Category Archives: Uncategorized

On reflection.

Posted on by
2

I was quite hard on the Tories yesterday. Oh, don’t get me wrong, I still think they’re dumber than a bag of hair, but it occurred to me this morning that they’re actually doing us (UKIP) a big favour.

You see there was a statement on the UKIP facebook thingy the other day. It was quite clear and simple; ‘We rely on people to tell the truth. We trust people to be honest. We ask people questions. If they lie, we sack them.’

Now, I’m not a candidate, but I am a member. When I joined I had to give a statement to the effect that I was not, nor have ever been, a member of the BNP and other ultra-left racist national socialist groups. I would imagine that when one asks for the nod as a candidate, one of the questions asked is probably ‘are you a terrible racist who is going to cause embarrassment to UKIP and bring their name into disrepute?’

The thing is, despite a massive increase in membership this year (around 40% when most parties are haemorrhaging numbers) the numbers who run the party admin are quite low. With the best will in the world we cannot conduct in depth investigations into the histories of each candidate we are putting forward. Thankfully, the Tories have spent a good deal of money doing that for us. And as soon as we find someone who says stupid and racist things like John Cherry, they can be kicked out in short order.

Oh, dammit. Would you look at that? John Cherry is a Tory. We’ll colour me surprised. There was me thinking the Conservative’s poo-poo didn’t stink.

Anyhow, cheers for that Tories, you’ve saved us a huge amount of cash and effort there. That’s bloody decent of you.

Now, there’s one more thing you could do for us. Would you be so good to ensure that your dead tree press shock troop hacks keep writing about us until Thursday? Today in the Wail it’s the turn of former Tory dep-chairman, non-dom billionaire Tory funder Michael Ashcroft.

He’s again trotting out the line vote UKIP, get Labour. Apparently, if you vote UKIP you won’t get the Tories, and there goes all hope of an in/out referendum.

Point one: I am absolutely convinced that either a) the ‘negotiations’ that Cameron wants to conduct will come to nowt, and as a result he’ll say, ‘well I did say a referendum was dependent upon having a package to refer’ and it won’t happen, or b) it will be a consultative referendum which is not binding, or c) it will be binding and we’ll have to just keep on voting until we vote to stay in. Either way, I don’t believe Cameron, not even as far as I can spit, and given his track record, only a fool would take him at his word. Jam tomorrow? How about sod off today?

Point two: Because you lot are so dim, you still believe that UKIP supporters are Tories who are a little bit upset. You think that if you keep making the hollow promise of a referendum, perhaps, if the conditions are right, at some point in the future, we’ll all come crawling back.

Now, the UKIP line on the EU is hugely attractive to me, it’s one of the reasons I joined, but it isn’t the whole story. For many who support UKIP the EU thing is nice, but it isn’t the main thing.

You see Mike, the reason we’re picking up support is that we’re not you. We’re not Labour, we’re not the LibDems. We haven’t made a career of insulting the electorate, offering positions that differ from the others by fractions of a fraction. We are different. I don’t doubt that if we were ever to take a parliamentary majority we’d find the occasional shyster, feather-bedder and general arse-clown. But you lot, you make them ministers, you keep them as ministers, or you make them spend a few months on the naughty step before letting them back into class. You stole from us. You lied to us. You patronised us.

Yet you still bang on about the one issue. Jeez, move on, can’t you? We have. You realise you look like the person who has only just discovered the MP3 player and spends all the time telling everyone about what it does?

Yeah mate, we know. Get with the times, Grandad.

This ceased to be only about Europe some time ago. People are realising, at long long last, it doesn’t matter which of the big three they vote for, because the result is always going to be the same no matter who wins.

Do I think UKIP is some sort of panacea? Of course not, I’m not that naive. But why the hell should they not have a crack? Is it because the track record of your three mobs, with your cosy little club rules, your understandings, your nods and winks, studiously ensuring the horses remain unscared and that the pachyderm in the chamber remains steadfastly unidentified, is so Earth shatteringly awe-inspiringly golden and successful?

You can’t scare us anymore, because given the last Labour government, and the current coalition, nothing (beyond a Green or a BNP government) could possibly be any worse that what we’ve lived under for the last ten years.

You keep writing about how awful it would be if UKIP ‘stole’ votes from ‘your’ voters. You keep making out that people have a duty to vote for your miserable, incompetent mob. You keep making out that you own people. You keep telling people how we’re dangerous, a bit dodgy, suspect, something not right about us.

Every time you do it, people are looking at you. And damn, are you ugly.

So keep it up. Please.

The darndest thing.

Posted on by
2

Firstly, apologies for the recent radio silence punctuated with occasional broadcasts, I continue to be active in planning for what is promising, and indeed starting, to be a very exciting project – something I’ve alluded to before here.

Anyhow, I had cause to pop out to Sainsbury’s just now, and saw something that would make Dick P and Leg Iron stare slack jawed, followed by them saying ‘I told you so’. It is matter of regret that I didn’t have my mobile with me, I’d have taken a picture as I couldn’t believe what I was seeing.

Much has been made here of the old sliding doors over the smokes thing, Kent County Council (bless ‘em and keep ‘em – away from me) think that this is a super idea, and have been all over the local media proclaiming it to anyone who cares to listen.

These doors have now been installed at said supermarket, of course the last section of shelving, where the doors do not reach, is where they keep the papers, filters, lighters and other ephemera. But not only that.

In a little trough at the front of the kiosk used to be stored the chocolates and sweeties. The cynic in me would point out that it was at little kid eye level, but hey, parents can say no, it may not be fashionable these days, but they still have that right unless I missed a memo.

Anyhow, that little trough now contained, as far as I could see, nothing but chewing gum. Wherefore the choccie and sweeties? On the un-doored shelves behind the counter.

Yes.

Really.

Now you’ll have to ask sotto voce out the side of your mouth ‘and a lion bar, please’, and hope the health nazis don’t come and stick a yellow star with a lard-arse in the middle on your lapel.

Un-fucking-real. But all too predictable, as Leggy and DP will tell you, and have done, for some time now.

Aren’t you forgetting someone?

Posted on by
4

Right, colours nailed to the mast. I think the NHS could be a rather wonderful thing. But my god is it beset with problems?

There’s the old stat that is often trotted out about the NHS being the third largest employer in the world after the Chinese military and the Indian railways. Now I don’t know if that’s right, I suppose it all comes down to if you only count people who are directly employed by the NHS or if you factor in those who are subcontractors and suppliers and all their employees, etc. What is certain is that the NHS employs a lot of people. Just the bog standard general hospital here in Canterbury looks like a university campus with a plethora of buildings, lord knows how many people work there and if you don’t spend all your time there then it’s very easy to get lost.

I think it is the measure of a civilised society that provision is made for those who for one reason or another cannot make their own provision for their healthcare. I don’t see how one can factor out the feckless and idle, but that’s for another day. The idea that someone could lose their life or suffer a huge decrease in their quality of life for the lack of ability to undergo a simple operation or treatment regime is one that makes me feel very uneasy. I have no objection to making a contribution to ensuring that those less fortunate than I can have that safety net, it seems to me to be the humane thing to do. Similarly I have no problem with making a contribution to a universal ambulance service, you never know when you may need it, and again the idea that nobody will come speeding to your aid in your hour of direst need because you’ve not paid for a private service fills me with horror.

Yes I am a libertarian, but I am also a pragmatist. Yes I believe that government needs to remove its tentacles from peoples’ lives, but there are some things that I believe the state should do, this is one of those things.

However, what we have is a system where the bureaucracy seems to be the most important thing, a system that spends huge amounts of money on sculptures and the like. The NHS has suffered mission creep and is trying to be all things to all people, it simply cannot be that thing.

In 1997 Blair famously said that there was 24 hours to save the NHS. 16 years later nobody would bat an eyelid if a politician said the same. So big has the NHS become that its problems are effectively unsolvable, this is compounded by the fact that the people who are trying to solve the problems are always looking to the next election in 5 or so years time, obsessed with the concept of ‘legacy’ and other political interests. They are not concerned with the NHS’ primary function, only how the perception of the NHS will effect their chances of clinging onto office.

I would much rather take the majority of the NHS out of the public sector. The price I would pay for an all singing, all dancing BUPA package, providing a service where I’d be unlikely to run the risk of developing some horrible infection, where I wouldn’t be left to lay on a trolley for hours on end, pales into insignificance when I compare it to the national insurance contributions that I have to pay for a service where I run a good chance of experiencing the outcomes I speak of. Not only this, but BUPA seem able to do it in a nicer setting and do it at a profit.

It makes sense to me that people would be better being obliged (yes, I know, but I am a pragmatist) to take out private medical insurance where able, and in return see a huge reduction in their NI contributions. Contributions that go towards providing a safety net coverage for those who cannot do it for themselves or are retired, and an ambulance service for all. It would be cheaper for the user, provide a better service for the user and increase the tax take the government can access by allowing the private providers to increase profits.

Here’s the rider, I’d also institute an ombudsman with real teeth to ensure there’s no wriggling from the insurers in a cynical attempt to get out of providing coverage to those who have paid for it. For example, I had an eye op as a child, if I didn’t declare that on the form and then my leg fell off, they couldn’t withhold treatment due to my not declaring a pre-existing condition. If the condition isn’t related to the problem, then you treat and if you don’t then god help you. I want the ombudsman to put the fear of god into the providers.

I digress a little. What we have now is yet another grand plan to overhaul the NHS, and it is attracting quite a lot of heat in the media. There’s some meeting or other that some people haven’t been invited to, as reported in the BBC this morning:

Some of the fiercest critics of the planned NHS reforms in England say they have not been invited to a meeting about the changes with David Cameron.

The British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing, which want the bill to be withdrawn, say they have not been asked to Monday’s event.

The BMA said in a statement: “If there is such an event, it would seem odd if the major bodies representing health professionals were not included.”

Among the bodies calling for the bill to be withdrawn is the Royal College of Nursing, which said it was not aware of having received an invitation to Monday’s meeting.

The Royal College of GPs also says it is not invited, which its chairwoman, Clare Gerada, said was a great shame given it represented the largest body of GPs in England.

On Friday, members of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health joined several Royal Medical Colleges, including the Royal College of GPs and the Royal College of Radiologists, in calling for the bill to be scrapped.

Unions, including the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives are among those who also want it to be withdrawn.

Now, there’s a whole load of professional and trade organisations listed there. But ask yourself the following question; ‘Is there someone who hasn’t been listed?’

No?

Throughout the whole article, and the wider debate throughout the media, someone is missing.

Me. You. The old woman across the road. The young couple that live in the flat upstairs. The man and his wife with their two kids that live next door.

There is no mention of the users at all. All we hear about is the GPs, the surgeons, the nurses. All wonderful people, all vital to the service, but nevertheless the NHS isn’t for them.

What we have is a monopoly where the service is being designed along the lines that suit the service provider, not its user. A user that has to pay and faces a spell inside if they don’t.

Even when Cameron attempts to bat the criticisms away he talks about clinical staff supporting him, nobody is talking about the patients. Hell, even the unions seem to be involved, the people that represent the army of administrators that do who knows what want to kick their way into the room, but still no room for the patient.

I know that there are groups representing patients interests, but I treat these with deep suspicion, like I do the plethora of councils, boards and whatnot that claim to represent ethnic communities, religious sects or other groups of people. They are unelected and as far as I can make out normally obsessive rent-a-gobs with a chip on their shoulder about something. Given that everybody is potentially an NHS patient, having an organisation that claims to represent them is a nonsense, if they can do it then they should be the only political party in the country and should be in government in perpetuity.

This is why the NHS is so deeply flawed in its current configuration, because it is run by the employees for their own ends, it treats the patient like an idiot child and is unwilling and incapable of considering the consumer’s needs and desires. As soon as a business disregards its consumer base, bankruptcy is sure to follow. However not every business can demand you pay for it, whether you like the service or not.

One of the most unhelpful phrases in the English language is ‘Doctor knows best’. Combine it with the politicians who are also armed with a sense of their own infallibility and the aforementioned legacy, and misery is sure to result.

The NHS will continue to get billions of our money whatever happens, and Cameron’s programme is nothing but window dressing. Meanwhile the professional bodies et al will continue to scream and stamp their feet like spoiled children with an entitlement complex. You aren’t a patient, you are a stat, to be moved about on a spreadsheet so one side can hit the other with a stick. Your health is secondary or even tertiary to the equation.

Makes you wonder what the H in NHS stands for, doesn’t it?

Sovereignty surrendered via apathy.

Posted on by
1

And the BBC celebrates it, with its usual skewed view:

Preliminary results from Croatia’s referendum on European Union membership suggest that a large majority of people want to join the EU in 2013.

Huzzah! Pop the champagne cork!

With more than one third of votes counted, the country’s electoral commission says 67% of voters have backed EU membership.

Yes, that does seem to be quite a margin.

Only 32% of votes cast were against it.

Which suggests to me that only a third of Croats have their heads screwed on right, but hey, their country, their choice, their business.

Opponents of the “yes” vote warned of a loss of sovereignty, just two decades after Croatia became an independent state.

And I’d say they were right, but there you go. Interesting how the BBC couches it though, ‘opponents of the yes vote’, kinda smacks of being somehow anti-progress, doesn’t it?

But supporters said EU membership was the best option for the country in the long term.

Croatia itself is currently suffering from high unemployment and other economic problems.

And I wonder how much they’ll be tapped up for to prop the crumbling system up, and how soon? I have a horrible feeling their problems are about to increase.

“Croatia will not lose its sovereignty or natural resources, nor will it be ruled by the EU,” President Ivo Josipovic said in a written statement on Sunday.

Then you, Sir, are either an idiot or a liar, for if that statement is true then it means that Croatia will be standing apart from the rest of the EU by being the only member state able to retain its sovereignty and not be ruled by the EU.

Early figures suggest turnout in the vote will be less than 50%, but there is no minimum threshold in order for the poll to be valid.

Ah, there’s the rub. From a population of 4.2 million, 1.4 million people, or 19% have voted in favour of joining. Just to outline the figures for the hard of thinking, that’s 81% of the population who did NOT vote to join the EU. Now it could be that the half of the entire population that didn’t turn out because they thought it would be a forgone conclusion, perhaps they didn’t care, perhaps they were bamboozled by the spin and propaganda from Brussels. But I’ll tell you this, if at any point in the future Croatia decides to re-examine its membership of the evil empire, you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be not only a minimum of threshold for turnout, but also a threshold of result well above the fiftieth percentile, and even then if those conditions were to be met they’d be told to try again if the call came to get out.

Meanwhile off the coast of Tuscany lies a crippled ship, run aground with a gaping wound in the hull, wrecked by a vain, cowardly and arrogant captain. A more apt visual representation of the EU is hard to imagine. Today Croatia has come alongside in a rowing boat and called out ‘permission to come aboard?’ I could weep for them.

Shut up and drink.

Posted on by
4

Which is worse, prohibiting people from engaging in what in itself is a harmless activity, or obliging someone to ensure that that harmless activity can take place?

I refer of course to the demon drink. You see, FIFA, guardians of the flame of liberty and heroes of truth and transparency have decided to pick a fight.

With the government of Brazil.

The issue is this, Brazilian football is riven with crowd trouble, hooliganism, gangs of idiotic thuggish ‘ultras’, call it what you will. A decision was taken, in the form of ‘Supporters’ Statutes’ to ban the sale of alcohol in all Brazil’s football stadia. Now of course you and I know that this is the laziest form of legislation, we know that the alcohol is not the cause of the trouble, it may be an accelerant, but problems of hooliganism go so much deeper than that. In the UK it took the Hillsborough disaster to give the clubs, the FA, the government and most importantly the supporters the kick up the arse that was so desperately needed. In Italy we see attendance figures nose diving in the face of crumbling, inappropriate stadia (bear in mind the wonderful state of the art arenas built for the world cup are now twenty years old, and how times have changed) and gangs of violent mafiosi-like ultras are accommodated by terrified club boardrooms who hand out merchandising rights and free tickets to them.

In a country like Brazil that may be flourishing economically there is still a huge amount of poverty, a more fertile breeding ground for a gang culture it is hard to imagine. Whilst it may not be the fault of football that this ill of society attaches itself to the sport, we know from experience that the sport will blame government and government will blame the sport, until the disaster happens. So, something must be done, someone must be seen to be strong and must be seen to be taking action. Banning the sale of beer is something, therefore (in the words of Sir Humphrey) it must be done.

Whether I think it is the right thing is irrelevant. It is the law of the land. Whether FIFA think it is the right thing is similarly irrelevant. Except FIFA don’t see it that way:

Beer will be sold at the 12 venues of the 2014 World Cup finals, FIFA general secretary Jerome Valcke said on Wednesday as he attempted to close all further discussion on a controversial issue in Brazil.

“Alcoholic drinks are part of the FIFA World Cup, so we’re going to have them. Excuse me if I sound a bit arrogant but that’s something we won’t negotiate,” Valcke said.

“The fact that we have the right to sell beer has to be a part of the Law,” he told the foreign press corps in an interview in Rio de Janeiro, where on Thursday he will hold a meeting with the World Cup local organizing committee (LOC).

It would, of course, be churlish to point out that one of FIFA’s major sponsors are Anheuser-Busch, the brewers of Budweiser.

So here comes FIFA, demanding that a sovereign government change their laws to accommodate them. They really are beyond belief. I have no doubt they’ll get their own way even if just for the period of the tournament. However I see clouds on the horizon. As famously reported the 2018 World Cup was awarded to Russia, there’ll be no problems with the sale of alcohol there, but four years later the tournament is due to be held in Qatar, a country where the sale, production and consumption of alcohol is banned entirely, and a breach of that law results in a lengthy prison sentence or deportation (for non-Qataris). I wonder how FIFA will approach this argument then? And I wonder if FIFA will find that they were a little hasty in rejecting a much stronger, more sensible bid from Australia in the name of ‘diversifying’ the tournament?

Doublethink 2012.

Posted on by
1

This is an absolute doozie:

The government’s official advisers on migration say there is a link between immigration from outside the European Union and job losses among UK workers.

Well, duh.

The Migration Advisory Committee said there were 23 fewer UK jobs for every 100 migrants from outside the EU.

And how fewer UK jobs are there for every 100 migrants from within the EU?

The report also added that EU migration had had “little or no impact” on the native employment rate.

Really?

Really?

Do you honestly expect us to believe that it is only those nasty bastards from outside the EU who take British jobs?

I mean, it isn’t as if people are losing their jobs for not speaking Polish, is it? (And how ironic that it should be a Portuguese.)

No, you’d be a fool and probably a racist to think otherwise. Those bastard Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders coming over here with their odd ways and silly language taking our jobs. I mean, what have the Canadians ever done for us?

Thank God we’ve got proper people like the Bulgarians, Lithuanians and Romanians doing all those jobs that British workers aren’t.

That being said, despite the obvious doublethink, there’s probably an element of truth in this, see a Kiwi graduate is more likely to take a job that a British graduate is chasing. The Poles (who are also fine and dandy in my book, by and large) will take the low paid job that should be taken by a British worker, but that Brit isn’t actually a worker, those Jeremy Kyle shows don’t watch themselves y’know. But that’s a whole other post. . .

Reform? Absolutely.

Posted on by
1

Just a quick one this evening, I’ve been a little busy.

I note that Francis Maude has stepped back from his calls to introduce tougher union laws.

Now, as I’ve made clear on here previously, I don’t have a lot of love for the unions, but the ballots to strike have been carried out in a perfectly democratic fashion. I don’t think it is right that a small portion (in percentage terms) of the population can hold the government to ransom, but by the same token, a parliament of around 650 regularly hold the rest of the country to ransom, and I ain’t too keen on that either.

The parallel between government and unions is an important one to draw. I understand that Maude was demanding that in order for a strike ballot to be acceptable that the union concerned would have to have at least a 50% turnout. As an aside, I think the main reason turnout wasn’t higher in this round of industrial action ballots was because the result was a foregone conclusion.

And here really is the point; that is exactly the same reason why turnouts are so poor in general, by, local authority and European elections in this country – for many constituencies and wards the result is a foregone conclusion.

So, what’s good for the goose must also be good for the gander and any calls for a 50% turnout to legitimise a union industrial action ballot must also be met with a 50% turnout threshold in any constituency or ward for that constituency or ward to return an MP, MEP or councillor.

Not only would it make the unions think a little more about how they conduct business, it would also focus the minds of the politicians a little more.

Just saying. . .

Vital?

Posted on by
4

It would seem that some people still don’t quite understand quite how precarious our financial state is and continue to spank enormous amounts of money on frankly bizarre schemes. What is galling is that people are having their pensions arsed around with (regardless of your feelings on public servants) and then this utter guff comes sailing over the horizon.

A Devon MP has said £500,000 spent on an Arctic island Olympic arts project could have been better invested in community arts projects.

Indeed, or perhaps better spent on a hospital unit, for example.

Artist Alex Hartley and 18 volunteers excavated about six tonnes of material from an island exposed by a retreating glacier on the Svalbard peninsula in Norway.

Part of the island will be transported on a barge around the coast of the South West.

Eh? What? So you’re digging stuff out from a Norwegian island, loading it onto a barge, sailing around the South West and this is art? Come on, what’s really going on here?

The Arts Council said the “remarkable visual sculpture” would open up a debate on global warming.

Ah. When we say ‘open up a debate’, I’m assuming that means the sort of debate where anyone who questions warble gloaming is not welcome?

The material will be sculpted into a piece of art called Nowhere Island and floated along the South West coast for the 2012 Cultural Olympiad.

*speechless*

Phil Gibby, head of Arts Council England in the South West, said: “It is absolutely vital to invest in vibrant arts projects in Devon, but we could not have spent this money on them.

Is it, Phil? Is it vital? Why’s that then? What would happen if a barge full of permafrost wasn’t sailed around Torbay? Would people die? Would children develop dread diseases? Would cows stop giving milk and chickens stop laying eggs? Perhaps a big troll would rise up out of the Tamar and start sweeping cars going into Cornwall off the bridge? Perhaps a more sensible comment would have been ‘but we should not have spent this money’?

“It is a remarkable visual sculpture and we reckon more than a quarter of a million people will engage with it.

As opposed to a sculpture that is what? Designed to be listened to, or perhaps gives off an interesting aroma? And you reckon that more than a quarter of a million people will engage with it, do you? And how many of those people will engage with it in a manner that does not involve a question along the lines of ‘why is there a barge with a load of rocks on it over there?’ Or are you supposing that people will look at it and say ‘Well bugger I down dead, we simply must stop global warming right this instant, and I’m so grateful to the Arts Council and the Cultural Olympiad for bringing this to my attention, for I had no idea this was a problem, as no-one has ever mentioned it before. It’s come as quite the shock, let me tell you, and this quite remarkable visual sculpture is by far the most effective medium for getting the message out. I for one am delighted to have seen this, and in no way think it is a complete waste of everyone’s fucking time and money in some self absorbed way to make no mark artists get their ego stroked at my bloody expense. Fancy a pint?’

“So for everyone getting engaged with it, it is about £2 or less.”

Is that all? Well why didn’t we order four then?

Savage cuts? Where? I don’t see them.

the Arts Council’s original 2010/11 budget has been reduced by a total of £23 million from £468 million to £445 million.

Four hundred and forty five million pounds? And they produce this? I really am lost for words.

 

 

Wolfer’s note: Once again, apologies for the paucity of postings recently, I’m horrendously busy at present working on a project that could result in a significant change in my life. There could be interesting times ahead.