence in each version when they are the same?
Tuesday, 14 August 2007
More old BBC bias
An incredible piece in the second half of this article from Biased-BBC of Neil Kinnock exploding during a not live interview with the BBC and being guided as to what he should say when the interview restarts. The original tape was not broadcast at the time, can you imagine the BBC not broadcasting an explosion by Margaret Thatcher then or any Tory politician since? Of course the interviewer being so solicitous to Kinnock is James " If we win the election" Naughtie. The BBC as biased as ever they were.
Inflation down, Gordon up
Further to my previous posts about Gordon's tricky decision, I see that inflation is down or at least is down on Gordon Brown's favoured measure of inflation that actually excludes housing costs (as if they don't impact on our lives). Food prices will be on the rise again soon as the wet weather takes its toll on farming output so Gordon may be unwilling to risk a snap election on one set of favourable economic data, albeit fiddled, however the general outlook for the economy is poor so maybe he will. I am so glad that I am not Gordon Brown; not as glad as my wife though!
Monday, 13 August 2007
BBC - Labour's mouthpiece again
The Conservative party announced their plans for cutting red tape on business over the weekend. I missed the TV and radio news over the weekend, attending the Prince event at the O2 on Friday left me a bit befuddled, so here are what I have read of the coverage on Iain Dale this morning...
"How the BBC Does Labour's Dirty Work
I don't know how this is being covered on other networks, but the BBC are starting all their news bulletins about John Redwood's Competitiveness Commission reports with the words...
The Labour Party has today criticised...
This has happened many times before. Instead of concentrating on the substance of a Tory policy announcement the BBC seem to revel in giving Labour Ministers the microphone to explain how whatever the policy happens to be is making the Tories more right wing than Michael Howard. It is a disgrace. This morning they wheeled out John Hutton to slag off Redwood's report, without even carrying any information about the report itself or indeed any comment from John Redwood or any other Tory.
A commenter called Tone Made Me Do it makes the point well.
The Conservatives today launched their new deregulation policy.How has the BBC
addressed this?By giving the microphone to the labour party who then denounce the Conservative party as being more "right wing" than they were under William Hague.No discussion about the policies of business and trade at all - just an "oh my god look how right wing the Tories are now (it will be the cattle trucks next)" cry from the Labour party and their friends at the BBC. This is precisely the sort of bias that the BBC is guilty of. Its a "when are you going to stop beating your wife" slur.
I'd love to see how this kind of news judgement is justified by a BBC news producer. BJ, where are you?!"
Typical BBC, a Conservative proposal immediately begats a Labour response which becomes the lead news rather than the original proposal. The BBC bias is hardly even disguised these days, it's blatant and will become more so leading up to the General Election as the BBC fear a Conservative revival. Gordon Brown will be portrayed in an almost entirely positive light, except if he keeps the troops
in Iraq, whilst David Cameron will be portrayed as lightweight - it's the narrative...
This deregulation policy has been proposed by John Redwood's policy group; cue the BBC describing John Redwood as "one of the most senior figures on the Tory right" and a reprise of the footage of John Redwood failing to sing Mae Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau - see here for my earlier article on this matter (last paragraph) - I wonder if the BBC will ever show this video of our heroic leader in action?
"How the BBC Does Labour's Dirty Work
I don't know how this is being covered on other networks, but the BBC are starting all their news bulletins about John Redwood's Competitiveness Commission reports with the words...
The Labour Party has today criticised...
This has happened many times before. Instead of concentrating on the substance of a Tory policy announcement the BBC seem to revel in giving Labour Ministers the microphone to explain how whatever the policy happens to be is making the Tories more right wing than Michael Howard. It is a disgrace. This morning they wheeled out John Hutton to slag off Redwood's report, without even carrying any information about the report itself or indeed any comment from John Redwood or any other Tory.
A commenter called Tone Made Me Do it makes the point well.
The Conservatives today launched their new deregulation policy.How has the BBC
addressed this?By giving the microphone to the labour party who then denounce the Conservative party as being more "right wing" than they were under William Hague.No discussion about the policies of business and trade at all - just an "oh my god look how right wing the Tories are now (it will be the cattle trucks next)" cry from the Labour party and their friends at the BBC. This is precisely the sort of bias that the BBC is guilty of. Its a "when are you going to stop beating your wife" slur.
I'd love to see how this kind of news judgement is justified by a BBC news producer. BJ, where are you?!"
Typical BBC, a Conservative proposal immediately begats a Labour response which becomes the lead news rather than the original proposal. The BBC bias is hardly even disguised these days, it's blatant and will become more so leading up to the General Election as the BBC fear a Conservative revival. Gordon Brown will be portrayed in an almost entirely positive light, except if he keeps the troops
in Iraq, whilst David Cameron will be portrayed as lightweight - it's the narrative...
This deregulation policy has been proposed by John Redwood's policy group; cue the BBC describing John Redwood as "one of the most senior figures on the Tory right" and a reprise of the footage of John Redwood failing to sing Mae Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau - see here for my earlier article on this matter (last paragraph) - I wonder if the BBC will ever show this video of our heroic leader in action?
Sunday, 12 August 2007
Learn some history BBC
The BBC have an article on their news pages reporting that "Some 80,000 Islamists have met in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta, to press for the re-establishment of a caliphate across the Muslim world." Unfortunately at least one fact is a little suspect namely "A caliphate - or single state for Muslims - last existed in 1924." Really, which countries were formed into this caliphate? I thought it was just that the ownership of the caliphate was held then by the Ottoman Empire
One country?
Here's a nice piece from Waking Hereward on how the BBC report matters that affect just England. A trifle exaggerated but only a trifle...
A Gaza wedding
This video footage is of a Fatah supporters wedding in Gaza that Hamas supporters took exception to. Watch it and wonder if the MSM would have given more publicity to the incident if it had been Israeli soldiers breaking up a Fatah or Hamas wedding.
Saturday, 11 August 2007
Labour policy generator
Below please find the version of this policy generator from when David Blunkett seemed a draconian Home Secretary. Of course since then successive Home Secretaries have competed to appear "stronger" than the last, Jaquie Smith MAY be an honourable exception although it is quite early to tell?
Strong on Crime policy generator.
Strong on Crime policy generator.
The right to free movement
Take a read of this, it is yet another move from this Labour Government to move us towards becoming a police state. The "Home Office ... gives some early indications of who, other than suspected terrorists and international criminals, will be on the British no-fly list and be banned from travelling to and from the country. It floats the idea that provisions should be introduced to ban travel overseas for the tens of thousands of offenders who have not paid outstanding court fines or failed to discharge confiscation orders made against them. Although no official estimate exists of the number of people who have to pay court fines the amount they owe has now reached a record £487m, with a further £300m in unpaid confiscation orders." All this travel data will go into a database that will in the future be linked to the NIR. So what could they use this data for? They will start with the unobjectionable - stopping people leaving the country to avoid a court case or whilst on bail, they will move to the hard to object - stopping people leaving the country who owe court imposed fines, move on to the trickier - stopping people from leaving the country who have unpaid parking tickets or haven't paid the BBC licence fee. From there is is not a huge jump to imagine people being prevented from leaving the country to go on holiday because they have: flown already this year and not offset the carbon yet, or have a doctor's appointment during the period they are planned to be abroad, or who have failed to separate their rubbish correctly on more than 3 occasions in the current financial year, or who have not lost the amount of weight that their doctor had advised them to, or who were late in submitting their tax return for the last tax year, or who have library books that have not been returned yet and would become overdue whilst they are away, or who have contributed to non-Government approved blogs, or who voted for an unapproved party at the last election, or who voted for a party other than that of our Glorious Leader in the last election, or who have missed the Two Minutes Hate too many times this year, or who have committed a ThoughtCrime ...
It is a slippery slope that we are embarking on and who can say that I am exaggerating the possibilities?
It is a slippery slope that we are embarking on and who can say that I am exaggerating the possibilities?
Global Warming, or maybe not
Here's something that the MSM will play down. NASA have had to revise their climate data because of the Y2K bug, one of the few things that was affected. Of course NASA didn't find the problem themselves, it was discovered by Steve McIntyre of climateaudit.org who noticed some oddities in the graphed data. The revised data means that some of the climate change industry's touchstones can now be gainsaid. The new facts include that the warmest year on record is now 1934, 1998 (long trumpeted by the climate change industry and so the media as record-breaking) moves to second place whilst 1921 takes third place. In fact 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Read more about this matter here.
I also would like to bring your attention to the way that temperatures are recorded and where the weather recording stations are situated. Most are situated in cities, which are generating more heat as they expand and the siting of these weather recording stations is often poor. Take a look at this article from 2001 that shows how temperatures are rising in urban Miami but not the rural areas around it; guess where the official weather recording station is situated... Talking of weather recording station locations, here are some pictures of such US stations and I think the location problems are fairly clear and hence the reasons why the temperatures reported may be unreliable:
So that's temperature sensors near air conditioner exhausts or newly tarmacked surfaces or BBQs or parked cars with hot radiators, you can see more examples here.
Global warming, not man made and not even warming?
I also would like to bring your attention to the way that temperatures are recorded and where the weather recording stations are situated. Most are situated in cities, which are generating more heat as they expand and the siting of these weather recording stations is often poor. Take a look at this article from 2001 that shows how temperatures are rising in urban Miami but not the rural areas around it; guess where the official weather recording station is situated... Talking of weather recording station locations, here are some pictures of such US stations and I think the location problems are fairly clear and hence the reasons why the temperatures reported may be unreliable:
So that's temperature sensors near air conditioner exhausts or newly tarmacked surfaces or BBQs or parked cars with hot radiators, you can see more examples here.
Global warming, not man made and not even warming?
AIDS in South Africa
I think this cartoon says it all re the South African governments attitude to AIDS over the years. Thanks to Harry's Place for the spot.
If you want to read more then this article would be a good place to start.
If you want to read more then this article would be a good place to start.
Priorities - blogging versus fantasy football
This is my first year of blogging and I have a difficult decision to make now. The football season starts today and my various fantasy football teams in sundry leagues in different competitions normally take up a lot of my time, some of the leagues are VERY competitive, but I also have been enjoying blogging this year. I think that as a sign of increasing age, if not maturity, I should concentrate on blogging but the competitive instinct is strong...
Poor Gordon, poor us (part 3)
Further to my previous blogs on this matter, Iain Dale's Diary: Scottish Poll Could Mean Early Election Is Less Likely points out a factor that might cause Gordon Brown to pause in his early election plans, namely the SNP riding high at 48% in latest opinion polls. Mind you I still think that the economic factors are worrying him more and the signs of him putting an advertising team on standby may prove me right.
Friday, 10 August 2007
The EU and education
I couldn't put this any better than Devils Kitchen, so I won't try - read The Devil's Kitchen: Do you want what the EU teaches?.
Foot and Mouth - will this government ever learn
This Labour government messed up spectacularly over the last foot and mouth outbreak in 2001 which cost the UK around £8bn and look as though they have not learnt the lessons of that outbreak. Vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate should be the policy; instead this government impose control zones but forget to shut footpaths through the zones, rather than kill the infected cattle on-site and bury under lime, they transport them across the country to be burnt - en route they let the cattle out to have a drink and feed in an empty field, BIO-SECURITY, do these people have any idea? If we do not take action soon then this outbreak will be as bad as the last and the British cattle farmers will move another step closer to extinction.
I suppose I should point out that this government are hampered because they cannot do much on dealing with this outbreak without the permission of the EU, but since this government has rolled over and submitted to the EU so often I see no reason to cut them any slack.
I suppose I should point out that this government are hampered because they cannot do much on dealing with this outbreak without the permission of the EU, but since this government has rolled over and submitted to the EU so often I see no reason to cut them any slack.
Thursday, 9 August 2007
Poor Gordon, poor us (part 2)
I blogged last Friday that Gordon must be beside himself with indecision as to whether to call an early election in October/November or whether and risk losing the election and so becoming the shortest serving Prime Minister or to wait and risk the economy going phut. As the economic signs look worse so the chances increase that Gordon will overcome his natural hesitancy and call a snap election, probably under the pretext of wanting a renewed mandate. I see that he has appointed an election director. The same Labour Party Mouthpiece BBC article manages not to mention the worsening economy as a possible reason for a snap election, presumably because in BBC land all is sunny under Gordon Brown's premiership - "Never a frown with Gordon Brown". Any mention of the worsening economy is linked to the "evil empire", not the USSR this time but, the USA, whose fault any crash would be.
You will notice that there is no mention of Gordon Browns' "No more boom and bust" slogan. This could be because he has spent ten years stoking up the economy with a huge amount of credit and now we are heading towards a crash like we have not seen since the 1930s. If credit becomes harder to get, see my earlier posts, then the housing market will fall which will lead to massive negative equity, much worse than in the 1980s as this time more has been borrowed at low rates of interest that are now rising and have further to go. At the same time unemployment is rising, it is now heavier than it was in 1979 and that is without taking into account the NEETs who this Government have deliberately allowed to rise in number to massage the unemployment figures. Also there has been a huge rise in the numbers of university students since this Labour Government came to power. Much of the increased numbers are there on a lie, they have been told that University Graduates earn more than non-graduates, whilst this was the case before the massive increase in numbers, it isn't now. The reasons for this are two-fold, first because of simple numbers and secondly because the calibre of these extra graduates is so low; A levels have been made so much easier to allow more to get good A level results so as to get to University. We are churning out lots of low quality graduates who end up in the same sort of jobs that they could have entered in earlier times without a degree, except now they have a student loan to pay off; they have however done this Labour government a great service by staying off the unemployment register; to paraphrase JFK, "Ask not what the Labor Party can do for you, ask what you can do for the Labour Party"
So we have the UK and much of the world economy heading for a fall. The Chinese could accelerate this and bring down the US economy if it withdrew investment but this is unlikely to happen. Gordon can see this and knows that he should hold an early election but he has to spin it into a brave determined solution. I predict that he will go to the country in October and aided by the faithful BBC he will win albeit with a reduced majority. I actually hope that he does win because like the 1992 election (but more so) this is the election to lose; when the economy fails the government in charge will be blamed. So don't campaign too hard David Cameron, hold back on you Brest shots and let Gordon get back in. I so much want to see his face as the economy that he has talked up for so long tips over into recession. The blame for the misery this will cause for millions in this country will have to laid upon Gordon Brown and even the best efforts of the BBC and the rest of the MSM will persuade the public otherwise. The crash will be painful and many will suffer but that is a given anyway (it is all but unavoidable), the important thing is that Gordon Brown and the rest of this sorry government take the blame and the opprobrium of the British public.
You will notice that there is no mention of Gordon Browns' "No more boom and bust" slogan. This could be because he has spent ten years stoking up the economy with a huge amount of credit and now we are heading towards a crash like we have not seen since the 1930s. If credit becomes harder to get, see my earlier posts, then the housing market will fall which will lead to massive negative equity, much worse than in the 1980s as this time more has been borrowed at low rates of interest that are now rising and have further to go. At the same time unemployment is rising, it is now heavier than it was in 1979 and that is without taking into account the NEETs who this Government have deliberately allowed to rise in number to massage the unemployment figures. Also there has been a huge rise in the numbers of university students since this Labour Government came to power. Much of the increased numbers are there on a lie, they have been told that University Graduates earn more than non-graduates, whilst this was the case before the massive increase in numbers, it isn't now. The reasons for this are two-fold, first because of simple numbers and secondly because the calibre of these extra graduates is so low; A levels have been made so much easier to allow more to get good A level results so as to get to University. We are churning out lots of low quality graduates who end up in the same sort of jobs that they could have entered in earlier times without a degree, except now they have a student loan to pay off; they have however done this Labour government a great service by staying off the unemployment register; to paraphrase JFK, "Ask not what the Labor Party can do for you, ask what you can do for the Labour Party"
So we have the UK and much of the world economy heading for a fall. The Chinese could accelerate this and bring down the US economy if it withdrew investment but this is unlikely to happen. Gordon can see this and knows that he should hold an early election but he has to spin it into a brave determined solution. I predict that he will go to the country in October and aided by the faithful BBC he will win albeit with a reduced majority. I actually hope that he does win because like the 1992 election (but more so) this is the election to lose; when the economy fails the government in charge will be blamed. So don't campaign too hard David Cameron, hold back on you Brest shots and let Gordon get back in. I so much want to see his face as the economy that he has talked up for so long tips over into recession. The blame for the misery this will cause for millions in this country will have to laid upon Gordon Brown and even the best efforts of the BBC and the rest of the MSM will persuade the public otherwise. The crash will be painful and many will suffer but that is a given anyway (it is all but unavoidable), the important thing is that Gordon Brown and the rest of this sorry government take the blame and the opprobrium of the British public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
