Proof There Is A God.

And he hates infidelity:

Chris Huhne’s career was hanging by a thread last night after his estranged wife agreed to testify that he asked her to take speeding points for him.

All part of a crass attempt to avoid controversy when he was contesting a seat in parliament by avoiding a ban for his precocious driving habits, something which later happened anyway when he was caught driving whilst using a mobile phone.

This is all the more fattening (being so rich and all) considering his last generic erection campaign was thought on the ticket that he was a family man - all the while schtuming a lefty bunt in a think tank.

Hopefully this'll mark the end of the lib dumb's insane climate policies.

We can live in hope.

Quote Of The Day (Goebbels Warmong Edition)

"We have used the best available data [and] the conclusion is that shale gas may indeed be quite damaging to global warming, quite likely as bad or worse than coal," he told BBC News.

- Robert Howarth from Cornell University in Ithaca, US on his report as reported here.

Yeah, I'm sure it's quite bad "to global warming"; you schills have been disabusing climate science of any credibility for decades.

Quote Of The Day

Let us suppose that the great empire of China, with all it's myriads of inhabitants was suddenly swallowed up by an earthquake, and let us consider how a man of humanity in Europe...would be affected upon receiving intelligence of this dreadful calamity. He would, I imagine, first of all, express very strongly his sorrow for the misfortune of that unhappy people, he would make many melancholy reflections upon the precariousness of human life...And when all this fine philosophy was over, when all these humane sentiments had been once fairly expressed, he would pursue his business or his pleasure, take his repose or his diversion, with the sameease and tranquility, as if no such accident had happened...If he was to lose his little finger to-morrow, he would not sleep to-night; but...he will snore with the most profound security over the ruin of a hundred millions of his brethren.

Theory of Moral Sentiments, part 3-5 - Adam Smith

Say a prayer for those who suffer in places like Libya, Syria, Nigeria or the Arabs in Israel tonight; at least be thankful your elsewhere and you and your family are safe.

Where Are They Going With This?

Day off today getting my car cleaned and checked over then into sunny Bradford with my little girl for a day out; one thing picked up this morning from Aunty Beeb concerning cancer rates in homosexual men being higher than their heterosexual counterparts:

Homosexual men are more likely to have had cancer than heterosexual men, as US study has suggested.

Now it easy for a Christian to be tarred with the gay-bashing brush, to gloat over the misfortune of someone with a particular lifestyle - I prefer consistency in my belief in ideological freedom and so won't be doing that; besides I think the following author's comment might provide the clue as to why:

The authors speculate that the difference in the numbers of cancer survivors could be down to the higher rate of anal cancer in homosexual men or HIV infection, which has been linked to cancer.

Jason Warriner, clinical director for HIV and sexual health at the Terrence Higgins Trust, said: "We know that HIV can cause certain types of cancer, and that gay men are at a greater risk of HIV than straight men.

"Another factor potentially having an impact is Human Papilloma Virus, which can lead to anal cancer in gay men.

"The government currently runs a national vaccination programme for young girls, but we think recent figures on oral and anal cancers justify taking another look at whether the programme should be extended to include boys."

HIV is linked to a higher incidence of a cancer known as Kaposi's Sarcoma, which, like Human Papilloma Virus, can potentially cause cancers (in both cases sarcoma, cancers of connective tissues). My contention would be this is less "gay linked" and more an aspect of a person's sexual activity; the village bike would likely die from this family of cancers than their chaste neighbour for example.

This is all contention; what I am curious about is this comment:

Jessica Harris, senior health information officer at Cancer Research UK, said: "There is already evidence of some health inequalities as a result of sexuality, for example, smoking rates are higher in homosexual men and women than in heterosexual people.

I'm sorry, are we saying that the free action of homosexual men smoking is somehow linked to me being heterosexual and a non-smoker? That my not smoking is linked to a homosexual taking up the habit?

I really don't understand this, but if the contention that somehow my not smoking causes homosexuals to smoke, or increased use of nicotine is linked to homosexuality I have to call bullcrap.

This is almost as preposterous as The Spirit Level's authors claiming my rich europeaness causes poverty of a tribal Amazonian who has never seem civilisation.

Another Landslide Victory For The NOTA Party

Bramley & Stanningley Ward
Electorate: 16657
Total Number of Votes: 5137
Labour Win for Ted Hanley: 3121 votes, 18.8% of the vote or less than 2 in 10 people installed him into the LCC.
Voters who chose None Of The Above: 11520, 69.2% or a little under 7 in 10 people chose none of the people on the ballot paper.

I wonder what the figure will be for AV?

But Of Course He Did

Documents found at Osama Bin Laden's Pakistan home suggest he was planning new attacks on the US, including on the 9/11 anniversary, US reports say.

One plan aimed to target a US rail route, the reports said, although no imminent threat was detected.

Amazing what you can find when you want to continue the status quo ofass arms buildup and the war on terror: more evidence of terror.

The Terrifying Reason I'm Saying #Yes2AV Today

In my post yesterday I discussed how PJ Byrne's views on the AV referendum today were only partly right: i.e. it is a question nobody wanted to ask that has replaced several we were all asking, and how he was wrong that an AV system would largely be an irrelevance - let's illustrate the pros and cons of AV; I'll start with con:-

Con
1. It is complicated.
2. It will be expensive; additional layers of complexity always are.
3. It does reward the most "useless" votes/voters the most: you could effectively give multiple votes to a voter intent on the most insane and unelectable of candidate choices.
4. It will lead to more coalitions: this could be viewed as a bad or good thing - in one way endless coalitions mean nothing much can be changed without enormous amounts of horse trading and compromise; however, ultimately the good is that they cannot introduce too many laws straight out of parliament - it will become fast apparent that much of our laws come from the EU which is something a Bory/UKIP caucus is likely to get a referendum on more than a Bory or UKIP minority government.

Pros
1. It does require a great deal more focus of the candidate on their electorate; how likely that will last when the whip comes in to play is debateable.
2. It will be more representable of what voters actually want: 3 in 4 voted against New Labour in 1997, likely a government will come in in 2015 that the electorate will grudgingly accept under AV.
3. .
Pro 3. I believe weighs out all the cons above.
3. There is now a credible link to a desire for the majority of the electorate to select one candidate: any candidate will need 50% of the total number of voters at least agreeing to their representative; for example, look at Ed Balls fiercely contested 2010 constituency of Morley & Outwood:




Let's assume under AV that UKIP vote for the Bory's as a second, the Watermelons vote for Labour and the Lib Dumbs split between Bory and New Labour and the BNP vote for a single preference; my fag packet calculations indicate that no one will win and the election will void; where any candidate to pander for secondaries from the BNP will surely result in alienating other voters leading to the same problem.

This has been portrayed as a bad thing, but think about it for a second - the problem lies in the fact that we are presented with candidates who wield absolute power over the electorate and in most cases we wouldn't be willing to pee on them if they were on fire.

We have abrogated responsibility for our lives to incompetents and fools and wonder why things are going wrong - the least we can do is thwart the system, make it clear that we are not consenting to their rule, as often as possible until they actually start listening; to dictate to as their role demands rather than us being dictated at.

And I think AV gives us a powerful weapon in being able to void elections which in the absence of a recall or NOTA vote we desperately need to restrain the legislature.

My yes vote is not an endorsement of the #Yes2AV camp; it is a statement that the status quo, and of having a firm None Of The Above vote summarily ignored year on year.

And anything likely to deprive Ed Balls of his seat can only be a good thing.

In Which I (Partly) Disagree With PJ Byrne

Master Byrne in many ways manifests my own thoughts on AV in this article: that it matters little how we vote when we have no real choice over who we vote for and to what extent they control how we live our lives:

Despite the best efforts of the belligerents, I still struggle to care. The facts are these: the referendum will not end debate on electoral reform, since the twin bugaboos of proportional representation and reform of the House of Lords lurk still in the wings. Nor will the referendum, regardless of outcome, make our system "more democratic"-- not that this would be a good thing, since for seventy years "more democracy" inevitably meant more bureaucracy, unsustainable deficits and a lot of unwanted, oppressive and inflexible laws, with negative implications for day-to-day life. So why on earth are Libertarians talking about AV at all-- which seems, by comparison, such an inconsequential issue, a procedural tweak of a right we exercise for thirty seconds every five years?
...
Libertarians seek to minimize the existence of masters generally, particularly the state, a goal which currently no major UK political party is prepared to adopt and we are, therefore, only notionally able to participate in mainstream policy debate; free elections of whatever major party will not change the fact that in Britain, the tax-to-GDP ratio hovers around 40%, the state gags private citizens and the media over trivial information and singing Carl Douglas constitutes a hate crime. In this context, the central question for all reform of any kind -- electoral, fiscal, penal, or otherwise -- must be: will this reform emancipate individuals? And if not: what position can we adopt to try to steer public debate in our direction?

The answer is not to lose hope, to keep writing and keep moving; as put by Sam Bowman, to "'stand athwart history, shouting'... Faster!" For everywhere we look-- Greece, Spain, Japan, here in the UK, and even in the United States-- the onslaught of circumstance operates to prove libertarians right: global economic shifts, individual empowerment, demography and the structure of democracy itself conspire together to undermine the foundations of the western welfare state. As the catastrophe unfolds, the conventional wisdom will cling to the old ideas, the quartet will play the same familiar tunes-- "our institutions are sound," "our way of life is sustainable"-- despite a growing recognition from all quarters that Western governments will, one day this century, no longer wield the coercive and economic power to meet the obligations they set themselves in the last one.

In the meantime, however, I suggest getting used to being told you're wrong.

Quite, and whilst PJ isn't necessarily agreeing/disagreeing with the concept of the currently mooted electoral reforms, stating rightly that it doesn't really matter how we pick our masters, I disagree with him saying AV is a bad system.

That is not to say I am siding with the #Yes2AV cretins as a vehicle for greater Lib Dem recognition at elections.

My interest, as I stated in an earlier post, is that AV does enable a disaffected electorate to essentially derail election results effectively voiding results.

If the outcome of the entire libertarian philosophy is to point out how our western welfare statism will eventually fail for the sheer balk at reality that it is then why not merely underline it by upsetting the electoral system a bit?

Currently the FPTP enables governments to wield absolute power on not very many votes; New Labour royally screwed over the country on the basis of a little over 1 in 4 people voting them over the last decade and it seems Euroslime Dave couldn't even muster that kind of support; he had to bribe Clogg with a European Commission role when he is summarily ejected from his Sheffield Hallam constituency, just like Bliar had to do when Mandelson indicated he knew where the bodies were buried.

If AV offers anything, it gives us the chance to show how ultimately nonsensical an idea it is to give some idiot ultimate power over our lives, particularly when we are vehemently against the idea or have simply accepted their existence is at best unnecessary, as most NOTA voters have done.

And wrapping politicians up in knots and forcing them to pander to a wider community, then watch as there election is voided for lack of voters, is just too tempting.

Dem GDP Figures

Yes Chris you still get that shiny fiver once you put in your donate button.

But lets look at these GDP figures closer:

Preliminary figures from the Office for National Statistics showed that in the first quarter the economy merely recouped ground lost from severe snow in December, growing by 0.5 per cent. With value added tax rising 2.5 percentage points to 20 per cent in January, economic weakness was always expected in the first half of 2011.

But the stagnant economy over the past six months will force another downgrade to official forecasts – unless the gross domestic product figures are subsequently revised upwards.

Current UK GDP is £1310 billion, making a 0.5% an increase in £6.55 billion over 3 months.

But compare this to the amount borrowed in March alone according to the ONS:

In March 2011, there was net borrowing (excluding financial interventions) of £18.6 billion, which compares with borrowing of £19.8 billion in March 2010.

£18.6 Billion.

So the government has spent the increase in GDP nigh on 3. times. over. in 1 month.

Yes I know that this isn't an exact comparison; no doubt someone will say the only comparitive is the rate at which we have to pay off the interest on this - life is too short to do those calculations.

But with spending like this, in comparison to the wealth generated cannot be good.

Stop spending our money Osbourne you annoying ass-hat.