Cambridge Universitism

I fear the general public is in danger today of ignoring an incredibly vital issue that was set to be debated in the Commons this afternoon (but has in effect, been defeated and thrown out). The Employment Opportunities Bill, introduced to the House by Tory MP for Christchurch Christopher Chope. It raises the issue of Minimum wage, and suggests that, with the consent of the employee, employers should be able to opt out of paying minimum wage. It is, in essence, an abolition of the minimum wage bill.

Now, ignoring the fact that whilst Mr Chope doesn’t much care for those of us who could not afford to live on less than minimum wage, let alone hope to one day get a foot on the housing ladder, he didn’t appear to have a problem claiming £136,992 last year in expenses. Perhaps that money could go to helping those who would so severely be hit economically by his disastrous bill, buy food? We already can’t afford gas and electric since his party privatised it all during the ’80s.
Are the Tories really that naive as to think any employee is going to agree to opt out of minimum wage, without the employer saying “Sign this agreement to opt out, or fuck off”? It would encourage businesses that are not struggling, to pay beneath minimum wage. Prices would deflate hugely as a result. And all companies would start to opt out on a grand scale, because minimum wage does not work unless it’s universally applied. It would, in truth, be a disaster.

Chope said “Our government make it illegal for an employer and an employee freely to negotiate the level of remuneration if it is less than £5.73 an hour for an adult, unless, of course, the work involved is unpaid voluntary work.” That damn Government, trying to help those who were quite routinely exploited during the Tory reign of terror, live a better life. How dare they. I particularly dislike his use of the term “negotiate”. If an employer says “you either accept a pay decrease to £1 an hour, or i’ll employ someone who will”, that isn’t a negotiation, that’s exploitation. It is not a bill to help people surf the tide of recession by having access to more jobs albeit with slightly lower pay, it’s a bill to increase productivity of workers whilst paying as little as possible, it’s a bill to help employ at the lowest costs possible, whilst be able to pay just enough to keep employees alive to actually do the work. For example, one of the Tory MPs who backs this bill, is Peter Bone, famous for once paying a 17 year old trainee 87p for work in his Travel Company. The old face of exploitative Toryism just refuses to die.

It is no surprise that it is Mr Chope promoting this bill. He is responsible for selling off Council Houses in the 1980s, which lead to Mrs Thatcher’s re-election, gaining support from those who would typically vote Labour given that they could now afford to own their own home. In the process, it completely screwed over my generation, who will find it almost impossible, short of becoming a Lawyer (or an MP), of owning my own home. The Government of the 1980s made it easier for those wanting to buy multiple homes to do so, which in turn pushed the average house price up by 225% between 1983 and 1990, which meant sea side home were bought up and used once or twice a year, which meant villages like Beadnell in Northumberland are forced to close schools and businesses local to the area, because 256 out of the 500 homes, are holiday homes! Thanks Chope! You’re a genius! Chope went on to say that being FORCED to work for minimum wage, was against our “human rights”. Note, that this is from a party opposed to the Human Rights Act.

The idiots Geniuses over at Cambridge University Conservative Association (as if you’d expect them to understand the point of the minimum wage in the first place) say “ the minimum wage causes unemployment (a surplus of labour)“. No it doesn’t. It’s regressive, especially during a recession, to suggest that employers should be able to pay those who are already struggling to pay their bills, a lot less. It’s inexcusably immoral at best. They’ve decided upon the conclusion that minimum wage causes unemployment, due to their dedication to Thatcherite Neoliberalism. Not to concrete evidence. Surely if every firm is paying minimum wage, then equilibrium is achieved? Market forces cannot work against a universal principle. It creates a level playing field for all firms, whilst protecting the most vulnerable, from what i’m now going to refer to as “Cambridge Universitism“. The only conceivable way that markets will fail, is by introducing an Opt Out system, where by some firms stick in principle to minimum wage, whilst their competitors see an opportunity to capitalise on paying their employees, 35p an hour. In which case, those employees will want to go elsewhere, to companies that pay minimum wage, and the exploiting Company based on “Cambrigde Universitism” fails anyway?

The minimum wage was introduced in the UK in 1999, the pay was set at £3.30. Since then it has rose to £5.73 an hour, and comes with strict penalties for firms caught not abiding by their responsibilities. It benefits huge numbers of the lowest paid workers in the Country, which in turn, provides a higher rate of disposable income (some were paid as little as 80p an hour during the Thatcher years), and so benefits the economy on the whole. There is little argument that minimum wage is one of New Labour’s greatest achievements, and has helped improve the living conditions of millions since it’s introduction in 1999. Except, if you’re an expenses cheating Tory MP, or you’re in your own haven from the rich at Cambridge, obviously.

Cambridge go on to say “Indeed, now that we are in a recession, it is surely responsible for even more unemployment.” Followed by “Unemployment will never be minimised as long as minimum wage legislation remains in force.“…… Again, no evidence, merely sticking to Neoliberalist principles that says minimum wages prices people out of jobs. Unemployment (which spiked during the Thatcher era, despite the lack of minimum wage) was falling steadily year on year when minimum wage was introduced. Two years later, unemployment was at it’s lowest in decades. This is true for both full time and part time workers. In fact, by 2000, unemployment was at it’s lowest in 25 years. You’d surely expect, a year after minimum wage has been introduced, by Cambridge Univertism 19th Century Factory exploitation logic, and Peter Bone MP, who said in 1998 that a “A minimum wage would condemn hundreds of thousands to the dole queue.” that unemployment would have rose dramatically, almost inconceivably so, by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, but no, it fell, and continued to fall, pretty much until recession hit.

Recession of cause, had absolutely nothing to do with minimum wage, and everything to do with the greed of banking Neoliberalists, which in turn lead to suspicion in the banking sector and reluctance to lend. Minimum wage was not the cause, and minimum wage did not make the situation worse. In fact, having a minimum wage can help, given that mortgage lenders lend on the strength of income. If you’re being paid 80p an hour, you aren’t in a better position to be claiming a mortgage. Regardless of what these toffs say, Minimum Wage has provided security for millions of workers, who in turn have lead a healthier , more secure and happier life. It doesn’t cause mass unemployment, no more so than before minimum wage legislation was introduced. It prevents the greed of certain employers driving down wages as much as possible.

It is worrying that such a senior Conservative, advocates such regressive nonsense, at a time when Conservatives are almost inevitably set to become the next Government of the United Kingdom. Chope seems to be attacking Labour on the introduction of the minimum wage, appearing to be concerned with rising unemployment and yet didn’t have a problem when 3,000,000 people were left unemployed, and untrained, the homeless rate shot up, and the poll tax that he helped usher in creating mass unemployment, the deaths of thousands of businesses (including ours), and unprecedented rioting, due to the policies he endorsed in the eighties. The only difference now is, we at least have some protection for our lowest paid…. which he doesn’t seem to like. He appears to be in denial that deregulation of the labour market, would be a disaster during recession.

The same Tories were telling us all, a few months back, that you had to pay bankers high to provide incentive for them to work hard. Now they’re telling me that same logic doesn’t apply to those who are paid least? Why is Chope not proposing legislation to cut down on tax loopholes for the super rich? Why is he proposing to hit the lowest paid workers the hardest? Simple answer, he’s a Tory, and he’s supported by Cambridge Universitism.

Chope, who opposed the introduction of the minimum wage ten years ago, and seemingly still carries a grudge, speaking on behalf of Conservatives who oppose Minimum Wage, said, quite comically: “We are talking about the marketplace and people should be free to compete in the marketplace without restriction“. Well in that case, I cannot wait to see Chope introduce a bill to abolish or “opt out” of the Factory Acts and all anti-discrimination laws, so that people are “free without restriction” to hire whomever they wish, for as long as they wish, for as much as they wish. Let’s have no restrictions on employment. Let’s be fully regressive!

The Tories are starting to show themselves for what they really are. Stuck in the 1980s.

Republican Jamie

For one day only, i’ve decided to embrace the art of being a Republican.
And so for all you lefties (closet homosexuals) and those of you who like to engage brain activity (Satan worshippers) it’s probably best you look away now.

Thank god for Texas Gov. Rick Perry (A true Patriot, perhaps even the ACTUAL 2nd coming of Christ), who suggested Texas could secede from the Union. Texans should be proud! They don’t need evil socialist gay loving social security, medicaid, highway repair, medicare and anything else the Union offers them. Texas doesn’t need to be included in the same list of States as Gayowa. Take your Socialist Federal infrastructure back! Take back Department of Defence funding! Texas doesn’t need that commie bullshit. God will replace it all! And as for the new Texan economy, it’d be amazingly strong! Because we’re the party of fiscal responsibility you know! Plus, Bush is a Texan, so considering he’s been a fiscal genius over his eight years (I like to call them, America’s Golden Years), he can be the brand new Nation of Texas Treasury Secretary. YEAH! Texas doesn’t need your commie Union.

For the past three months a black man (I believe they are referred to as “bruvas“) has occupied George Bush’s house. It seems a little unfair. Bush had successfully managed to lower house prices SO much, that anyone (including lazy “bruvas from da hood“) can afford to buy, so much so that a bruva has taken Bush’s house from him. That’s gratitude for you. The lying liberal media (with the exception of the totally fair and unbiased Fox News) have lost control when it comes to Barack HUSSAIN (yes, Hussain!!! It sounds like insane!!! Coincidence?) Obama (YES!! Obama!! It sounds like a bomber!! Coincidence?…. Barak insane Abomber*….. God warned us!!). They’re everywhere. The BBC over here with it’s Trotskyist approach to news reporting …… i’ve never once seen them refer to homosexuals as dirty sinners, who shouldn’t be allowed near children, and are on their way to hell… even though that’s exactly what they are. The liberal media with it’s homosexual agenda must go!

Earlier I pointed out that Bush had managed to destroy push down house prices so much so that even those weird coloured people bought them up. Which in turn, lead to the crises we’re in today. George Bush, Dick Cheney and Phil Gramm just tried to help. The Liberal media and it’s muslim loving homosexual agenda will have you believe that those three helped deregulate so much that the entire market became one big mess. Well it wouldn’t have become a mess if blacks hadn’t started paying for things they couldn’t afford bringing their crime and “shiz” into crime free happy joyful white neighbourhoods!!!! We all know that the only way to deal with a fire is to set it on fire. And so logic dictates that the only way to deal with this crises is more deregulation!! Much like the only way to deal with increase in gun crime is more guns!!!

Liberals will have you believe that a woman has the right to choose whether or not she has an abortion. As an outsider looking into the Freest country on the Planet, I wonder, where is the freedom for a Christian to block a woman deciding what she thinks is best for her body? She’s clearly wrong if the she wants an abortion. She’s going against God. Like the gays and the jews and brown people. The true followers of Jesus Christ (Republicans) have a moral duty to correct this. It wont be long before they actually want to abort children AFTER they’re born, have left college and got a job. The liberals will say it’s the mothers right. Could they be any more in cahoots with the anti-christ (who, coincidentally, is Barak Insane Abomber)? Liberals would allow a child to grow up, and indulge in premarital sex…… homosexual sex nonetheless, with same sex hookers, and then for fun, they’d go out and perform an abortion.

We fight for the right of life! Children are precious and should be treated as such! Even before birth. In fact, even before conception. Every time you masturbate you’re killing potential children, and God hates you for it, you fucking murderers. And don’t tell me that we’re baby killers just because a few Iraqi children died in our bombing. They don’t even believe in Jesus. And, they’re Iraqi, so they’d only grow up to be terrorists anyway.
We protect children! Which is why we vetoed the SCHIP program, an evil leftie commie hippy program designed to give five million poor children health insurance. Do you know how Clinton wanted to pay to cover those poor lazy kids? That’s right! He wanted to raise tax on cigarettes. Which, in turn would lead to less smoking, and less State tax revenue. He actually thought it was Constitutional to help lazy kids whilst at the same time cut smoking. All it’s doing is teaching kids to be commies and that’s un-American. “Help” is un-American.
Luckily Senate Majority Leader at the time, Trent Lott said that it was just a large inflated Government program that would not pass! Hate lazy kids but love cigarettes? Vote Lott! Perhaps if the children weren’t lazy or black or muslims, Jesus Christ would love them enough to give them more money for health insurance. But he didn’t. Because they’re lazy. And the money I spend on cigarettes I DO NOT want going to helping Satan’s children, who will probably grow up to be homosexuals or criminals any way.
Luckily Bush was on hand to veto any attempt to pass such a bill, saying that it would “federalize health care” and we don’t want no fucking evil commie healthcare system like the gayropeans in countries like Gay Britain have.
But then Barack Insane Abomber became President (America’s first Terrorist President, who will undo all the humanitarian work that Bush has achieved), and suddenly four million more children including (and this bit sickens me) the children of legal immigrants are now covered!!!! Commie Mexican kids, taking up YOUR tax dollars to fund their health care? What next? A Socialist police force covering all areas regardless of who can afford it? Some of those kids don’t even believe in Jesus. Should we be paying for them to recover? Boo hoo, they’re ill…… if they weren’t so heretical and lazy, perhaps they wouldn’t need your tax money!!

What if those kids grow up to be scientists (faggot Jesus deniers)? How guilty will you feel if you helped cure a kid who insists on Darwin’s idea that your grandma was an ape? What if he teaches YOUR kids that gays are not evil satan worshippers? What if he teaches that the Earth isn’t 6,000 years old? What if he grows up to tell us all that Polar bears are worth saving instead of letting Dick Cheney grow richer from his oil ventures? What if he grows up to support action on climate change (it’s really cold here today, Global Warming? More like Global liberal homosexual jesus hating bullshit) Could you live with yourself if all that happened? I certainly couldn’t. The liberal media would win, and that can’t happen!! Why haven’t they questioned where Abomber gets his suits from? I tell you why…. because he gets his suits from terrorist homosexuals in Iran which is near Eurogaycommieland. That’s why!

The fact remains that Abomber wants to let muslims with bombs straight from Gitmo (liberals say that some of those inmates are “innocent”….. they come from outside the U.S.of.AWESOME, so they’re not fucking innocent. They deserve it! The Satan worshipping homos) live next door to you. It’s no surprise. He’s never once came out in public and denied that he’s a terrorist, which means he’s a terrorist. Like all muslims are terrorists. He wants to let homos into the military. Yeah that’s just what they need, whilst the REAL men are killing as many dirty terrorist arabs as possible, suddenly a man dancing to George Michael records sits next to them and starts talking about shoes.
He wants your kids to be bummed in school by the gays. He thinks it’s ok to allow teachers to say “Darwin” instead of “Satan” and teach that farfetched ridiculous impossible concept of evolution. Luckily It wont last long, we have Jesus on our side….. he was the son of a virgin and God, who was killed for our sins, rose from the dead, walked around for a bit, and then ascended into heaven. And worst of all Barack Insane Abomber has never once said “I’m not a muslim and i’m not an atheist“. Logic must conclude that because he’s never said those words, he must be a muslim and an atheist aswell as being a homosexual, a jew and black (so much for racial equality, change we can believe in?). We need to stop this. Already “Gayowa” has given into to the fags and given them the right to get married (which means I never want to get married, because if I did, i’d be a bit like the gays, and that’s disgusting) turning their state into as Humanevents calls it “A mecca” for aids lovers. Our children are the real victims here (not the lazy ones mentioned earlier, they’re already going to hell). They’re going to grow up thinking that it’s acceptable for two men to get married (two women is hott!), and so rejecting Jesus Christ in the process. And everyone knows if you reject Jesus our lord, you’re going to hell. As this chart shows.

See that! Satan is a pacifist. A leftie. A liberal. A homosexual. He doesn’t believe in violence. We have God on our side. He isn’t afraid to kick ass! FUCK YEAH!

Do I feel safer with Barack Insane Abomber in the White House? No. Whilst he and his home boyz sit chillin’ to 50 Cent, talking using a teleprompter (Bush didn’t have to do that, and his speeches are just as awe-inspiring and beautifully eloquent – even more so than the terrorist who took over) the World is laughing at America because we’re the wimps now! At least Bush and Jesus kept us in the West safe from terrorism (Madrid, London, 9/11, Turkey, Tunisia, and Morocco don’t count as proof that the World is more unsafe because if the Gayocrats had been in charge since 2001, those places wouldn’t even exist now!!! They’d all be muslim….. London would now be Londonstan… Bush stopped that from happening). Barack Insane Abomber is one of those who want to hurt Americans. When end of days is upon us (Republicans vs atheist homosexual muslim jews), Insane Abomber will have a lot of explaining to do.

Thank goodness for Republican bloggers! Like Sure Sense, who rightfully warns that after the Homeland Security Document covering Right Winged extremism (it is my freedom and the freedom of the other Republican bloggers, to completely ignore the fact that a report was also released on Left Wing Extremism) is bringing about THE END OF THE WORLD! Sure Sense doesn’t like that the DOHS Document, especially line “It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration“
Sure Sense, tries to analyse the line, with his own magical synopsis…..
“So what this is saying is that all Evangelical Christians, who hold homosexuality and abortion to be a sin are now potential terrorist threats. “
- YES! That’s exactly what it says. I didn’t notice it before, because I was too busy focusing on the actual words. When I read it over and over, that’s exactly what it says! They are putting all Christians down as terrorists! Which we’re not! That’s the muslims! Luckily Sure Sense is on track to be much more understanding toward us Christians, much more accepting, much less vile…
” I do not hold that Buddha, Confucius, or Mohammad can get people to God. Sure, they may help you be “religious”, but all of their teachings are about how you have to be good enough, and you can’t be.”
- That’s fucking right! How dare the DOHS attack us. Those damn intolerent, ignorant bastards. It’s everyone else, who aren’t American Christians, who’re going to hell!!! We tried to tell that to the Iraqis, they hate us for it. So fuck them!
He doesn’t stop there! He continues with his well thought out logic!!…
” From there, we’ll see Christians being jailed, and eventually martyred.“
That’s right!! As well as being a gay loving commie, Abomber is also a big fan of the works of Emperor Nero. I fear for the future of Christians.

The only way to clean up the mess that Abomber has created (It’s a new mess, totally unexpected, definitely was not the fault of the previous incredibly competent Administration, despite what Liberals might tell you), is by having tea parties and talk of secession!!! That’s the way forward for the glorious GOP! Chuck Norris/Rush Limbaugh for President/Vice President of Texas!!!!!

Right, i’m off teabagging with the other ten Republicans (which the Liberal media wont cover by the way!!!) We don’t want our children inheriting such a huge tax burden!!!!(that’s not to say we wont accept the tax cut they’re giving us… the biggest in middle class U.S History apparently…..which makes them SECRET communists or fascists. One of the other!) Our children have a right to inherit an overly polluted earth free from tax burden!! We’re revolting for the sake of FREEDOM and that makes us Patriots! Unlike when those Lefties protested the Iraq war, the un-American homosexual Jesus hating muslims.

For true freedom (we freed Iraq baby!!) vote Republican in 2012. If you don’t, then you’re going to hell.

*Watching too much Abomber increases the risk of cancer.

The right side of history

” If by a ‘Liberal’ they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a ‘Liberal’, then I’m proud to say I’m a Liberal.” – John F Kennedy

This isn’t an attack on Conservatives as people, this is purely a defence of the Liberal, and a partial attack from my own point of view, on the ideals of Conservatism.

There isn’t a day goes by without a Conservative/Republican blog on WordPress dedicated to discussing how out of touch and ‘pansy’ Liberals are. It’s amazing, given that the current economic mess is the sole responsibility of a Conservative ideology dedicated to deregulated markets, allowing the greedy few to get away with murder. To be Liberal, is a proud feeling in these ever growing days of intolerance, hatred, war, and despicable propaganda.

Conservatives and Republicans alike, appear to be of the belief that it is some sort of crime to be Liberal. As a Liberal, i’m proud to hear the Conservative sentiment… “you weak Liberal“. It was a Liberal who ended slavery. It was a Liberal who gave women the right to vote. It was a Liberal that created the NHS and Welfare state. In fact, Liberals created America.
I’m yet to see a socially progressive act by a Conservative dedicated to ‘freedom‘ (Reaganomics like Thatcherism, cannot be suggested, for the very reason that their concept of ‘free’ does not apply to the less fortunate in society).

In 2004, George Bush referred to John Kerry as…. “The most liberal member of the senate.” And suddenly the label is dropped and “Progressive” was picked up by Democrats. Why is Liberal such a term of abuse rather than pride? Why is Conservative, not a term of abuse? Conservatives originally opposed the civil rights act; they STILL have serious issues with homosexuality; they continue to preach pro-life nonsense yet allow any American to carry a gun; whilst supporting the death penalty; they have decided that unborn children have healthcare rights that children born into poor families shouldn’t be entitled to because to do so would mean the dreaded Socialism; they consider the poor to be nothing more than a nuscience in the way of big business; they still think Obama is wrong to be closing Guantanamo suggesting that the Conservatives like to torture; and they produced Sarah Palin. How are Liberals considered worse than that?
The concept that Liberals are soft on National Defence is a weak one at best. No major terrorist attack happened on Clintons watch. It did on Bush’s watch. Nixon, a Republican was forced to resign, and Reagan was shot. Bush however, may have even known that Terrorists planned to hit America, and didn’t act in time. He then waged an unjust war, with no rebuilding plan, that sparked even greater hatred toward America and the West.

Franklin Roosevelt was Liberal in the sense that he created The Social Security Administration. Lincoln put an end to Slavery and so was Liberal. Martin Luther King was as Liberal as one get be, and is so widely respected he has a day named after him. The bill of Rights is a Liberal document. The Global Warming Lobby with their pesky evidence, need a Liberal to champion their cause. We saw the destruction that dripped disastrously from the mouth of Conservative Sarah Palin, whose main concern was not that we’re clearly killing the planet, but the profit to be made from oil drilling. John Adams is quoted as saying quite beautifully and eloquently, in a way that only Adams could… “Laws for the liberal education of youth, especially for the lower classes of people, are so extremely wise and useful that to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant.” …….And so from this, we can deduce that America was born of the virtues of the Liberal mind.

George Bush once said… “Only a liberal senator from Massachusetts would say that a 49 percent increase in funding for education was not enough. “….. He’s wrong. Not just a liberal from Massachusetts would say such an education funding increase isn’t enough, I would also say it’s not enough. A 70% increase is not enough, education should be a priority, whether private or state education, children should have the best. They should be at war with each other for the best teachers, paying a fortune to secure them, they are the future, they need the very best, the money needs to be going to the education of tomorrows CEOs and Politicians, so that they do not make the same mistake as this generation of CEOs and Politicians. 49% is not enough, when so much has been wasted on unjust and illegal wars.

Over here in England, The National Health Service Act of 1946 created a free healthcare service regardless of social status, implemented by Clement Atlee’s Labour Government; Liberal achievement. Liberals continue to invest more money in State Schooling than any Conservative Government has ever done. Liberals introduced both the Minimum Wage and the Education Maintenance Allowance, and made it possible for people on low incomes, like myself, to go to University. Conservatives, originally opposed the NHS and have cut funding to it ever since, opposed the minimum wage under the flawed idea that the Markets are best placed to deal with wages, and opposed the idea that we’re all entitled to equal levels of education, regardless of Wealth.
In 1918, “Representation of the People Act” gave Women the right to vote, a Liberal achievement. Less well known was the “Abandonment of Animals Act of 1960“, making it an offence to abandon an animal. A Liberal achievement. And what do we have to show for Conservative achievements? Thatcher. A nightmare of a woman.
“The Factories Act of 1961“, put great emphasis on the safety of Factory Workers, whose welfare had been ignored throughout successive Conservative Governments whose concern was merely “profit”. Let us Liberals deal with humanity, Conservatives should stick to greed. “The Suicide Act” of the same year, decriminalised Suicide, so that anyone who failed to take their own life, could no longer be prosecuted. Liberal achievement.
In 1988, the “Local Government Act“, in particular Section 28 stated “The Local Government Shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” or “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship“. This nasty little piece of hate filled legislation was the work of the Conservative Government. Local Governments worked tirelessly to ban any publications that suggested Homosexuality was ok. It’s nazi-esque approach was nothing short of disgusting, yet characterises the Thatcher years perfectly. In 2002, the Labour Government, having revoked Section 28, allowed Gay couples to adopt. Liberal achievement.

The Conservative Government of the 1980s may be considered Progressive in that they allowed those renting Council Houses to buy their homes at cheap prices from the local authority, with the Housing Act. Putting this into context is much more difficult. Whilst it’s a nice idea to sell council houses to tennants, you also have to keep building new council houses because suddenly the demand in the private sector shrinks and so available housing becomes less, and so prices shoot up, and we’re left with the mess of a housing market we have today. Not only that, but if you’re going to allow poorer people to buy their homes from the local authority, be sure you look after the economy. The Tories didn’t. When the recession hit, people suddenly couldn’t afford their repayments, and so many homes that wouldn’t have been taken from tennants had they been renting from the council still, were repossessed. Homelessness almost doubled in London. And people still appear to worship Margaret Thatcher. The Right To By, Housing Act was a disaster of a Government trying to win usually safe Labour Votes.

The bulk of Conservatives felt in necessary to allow the Bush administration to keep as many secrets as it liked as long as it cited “National Security” as it’s reasoning. You can bet that those same Conservatives wont allow Obama to do the same. Unless Obama’s White House is fully transparent, those Conservatives are going to become more and more hypocritical and more and more quasi-Liberal by the moment.

The term Liberal should be a badge worn with pride. Liberals are on the right side of history.

I now await an influx of Republicans trying to suggest how wonderful they are, how evil gay people are, how Obama is Lenin painted black, how weak liberals are, and how they will continue to pray for me. Oh joy….

We already know!

So it would seem, that last week in British Politics became decidedly boring. This in turn, meant the BBC had very little to report. Which meant, it’s editors were forced to submit articles to the Politics section of the BBC News website, that appear to have been posted by Captain Obvious.

Take this article, referring to the leader of the Liberal Democrat’s Nick Clegg’s claims on the Andrew Marr show, that The Tories offer nothing different to pull Britain through tough economic change.
Clegg is quoted as saying … “I don’t believe for a moment that a Conservative government will take radical action to make the tax system fairer.” … As if we didn’t already know this. Firstly, they aren’t called Conservatives for no reason. Radical isn’t really in their vocabulary. Secondly, when the word “Radical” does breach Conservative Security, the Country ends up with a Thatcher. I cannot imagine anyone in the Country other than the greedy bankers she spawned, would want to see radical Conservatives again.
Clegg wasn’t finished with the obvious statements. He went on to suggest that a Tory Government would not help those on middle or lower incomes. Again, did he really need to make that point? Does anyone seriously believe a Conservative Government who have pledged to simply do nothing productive for the less advantaged in Society during this long horrible recession, are the best choice for those struggling the most?
The Conservative Party Website says… “Our welfare programme will be delivered by private and voluntary providers, who will only be paid when someone gets and keeps a job.
Combined with our commitment to end the couple penalty in the tax credits system, our radical welfare plans will help lift almost half a million children out of poverty.”…. Private Welfare? Delivered by those out for profit? Not only can I see that pushing more people into poverty given that they pledge to not raise minimum wage, but I foresee that parents will feel forced to work longer hours, meaning that work becomes more important than family. The Tories will never help poor families. We do not need Mr Clegg to point that out.

Late 2008, Goldman Sachs asked for a $7,000,000,000 bail out. They put $6,000,000,000 aside for bonuses, according to The Guardian. It defended it’s bonuses by suggesting bonuses are needed to attract the best people. The best people, who seemingly lost £1.4bn for the fourth-quarter of 2008. I’m quite happy to lose that much money for a company, if it means a hefty bonus at the end. Bring it on.
Similarly, according to The Daily Mail, between 2003 and 2007, Sir Fred Goodwin, boss of Rbos received £15.5million in pay and bonuses, and Eric Daniels of Lloyds TSB received £10.2million.
The housing market boom, seeing prices pushed for modest properties, way beyond the £1million mark, is estimated to have been worth an incredible £5.5bn according to Savills, in London, by City Bonus buyers alone. Greed. Nothing more than pure Greed. So why has it taken so long for an MP to stand up and critise this greed culture. Lord Myners told The Times, that “The golden days of huge bonuses are over” and that “grossly over-rewarded” executives must shoulder some of the blame for the global recession. In short, right winged economic policy, the concept that deregulated… “the markets will save the World!!” is so horribly overestimating the power of the greedy minority who rule the World. Lord Myners went on to uncover himself as Captain Obvious, with this “Let us be quite clear: there has been mismanagement of our banks.” No shit.

Whenever I watch Parliament, in particular Prime Minister’s Questions, it strikes me as inconceivable how little Parliament is actually allowed to scrutinise Whitehall. It does not matter how many time the Prime Minister is asked a question, he will never answer it truthfully, and he will try his very hardest to sneak around the question. And yet, The BBC seems to think it’s a story worth telling that the Prime Minister wont answer MPs questions adequately. As if it’s shocking. As if we didn’t already know they do this. According to the BBC citing The Ministerial Code, Members of the Government should be…….” as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest“…. and yet quite evidently, they aren’t, in fact, they couldn’t be further from that rule if they tried.
We know that Labour is incredibly out of touch, we know that they have very little support, we know they do themselves very little favours when they try to block calls for more transparency and scrutiny, like the full disclosure of MPs allowances under the Freedom of Information act, which Harriet Harman has been using the most ridiculous legal jargon to postpone quite tragically for Democracy, as long as possible. But it goes even deeper into the realms of the hypocritical and ridiculous when Labour’s Deputy commons leader Chris Bryant tells the BBC that openness is vital in Parliament.
Norman Baker goes on to, according to the BBC “accuse Mr Brown of using stock excuses to avoid answering questions“. Is this really a story? The entire country knows just how slimey Politicians are when it comes to the truth. You just have to sit watching Prime Ministers questions to know this.

Captain Obvious has been busy, neatly suggesting that the title of this blog “futile Democracy” isn’t as radical a claim as first may seem.