tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36863678642502398222024-03-13T20:28:51.883+00:00Jerub-Baal's Spleen VentWhats the opposite of being cynical? Naive - Jennifer HowellTomrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15442487511149915434noreply@blogger.comBlogger362125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3686367864250239822.post-3945758523538316802017-10-17T11:59:00.000+01:002017-10-17T11:59:27.925+01:00Fresh, hot, steaming nonsense.<span style="font-size: large;">Not content with predicting doom at every turn for Brexit, Continuity-Remain now have <a href="http://news.sky.com/story/hate-crime-offences-jump-29-year-on-year-11084817">a new stick to beat their particular dead horse with</a>:</span><div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1.2em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 0px;">
<div class="sdc-news-story-article__intro" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: skytext, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-weight: 700; margin-bottom: 1.2em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; max-width: 540px; padding: 0px;">
<i>"Recorded hate crimes jumped by 29% last year - exacerbated by terror attacks and the EU referendum, new figures show.</i></div>
<div class="sdc-news-story-article__body" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: skytext, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px auto 1.2em; max-width: 540px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1.2em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 0px;">
<i>Over 80,000 offences where hate crime was deemed a motivating factor were committed in England and Wales over the last 12 months - up from 62,518 in 2015/16.</i></div>
<div class="ad ad--teads-desktop" style="box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; height: 0px; line-height: 0; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div class="sdc-site-au " data-ad-format="teads" data-advert-rendered="4x4" data-type="" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 0; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">
<div aria-label="Advertisement" class="sdc-site-au__teads" data-component-name="sdc-site-mpu" data-config="{"id":"teads-desktop","tag":"20346936\/skynews\/politics\/content","size":{"desktop":[[4,4]]},"targeting":{"platform":"live","artId":11084817}}" data-google-query-id="COiOmaCw99YCFc-NGwodOgoCPg" data-role="ad-container" data-slot-called="1" data-tag="" data-targeting-platform="" data-targeting-strnativekey="" data-tolerance="2" id="teads-desktop" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div id="google_ads_iframe_20346936/skynews/politics/content_1__container__" style="border: 0pt none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<i><iframe frameborder="0" height="4" id="google_ads_iframe_20346936/skynews/politics/content_1" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" name="google_ads_iframe_20346936/skynews/politics/content_1" scrolling="no" style="border-style: initial; border-width: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: bottom;" title="3rd party ad content" width="4"></iframe></i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1.2em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 0px;">
<i>The figures, released by the Home Office on Tuesday, represent the largest jump since records began in 2011.</i></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1.2em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 0px;">
<i><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">:: Types of hate crime recorded</strong><br style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />Race - 78%<br style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />Sexual orientation - 11%<br style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />Religious - 7%<br style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />Disability - 7%<br style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />Transgender - 2%</i></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1.2em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 0px;">
<i>Some hate crimes had more than one motivating factor, the Home Office said, explaining why the sum breached 100%.</i></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1.2em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 0px;">
<i>The department revealed there was a "genuine rise in hate crime around the time of the EU referendum" and after the four deadly terror attacks in Manchester and London."</i></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;">What a terrible, terrible thing; me being white and a leave voter should put myself into a hole and flail the flesh from my body for encouraging such things and not question how any of this arose as an explosion of hate crime...</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">But...</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Here's the thing; when I see such crystal-clear metrics presented as facts and the author, Aubrey Allegretti, state this is entirely down to the EU referendum and teworwism I have to ask: how do you know? Does the actual report indicate an irrefutable causation/correlation? How do they detect "hate" as a motivation compared to normal, hate-less crimes?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Turns out these are all questions are actually quite important to ask.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Whilst Allegretti doesn't link to the report (that would require a certain level of journalistic integrity and thoroughness that only a part-time hack with an irregular blog could muster) I believe she is referring to <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/652136/hate-crime-1617-hosb1717.pdf">this report from the home office</a>: no I haven't read it in full so I am happy to be schooled and issue corrections later*, but I think that this particular comment is telling for how they "detect hate" in the overview on page 2 (emphasis in bold my own): </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"In the process of recording a crime, <b>police can flag an offence as being motivated by one or more of
the five monitored strands (1) listed above (for example, an offence can be motivated by hostility towards
the victim’s race and religion)</b>. Figures in this bulletin show both how many hate crime offences the
police recorded, and how many motivating factors these offences covered (for more information see
Annex B). Figures in this bulletin are therefore dependent on a flag being applied to an offence that is
identified as a hate crime."</i></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;">The short answer as to how they detect therefore is...they don't - at best they guess.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DMUc7x3WkAAskVG.jpg" /><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">That's not the same thing as saying that these aren't "educated" guesses, but given that the natural progression for "findings" like "increases in hate crimes" is a call for more severe custodial tariffs; I'd want to make pretty damn sure that the proof used to put unpleasant people in chokey is air-tight; otherwise this is just a means of shutting down debate on subjects deemed verboten: will I end up in jail for saying it is not racist to expect Amber Rudd to do her job and deport illegal immigrants who have passed through the system and failed the right to remain? How about if I state the obvious by saying there is a correlation with middle-eastern islamism and terrorist activity and so maybe we should be vigilant about an influx from terror-supporting nations?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The irony of all this is I have <i>seen actual hate crimes occur in my own neighbourhood</i>; days after Brexit <a href="http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/crime/two-arrests-after-polish-shopkeeper-in-leeds-told-leave-this-country-1-7987145">a polish shop-owner was beaten outside his store by 2 racists</a> to which I had several friends witness the attack - of course there are racist attacks, and of course they should be prosecuted more severely, but if we are to delineate what crimes are more severe despite similar outcomes the burden of proof needs to be higher otherwise it will rightly become a totem more unpleasant people gather around.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Britain, for all it's flaws and history, is for everyone, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/650723/RDAweb.pdf">and nigh on everyone of every race knows and feels this</a>:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"In addition, a substantial majority of adults across all ethnic groups felt they
belonged to Britain. Around 85% of White and Asian adults, and around 80% of
adults from Black or Mixed backgrounds felt that they belong to Britain, though the
proportion of adults from Other ethnic backgrounds who felt this was lower, at
68%." (3.13, pg16)</i></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;">I have to question why the Conservatives, even the wets like Rudd and May, would continue to support and exacerbate victim culture like this; it does them no good politically, it alienates their base and continues to exacerbate the lie that racism is still widespread; worse, it gives the police an easy win in box-ticking and target-meeting with no real extra effort. I'm not cynical enough to believe this is being done deliberately but I am certain that it is incompetent.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">*: I sincerely hope Ms. Allegretti is willing to do likewise when it is shown she is talking out of her ass later.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
tomrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14840757143559617554noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3686367864250239822.post-4973438029402971682017-08-16T08:57:00.001+01:002017-08-16T09:08:22.870+01:00Charlottesville<p dir="ltr">https://youtu.be/<u>PVlmfGfEWDc</u></p>
<p dir="ltr">Had a remarkably long back and forth with someone on Facebook yesterday about Charlottesville about this. exact. point. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Any reading of the history of the rise hitler and the national socialists tells you that it didn't come about in a vacuum; it could be argued it occurred because of 3 things:</p>
<p dir="ltr">1. The existial threat to the German government by communists and bankruptcy prompted them to turn a blind eye to pro-state, right-wing collectivist group violence like the national socialists (to the point of near irrationality: I.e. The bierhall pütsch)</p>
<p dir="ltr">2. The rise of anti-fascist violence being reciprocated and ultimately communist terrorism being used as a pretext to sieze martial and then ultimate power by hitler.</p>
<p dir="ltr">3. The simplicity with how easilythe government could be handed over to the nazis despite their tepid popularity even at the height of their power. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Any airing of your typical fascists views can be easily rebutted by your average 16 year old debate team and Google; it is not even a fair fight as they tend to be the dumbest and buck-passingess (sub)humans imaginable. You lose (and Germany lost) the argument when you either fail to challenge ideas or the violence used <u>to</u> suppress them, as the MSM does currently with antifa or islamists.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Fuck nazis, and not in the biblical sense; and also fuck identitarian movements in general that use violence to advance their political means. You are part of the problem. </p>
tomrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14840757143559617554noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3686367864250239822.post-56050616192989516202017-04-09T11:47:00.001+01:002017-04-09T11:47:50.823+01:00God Help Us All<p dir="ltr">Peter Hitchen's is on point in his latest <a href="http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2017/04/peter-hitchens-our-noble-cause-dropping-bombs-on-behalf-of-al-qaeda.html">Sunday Diary</a>: </p>
<p dir="ltr"><i><b>"And then mark that the pretext for this bizarre rocket attack was an unproven claim that President Assad of Syria had used poison gas.</b></i></p>
<p dir="ltr"><i><b>Yes, unproven. The brutality of Sisi and the Saudis is beyond doubt. They didn’t use gas, but our leaders’ outrage at Assad’s alleged gas attack looks a little contrived if they keep such company.</b></i></p>
<p dir="ltr"><i><b>Also what happened to the rules of evidence? Many people have written, spoken – and now acted – as if the charge was proven. Why the </b></i>hurry?</p>
<p dir="ltr">Now, Mr Assad is not a nice person. I have been writing rude things about his bloodstained and wicked regime for years."</p>
<p dir="ltr">Can't disagree with a word of this - it is saying a lot when Hitchen's analysis is not so dissimilar to that of arch-youtuber loon Paul Watson and yet remains the most <a href="https://youtu.be/n1zQQzZmuZk">apt</a>.</p>
<p dir="ltr">There are 2 likely consequences of the behaviour of the West in this:</p>
<p dir="ltr">1. <i>Despots the world over challenged by the West will simply thumb their nose at them:</i> we ignore the most aggressive, cruellest of belligerents; from Duterte to Kim Jong Un the key to avoiding western intervention in your own little fiefdom is to either overtly challenge the "evil" West or subvert it with a smile and state visits but ultimately not changing a damn thing about your behaviour to your own people; you invite western intervention, as proven by Saddam, Gaddafi, and very soon Assad, by complying with their demands.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><i>2. The "centre" cannot hold:</i> do we really believe Clinton would behave any differently in this situation? And if Trump isn't willing to try something else what does that mean for voting in any real change?</p>
<p dir="ltr">Everywhere we look, whether it is an encroaching spy-state, social media clamping down on "fake news" or even the slow motion corruption of Western public structures, from police seizure rules to the general "fuck-off" loop of challenging the petty injustice of the state do we really see modern western values as something worth supporting anymore? The article is by Peter Hitchen's for God's sake.</p>
<p dir="ltr">In all of this it is worth remembering the story of <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Mohamed_Bouazizi">Mohamed </a><u><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Mohamed_Bouazizi">Bouazizi</a></u>: </p>
<p dir="ltr"><b><i>"According to friends and family, local police officers had allegedly targeted and mistreated Bouazizi for years, including during his childhood, regularly confiscating his small wheelbarrow of produce; but Bouazizi had no other way to make a living, so he continued to work as a street vendor. Around 10 p.m. on 16 December 2010, he had contracted approximately US$200 in debt to buy the produce he was to sell the following day. On the morning of 17 December, he started his workday at 8 a.m. Just after 10:30 a.m., the police began harassing him again, ostensibly because he did not have a vendor's permit. However, while some sources state that street vending is illegal in Tunisia and others that Bouazizi lacked a required permit to sell his wares, according to the head of Sidi Bouzid's state office for employment and independent work, no permit is needed to sell from a cart.</i></b></p>
<p dir="ltr"><b><i>...Bouazizi, angered by the confrontation went to the governor's office to complain and to ask for his scales back. The governor refused to see or listen to him, even after Bouazizi was quoted as saying, "If you don't see me, I'll burn myself." Bouazizi then acquired a can of gasoline from a nearby gas station and returned to the governor's office. While standing in the middle of traffic, he shouted, "How do you expect me to make a living?" He then doused himself with the gasoline and set himself alight with a match at 11:30 a.m. local time, less than an hour after the altercation."</i></b></p>
<p dir="ltr">This single event precipitated the Arab Spring; a single act of despair and destitution in the face of petty corruption which led to the overthrow of many autocrats in the middle east as well as introducing many worse.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Are we really so sure we aren't getting towards this in the West?</p>
tomrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14840757143559617554noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3686367864250239822.post-86414325545182501452017-01-12T11:01:00.000+00:002017-01-12T11:01:25.016+00:00Chickening Out<div dir="ltr">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Having chickened out of entering the IEA's Richard Koch Essay Competition* I will instead list my 5 top policy changes that I feel would best improve conditions for the UK people's in the shortest amount of time:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>1. The "Bow Tie": Adaptive Negative Income Tax (ANIT)</b></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This was actually the title of my essay and was nominally advocating a Negative Income Tax system albeit with some twists to encourage work instead of treating it like the dole; in essence work that paid below the tax free income region (call it £15k) would be topped up in my Tax Scheme based on the number of hours worked: for instance if you worked 5 hours a week the base NIT income (£8k) would be topped up to £9k per annum (pro rata); at 20 hours a week it would be topped up to £12k. The advantage of this is that voluntary work and entrepreneurial start ups could hire staff with no minimum wage precluding job creation and the regulatory impact of hiring staff would also be soaked up ; training, effort and keeping busy could be rewarded in both business and the voluntary sectors. Children would also be eligible for the ANIT but at a much reduced rate in order to cover the sunk-costs of education and healthcare and the rump would be payable to the parent until adulthood/emancipation (see point 2).</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QRjATZnZ6Ag/WHTu9CdWL7I/AAAAAAAALto/WDoy6xDYSwEeVm6bPZ8NZ1xDGjT9R_7vQCLcB/s1600/Bow%2BTie%2BNIT.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="370" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QRjATZnZ6Ag/WHTu9CdWL7I/AAAAAAAALto/WDoy6xDYSwEeVm6bPZ8NZ1xDGjT9R_7vQCLcB/s640/Bow%2BTie%2BNIT.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Dwell on this for a second; we could have local charitable groups like a citizens action fund which would coordinate road clearing in heavy snow to get Britain moving along the back roads in winter or organise meal making and home visitations for the weak, infirm and lonely elderly; an internet startup could sink their resources into getting their SME off the ground by registering their business in order to sign off on their staff to work pro bono, acting as valuable experience and training or getting friends and family to buy-in to your vision.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This also has one additional advantage: it puts the DWP completely out of work as every function could be managed by HMRC and local government; combined with a zero-base policy rethink of taxation and government spending this would do wonders for productivity and employment.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>2. Transferable Tax Free Income</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I wrote about this <a href="http://jerubbaalsvent.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/thoughts-on-benefits-living-wage.html">some years ago</a> before I had even heard of negative income tax and to this day it still seems strange that it hasn't been adopted; it's almost like the government can't trust us to organise our own tax and household affairs. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The idea is relatively simple; the ANIT is transferable all the way up to the tax free income bracket of £15k; what could be worth £12k to a spouse working 20 hours a week would become £15k to the other, enabling one to raise children and/or keep house, one of the hardest jobs in existence. The effects could be extended to the ANIT value of children too so higher-earning parents would see a larger proportion of their income retained or a balance so the non-working spouse had a separate income, in any case the arrangement of tax affairs would no longer be the remit of the rich and powerful; it would be habitual for the poorest and least well off to the middle classes to be self-starting and supporting too and glue families together to tackle problems.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>3. A Regressive Business Inequality Tax</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is right for business owners who take a risk on new ventures to claim the rewards for doing so as Stephen Crowder so eloquently put it in <a href="https://youtu.be/yiKklFUW4To">this take-down of the legacy of the Obama administration and Bernie Sanders tax plans</a>. However, it is entirely possible that the less scrupulous bosses out there might take advantage of underpaying their workers at the expense of their own income and so I would like to see variable income tax brackets for business owners who abuse the ANIT system based on the net income difference between employer and employee (not entirely dissimilar to what Corbyn was somehow mutterin recently <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/10/corbyn-proposes-maximum-wage-for-all-government-contractors">here</a>**). For instance if an owner of several chicken shops is using no-pay ANIT to not pay staff but is receiving a net income of several million (after inventory and payroll if any) then there is something wrong with that; this becomes less of a problem as a business expands and becomes profitable because so too would the income of all staff; it would only start to become a problem again when a business goes large or mega-sized by which point you are in the top tax bracket anyway. In any case this policy should be kid gloves and only designed to stop predatory use of the ANIT to supplement low pay and poor conditions for a profitable business so the inequality metric would be large.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>4. Revise Public Sector Salaries Downwards By De-taxing Them, Making The Change Neutral/Small Pay Rise</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The average public sector salary (as of 2011) was <a href="http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2065569/Average-public-sector-salary-3-800-year-time-average-private-sector.html">£28,802</a>; adjusted for tax take and NI the net income on this is £21,727 - so why not make that the salary and make the value tax free? We could adjust give every nurse, doctor and street sweeper in the country a 5% pay rise (again we could regressively target this to increasing the lowest salaries whilst not changing the highest) making the average £22,813 then not bother recycling a chunk of it through the tax system, which would start to seem more like a make-work scheme; the cost of payroll for the Public Sector would go down as would this internalised tax take - likely this would be Pareto efficient as it would eliminate the recycling of tax income from the public sector.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>5. Evolve The National Insurance Scheme into a National Savings Scheme</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I envision something similar to <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443746/republican-health-care-plan-rand-paul">this</a> or even <a href="http://assets.ce.columbia.edu/pdf/actu/actu-singapore.pdf">this</a> expanded to cover healthcare and old-age maintenance costs; in essence a tax-free savings pot that could pay for long-term illness and old-age costs that could be transferred to different savings funds and allow people to payout for health insurance. Yes we would have to include a safety net for the most extreme cases and something that would mitigate the costs of pre-existing condition but the effect would be to put the individual more in control of their funding. Monies would be used to pay for health insurance, pension plans or even as a kitty to pay for entrepreneurship and business building and taxed (if at all) accordingly. The ANIT would be the ultimate protection against destitution in old age.</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
*: combination of writers block, laziness and work and child related issues.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
**: (note to self: burn close and shower profusely to rid self of dirty feeling citing a Corbynista idea, well, kind of citing it, but, you know, making a better go of it)</div>
</div>
tomrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14840757143559617554noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3686367864250239822.post-57582061676521732752016-12-31T01:42:00.001+00:002016-12-31T01:42:20.583+00:0025 Questions for Brexiteers? I'll Give It A Go. <p dir="ltr">This bilge was on the Facebook thingy; thought I'd give it a go at answering: </p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>Twenty five questions for Brexiteers to answer </b>(okay I'll give it a go then)<b>: </b></p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>1. Have you seen a Brexit plan? </b></p>
<p dir="ltr">No for precisely the same reasons the other negotiating parties haven't; giving away your negotiating tactics early is to undermine their effectiveness. </p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>2. Remind me, what does Brexit mean? </b></p>
<p dir="ltr">Brexit means British Exit from the European Union: a severing of political ties from Europe that don't have the oversight of our own elected officials who we can hire and fire if those political ties displease us, not who shrug and say "it's an EU competency init'?</p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>3. What’s your problem with parliament?</b> </p>
<p dir="ltr">They got us into the EU and denied us a say on its current makeup and direction for 40 bloody years; it used the tools and arguements it is now saying don't apply to article 50 for both implementation of Lisbon and Maastricht and thus has proven mendacious and inconsistent enough to exclude itself from the process and likely the long term running of this country; I expect that 2020 will see the biggest drumming out of parliamentarians ever.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>4. Do you know what the odds of winning in a game of 27 to 1 are? </b></p>
<p dir="ltr">You've just stated them, which is lucky given that <i>Brexit isn't. A. Fucking. Game. Cretin.</i></p>
<p dir="ltr">Beside this is hardly what you were saying before the referendum was it? I thought many countries arguing as one was good for trade negotiations and the like?</p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>5. What’s great about being out on your own? </b></p>
<p dir="ltr">I'm trying desperately to determine a more polite way of saying "you dense ponce" but am struggling so ho hum. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I think I'll just settle with saying that Brexit was never an argument for isolation; literally no one, not one single Brexiteer to adopt your vernacular, said this - we envisioned a wider world of influence and trade. This isolationist ad hominen was frequently used by remain'derps I met though. </p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>6. Tell me precisely which EU regulations you want to get rid of? </b></p>
<p dir="ltr">I believe part of this Brexit plan we haven't seen yet is to appropriate the entirety of the <i>acquis communautaire</i> into the national legislative book and work backwards - shedding the unwanted through parliamentary processes rather than government fiat (you now, respect for parliament and all).</p>
<p dir="ltr">Personally though I'd start with the Working Time Directive; from a personal experuence it's implementation led to me ultimately quitting a job due to worsening conditions and benefits. </p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>7. Have you seen that £350 million a week bonus yet? </b></p>
<p dir="ltr">No - because we haven't left yet, Dipshit.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>8. Precisely what control have you got back? </b></p>
<p dir="ltr">None, yet - because we haven't left yet, Dipshit.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>9. Are you expecting two million UK nationals living in the EU to return home soon? </b></p>
<p dir="ltr">No - simply put I feel Theresa May will work something out that will bypass much of the hyperbole from both sides; however, expelling UK nationals who have settled from EU countries will be breaking international law.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>10. How are you going to decide who you’re sending home? </b></p>
<p dir="ltr">We aren't sending anyone home, just controlling who arrives once we leave; likely all who are currently here (including my current boss) will be allowed to stay. Afterwards there will likely be some kind of vetting or points system put in place like every other developed non-EU country on this rock. </p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>11. Do you know what someone who is forced to leave the country where they live is called? </b></p>
<p dir="ltr">Yes: unwelcome. It is unlikely that those willing to pull their own weight and behave themselves will be made to feel unwelcome here as has always been the case since long before we were a part of a political union with Europe, or do you forget we were once the biggest empire on earth with multiple ties to people's all over it?</p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>12. How are you going to make sure the NHS has the nurses it needs when we impose migration controls in 2019?</b> </p>
<p dir="ltr">Do you not understand how a points system works or are you being deliberately facetious?</p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>13. Which UK universities are you happy to see go bust because of a shortage of EU students? </b></p>
<p dir="ltr">Again noone is saying we close our borders except remain'derps, merely control them. Change the fucking record already. </p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>14. Do you know who picks most of the UK’s fruit and veg? Who do you think will be doing so in the future? </b></p>
<p dir="ltr">I thought EU migrants were all nurses and doctors? In any case again see above about controlling not closing the borders. Wouldn't hurt to see a few kids round my local council estate picking lettuces; character building.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>15. Why are you so keen to deny our young people the chance to live, learn and work abroad? </b></p>
<p dir="ltr">I know, it's terrible; we've no political union with Africa which stop our kids taking gap years building orphanages nor with Thailand nor South Korea which stopped some family members living and working in both countries for several years till recently when they moved back. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Oh wait, it didn't and doesn't. Knob head. </p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>16. The EU was intended to prevent war ever happening again in Europe. How does leaving help that? What’s the plan?</b> </p>
<p dir="ltr">Have you not been paying attention to the news nor recent history? ISIS insurgency and lone Wolf attacks throughout? The Taharrush "rape game" at the heart of mass assaults throughout Europe? The Yugoslav war? The fact that the EU is still technically at war with several countries in Africa both actively (Libya) and in-actively (Chad)? How about fomenting war with Russia by its actions in the Ukraine? </p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>17. How is increased paperwork for every single import and export going to save British business money? </b></p>
<p dir="ltr">Again without knowing the precise details of the deal negotiated there is little point in discussing; as an aside though several non-EU countries have mutual recognition of standards for multiple products, Saudi Arabia being just one; nor should we forget that the WTO Uruguay round accord saw an agreement of all signatories to reduce non-tariff barriers like these by making them globally recognised.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>18. How precisely will we be better off when we have to pay tariffs on most things we import? </b></p>
<p dir="ltr">First of all failing a trade deal why would we raise tariffs on imports? It's exports we'd have a problem with, tariffs being raised abroad.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Second it would only be imports from the EU; we are already in a trade deficit and with a rapidly collapsing proportion of our imports coming from the EU I can't see how this will remain a problem except for EU exporters if we suddenly did decide to raise tariffs.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Third, WTO rules state tariffs for most things are limited, no doubt meaning business could be easily compensated.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>19. We import more than we export. How are we going to win from tariffs?</b></p>
<p dir="ltr">No one wins from tariffs (free markets 101), but if you can direct me to a quote by anyone in a position of power saying we will raise tariffs on imports you let me know. </p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>20. How are the 30,000 new civil servants working on Brexit cutting red tape? </b></p>
<p dir="ltr">I was shocked I tell you, shocked, that the civil service union announced it'd need more staff for...I'm sorry what was it this time? </p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>21. Did you want to encourage Northern Ireland and Scotland to leave the UK?</b> </p>
<p dir="ltr">I'd be willing to put a bet on Scotland not leaving; as for Northern Ireland? Who knows and who cares; remarkably expensive white elephant which I'd be happy to see reunite with Southern Ireland; it'd be like Eastern and Western Germany reuniting: we were all very happy for them but East Germany had a huge shock of culture and funding to them. Don't see it happening to be honest. </p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>22. When the City is based in Frankfurt where will you find replacement tax revenues? </b></p>
<p dir="ltr">Dunno, it'll be fun to find out though won't it? Other thing that are fun to find out: The maximum distance a flying pig can cover unladen; the resting temperature of hell post-freeze. </p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>23. Did you want the UK to be a tax haven with no chance if you benefitting? </b></p>
<p dir="ltr">Yes because I don't want to benefit from government largesse at the parasitical teat of big business; I want the opportunities that attracting big business and new medium and small enterprises offers.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>24. What is it that the Australians are going to buy more of from the UK?</b></p>
<p dir="ltr">Dunno - let's ask them, and Africa, and China, and America, and Canada, and New Zealand and every other country we have limited trade with.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>25. Where are you going on holiday next year? Expecting a warm welcome?</b></p>
<p dir="ltr">Personally I think this is why Remain failed; you whinged and whinged about how difficult it was to travel but never stopped to think that still for many of us international travel, heck, plane travel of any kind, is still a luxury most people cannot afford.</p>
<p dir="ltr">This year marked the first we've been on an airplane as a family of 4; we went to Bulgaria. We were made very welcome. I resent the implication I should feel ashamed of voting Leave because you might find the very low likelihood of a little more paperwork inconvenient to you and Jontey when you fuck off to the French Alps for some skiing whilst I know of friends and family who struggle to make rent. </p>
<p dir="ltr">That above all else is why you fail; a profound lack of self-awareness.</p>
tomrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14840757143559617554noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3686367864250239822.post-13521025151425834742016-11-24T07:43:00.001+00:002016-11-24T09:11:32.930+00:00Speaking Out Against Your Thousands<p dir="ltr"><b><i>"Officials at North Park University say a student by the name of Taylor Volk is no longer enrolled there after an investigation determined her alleged receipt of Trump-inspired hate messages to be a total fabrication."</i></b></p>
<p dir="ltr">For each <a href="https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2016/11/npu-fabricating-story-trump/">fabricated story</a> the left churn out to prove their case ruins the legitimacy of a <u>dozen</u> genuine stories, whether hate crimes, homophobia or islamophobia or climate science.</p>
<p dir="ltr">You need but look at Brexit to see this; there were real examples of racism and abuse that had clearly fomented during the campaign but who could take any seriously when you had every slight and gloat reported as abuse to the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37266636">police</a>.</p>
<p dir="ltr">A pliant, client media was busy telling us the Leave campaign was a racists' paradise, whilst giving a platform to every lunatic trot who claimed unintelligently that a rise in national pride equaled fascism, with little understanding in either; it has consistently blamed all ills that beset this country on us saying no to a defunct and pointless technocracy; all the while ignoring the uncomfortable fact that nigh on EVERY doom scenario predicted by Remain has stubbornly refused to come to pass.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Most galling has been the persistent passing of every positive bit of business or economic news as being unrelated to any political momentum of Leave #DespiteBrexit, and forcing the same boring conversation and polished turds of arguments to be replaced in a vain hope this might magically make us all change our minds on something that hasn't happened yet.</p>
<p dir="ltr">And they wonder why noone takes them seriously.</p>
tomrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14840757143559617554noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3686367864250239822.post-18569602519606175452016-11-16T01:22:00.001+00:002016-11-16T01:24:24.411+00:00On The Paradox of the USA's Electoral College System And Brexit<p dir="ltr">The New York post has an interesting article on the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/15/in-defense-of-the-electoral-college/">Electoral College system</a>, it's inherent flaws and advantages; it's a good read, but I dont think it addresses a more primordial problem with the establishment in general.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Here's the paradox I see at the heart of the electoral college conundrum: say for a minute we ignore the now mounting reports of Vote rigging, the illegal immigrants voting in the election and vote machine code tampering potentially mounting into the millions it was a closely run thing with perhaps less than a percentage point or 2 between Clinton and Trump; to my mind this gives neither candidate a mandate for full execution of their manifestos. </p>
<p dir="ltr">That said the electoral colleges gave it overwhelmingly to Trump; how? Simple: some smaller states have an in-built weighting to the value of their college vote - put simply they get more votes between fewer people's meaning targeting specific states who waver but have a larger clout in voter college numbers, even in aggregate, is a winning strategy. </p>
<p dir="ltr">So it's a terrible system sure; however, do you know what would be a worse system, nay, a system that would split America pretty quickly? One in which policy decisions were made by a minor majority of rich states like California, New York and New Hampshire which permeated every aspect of life and identity for every other state. Texas alone would secede within a minute of such a system. </p>
<p dir="ltr">The electoral college is a break on this hegemony and whilst it is a bad one perhaps it stops a more difficult question from needing to be asked: has federalism gone too far in the lives of ordinary Americans? Has state power? If the establishment believes it hasn't (which is what the answer would be if the elites ever manage to take down the electoral college system) I guarantee this questions would re-emerge. </p>
<p dir="ltr">This is the paradox at the heart of Brexit too; so Remainers don't like the Brexit Vote - Too. Fucking. Bad; we played by your rules, tolerated the cheating in promoting your cause at every level and column, put up with the abuse of being called xenophobes, racists and bigots, and still won, and the rules said we left as a country. If you don't like those rules and are moaning about it now, or complaining that Leave'rs were uninformed or that they were lied to necessitating a de-icer reinforces the point; we give too much weight to too few people in our lives and sometimes that means we get answers we don't like. </p>
<p dir="ltr">You get used to it; some Leave'rs have been putting up with that bullshit for nearly 50 years. </p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> <a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Q2qYxLriwos/WCu1DHeJrNI/AAAAAAAAKF8/Nt-jawLzgnY/s1600/Collage%2525202016-11-15%25252013_58_02.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"> <img border="0" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Q2qYxLriwos/WCu1DHeJrNI/AAAAAAAAKF8/Nt-jawLzgnY/s640/Collage%2525202016-11-15%25252013_58_02.jpg"> </a> </div>tomrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14840757143559617554noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3686367864250239822.post-61202506275707822182016-07-05T07:59:00.001+01:002016-07-05T08:13:56.191+01:00Anti-Brexit Breaks It. <p dir="ltr"></p>
<p dir="ltr">https://youtu.be/W0n3TpCLAcg</p>
<p dir="ltr">Here's the thing peeps: I quite like Nigel Farage.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Deep down I don't think I'm alone - he's affable, gregarious and quite likes a pint and has managed to project an air of commonality with the common man that few politicians could match. He is (was) in an enviable position in terms of popularity (sorry but a few agitators reading socialist wanker at a Anti-Brexit rally don't count. For anything).</p>
<p dir="ltr">But here's the thing: we can be disarmed by likeability in a person, in a movement; Farage did more to move UKIP from being an intellectual exercise in liberal conservative thinking to a populist right movement based on superstition and myth surrounding how this country is run and how it is oppressed; he moved it's thinking to a place where it dips it's toe in far left scares about a bourgeois elite that overturns the demos at will and he has capitalised on that in this debate. Simultaneously he has made UKIP as a force in the EU parliament less a principled stance and as corrupt or worse than the rest there; serving little as an actual party as a symbol of rejection - fine if your about to leave, less so if you've been on the take for decades. </p>
<p dir="ltr">All that said Mr. Butler here has made a point not dissimilar to my own before and after the referendum; UKIP will rightly disappear now if we let it - we will still have a relationship with the EU and it's member states but one that isn't mutually abusive and one that is based on comparative advantage and less on mutual loathing. This is a good thing. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Unless we hand UKIP the victory by being proved right by an elites actions, no doubt dressed as the will of the people. </p>
<p dir="ltr">That never works out well, for us plebs and certainly not the elites who thought they knew better; just ask Germany, ask Russia, ask any number of countries that were oppressed along an ideological fault line. </p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> <a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-9eaC8Z_BFEQ/V3teLIFvtfI/AAAAAAAAJNs/1Qs-LhZ_O2A/s1600/sketch-1466364387600.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"> <img border="0" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-9eaC8Z_BFEQ/V3teLIFvtfI/AAAAAAAAJNs/1Qs-LhZ_O2A/s640/sketch-1466364387600.png"> </a> </div>tomrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14840757143559617554noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3686367864250239822.post-84440007043033110152016-06-17T13:13:00.002+01:002016-06-18T09:28:13.093+01:00The Only People Who Won't Benefit From Brexit Are The Political Class, The Far Right And The Far Left<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GcxSO98pmmY/V2PVyLwasPI/AAAAAAAAJEA/qsqeSqYyA7s6W27kGP8rptk0VmxKB06SwCLcB/s1600/Idiots%2Bon%2BParade.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GcxSO98pmmY/V2PVyLwasPI/AAAAAAAAJEA/qsqeSqYyA7s6W27kGP8rptk0VmxKB06SwCLcB/s1600/Idiots%2Bon%2BParade.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Small-minded idiots hijacking a message. Picture from <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3625503/The-neo-Nazi-swastika-breast-Vote-Leave-badge-vest-Holocaust-deniers-EDL-fascists-posing-Kray-twins-grave-violent-thugs-racists-hijacking-Brexit-campaign.html">here</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yesterday my wife came across an unusual sight.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Out shopping at a local Aldi in Leeds, she saw a saloon pulling a handmade ad trailer sporting a Vote Leave logo and a graphic spouting something along the lines of:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><i>"...we want our country back...go home!"</i></b></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sadly she didn't have the presence of mind to take a picture of the car nor the trailer and was as confused as the other customers of Aldi, a major German supermarket chain that has just about made buying our weekly shop a significantly cheaper and less worrisome prospect where I live.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is sad that some people have conflated the Brexit message with that of a racially motivated exercise in ethinic cleansing; worse, it is saddening that many would seek to tar <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/16/mood-ugly-mp-dead-jo-cox">one side of the debate with fault here</a> or claim outrage in exactly the opposite manner than they had for similar events mere days before:</div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The coverage of Michael Adebowale - one of Lee Rigby's killers - did not focus on his history of mental illness. It focused on his ideology.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
— Owen Jones (@OwenJones84) <a href="https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/743705066339590144">June 17, 2016</a></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
This following Owen's walking out of a Sky News Morning Papers Debate in which everyone appeared to agree with him on every point but were apparently breaking some unknown rule about a member of one group owning the right to outrage and language surrounding a sad event in that group (well, assuming you were the <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/06/12/left-chose-islam-gays-now-100-people-killed-maimed-orlando/">right kind of member of that community anyway</a>.)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sadder still, though, is the fact that anyone thinking immigration is just going to stop when we leave is laughably naive and/or mistaken; net EU immigration makes up less than half of all that incoming to the UK: </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/migobs/imagecache/image_main/image/Net%20migration%20by%20nationality_0.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/migobs/imagecache/image_main/image/Net%20migration%20by%20nationality_0.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Taken from <a href="http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/election-2015-briefing-why-do-international-migrants-come-uk">this report</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Migration is great for the UK; we get all these clever migrants schooled and paid for by other member countries who pay into the treasury without having taken out to get them there; unhelpfully, and perhaps with a mere whiff of the conspiracy given how pained the government has been to show the benefits of migration, the number of recipients of UK benefits of any kind are <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/19/how-much-do-eu-migrants-c_n_9272428.html">less than 3%</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What is apparent, as even <a href="http://infacts.org/briefings/the-inflow-european-migration-into-britain/">InFact's admitted in one of their pieces</a>, is that there is an inequality in who benefits from this boon, with NEETs with low educational and skills attainment benefitting the least; further, because of appalling monitoring of abuses of the minimum wage system, housing and countless other social problems brought about by cultural differences between arrivals and natives the effect is to disenfranchise just the sort who will be liking the Britain First facebook page or listening to the likes of the BNP twerps. They will take advantage of what are legitimate concerns on immigration because our political class has objectively failed to. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In many ways the StrongerIn Crowd are right; the problems we see with migration are actually problems with the mediocrity of our own government; however, they perpetrate the myth that with greater reform at an EU level we can some how get past these problems: the short answer to this is that Europe isn't going to change in the way we would like and our <a href="http://peterjnorth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/were-better-friend-to-europe-from.html">remaining is preventing it from changing in the way it wants</a>. Even David Cameron's renegotiation has <a href="https://thescepticisle.com/2016/02/22/camerons-eu-deal-is-a-total-fraud/">no real legal binding</a> and this was backed up with a threat of Brexit.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So what is the answer here? Why Leave if a major motivation behind leaving in the ability to control our borders is unlikely to happen? Smarter people than I have put it <a href="http://leavehq.com/why.aspx">down better</a> but the short answer is simple: options.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Brexit gives us options; we've tried to get our terms from the European member states and commission and we have failed - with a clear majority supporting the right of freedom of movement and continual access to the single market post-Brexit our parliament will likely opt for an EEA agreement and adoption of the whole acquis initially with a view to working through it and replacing where applicable (as per <a href="chrome-extension://padcapdkhelngdelppbbjmkmkfceoikg/content/pdf/viewer/viewer.html?file=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eureferendum.com%2Fdocuments%2Fflexcit.pdf">the plan</a>); EEA states are only obliged to adopt parts of the acquis relating to the single market and even then retain a right of reservation; not obligating themselves to access that part of the market unless business in their country is happy to meet that particular regulatory regimen.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A Brexit doesn't oblige us to adopt "open borders" but "freedom of movement"; as the good Dr North pointed out <a href="http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86103">freedom of movement can mean a variety of things</a>. That said the one thing Brexit doesn't mean is giving in to the Far Right; I am happy to accept the asshole that <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36555996">did this</a> was one such idiot because I don't identify with such a vapid waste of oxygen; and so people understand my mood I would gladly take in 30 refugees escaping genuine life threatening turmoil for every one of these malcontented pond scum that identifies with those folk in the first image, whom I could happily throw into the sea, preferably by trebuchet.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I look forward to 3 things from a Brexit:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ol>
<li>The Mandelson's, Kinnock's and European Union wage-slaves and political claque suddenly becoming unemployed. I particularly look forward to everyone realising there is little point to UKIP post-Brexit and get back to holding our main credible parties to account.</li>
<li>Our own broken parliament coming out of the madness of the last 40 years and having to take responsibility for it's many faults and <a href="http://harrogateagenda.org.uk/">seeing a revitalisation of democracy</a> as a consequence of it's profound stupour. Those in parliament who can will shine and those who cant will be drummed out.</li>
<li>The far right's victory being cut short when they realise they will get <u>none</u> of their desired outcomes from leaving; it will be almost as funny as the look of dismay when none of the doom and gloom of the remain campaign comes to pass.</li>
</ol>
<div>
Few things are sweeter than seeing wrong people proved wrong and put back in their embarrassment holes where they belong.</div>
<br />tomrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14840757143559617554noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3686367864250239822.post-84707150621704721802016-04-06T10:06:00.001+01:002016-04-06T10:06:39.754+01:00Reasons I Am Stup'ed #527<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Xuf6acxmVLc/VwTO4k8HjuI/AAAAAAAAIdo/gFxBY0yHeekwTruLb1WPg2gqTm7TOPE9w/s1600/WhyBrexitIsScrewed.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Xuf6acxmVLc/VwTO4k8HjuI/AAAAAAAAIdo/gFxBY0yHeekwTruLb1WPg2gqTm7TOPE9w/s400/WhyBrexitIsScrewed.jpg" width="272" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I like to think of myself as an enlightened guy who has carefully weighed up the EU referendum question whether to leave or remain over many long years and has heard nothing of substance or value about the remain'derp position that isn't immediately outweighed by that of leaving.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Which is why it came as quite shocking to be called a "RAYSEEST NARTZEE!" out of a student digs' window by a yogurt-weaving sandalista; I'm not racist?! Am I? I don't know I guess the virtue-signalling was oozing out of my very flesh hard enough, just the BO from my corpulent person on what was a long leafletting stint through the streets of student-ville, Leeds*.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That was brought depressingly home to me yesterday when <a href="https://twitter.com/pperrin/status/717295142131118080">this</a> vile and honestly baffling exchange on twitter came about, in which kippers' referred to me as "stupid" and cultish for stating that unravelling decades of ties with the european union would likely be a decadal journey and evolution for both divorcing parties but that a divorce could and should be amicable.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This in their humble opinion was the stupid suggestion.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As compared to their counter suggestion that any withdrawal wishlist should see a push for a GE and a UKIP landslide (no really) and the blocking up of the channel tunnel for use as a "migrant prison"/nuclear waste dump.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The intellectual prowess of these giants was at once pungest as it was noxious, but I am glad to have known it, if not to know what metaphorical windows are for (opening, BTW).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
* = otherwise known as Hyde Park - not the cool one, the Yorkshire one.</div>
tomrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14840757143559617554noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3686367864250239822.post-69866597604365148682015-11-26T10:03:00.001+00:002015-11-26T10:03:31.979+00:00Tax Credits & Welfare: A bite-sized recent history<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Travel/Late_offers/pictures/2015/3/13/1426263341245/George-Osborne-with-despa-009.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Travel/Late_offers/pictures/2015/3/13/1426263341245/George-Osborne-with-despa-009.jpg" height="380" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Osbo yesterday, as a bobby looks on with envy at him showing off his massive crayola box set.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div dir="ltr">
Blair, 1997: we've got some ideas about welfare, thats more than those clowns in the bory's have in any case.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Public, 1997: Let's hear them. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
Public, 2003: we are still waiting; why not raise the threshold in line with inflation?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Brown, 2003: oh right...naw won't do that; I'm gonna take ever increasing piles of your cash and give some back to labour voters in deprived areas who have the time to fill out a convoluted multi-page form stating why you deserve it. I'm also going to increase the budget of HMRC past that of our standing army. I'm sure they'll manage it with the same focus and efficiency they do collecting debts from big business on money owed. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Public, 2003: that sounds like a shit idea. We'll take it. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Brown, May 2010: do you know that increase in tax threshold thing? Let's talk about it...</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Public, May 2010: too late. bye now. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Brown, May 2010: awe...</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Osbo t'Clown, first budget: right then, under duress from my Lib Dumb colleagues who I'm obliged to listen to due to the coalition agreement, here is some more of your money not being taken away in the first place (or as I used to dub it: "my mate Lord Fondleboys champers fund").</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Public: YES! GET IN!</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Osbo T'Clown, 2015 GE: YES! GET IN! Lib Dumbs get in the sea with ya!</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Lib Dumbs, 2015 GE: Awe...</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Public: yeah; Milliband? Really? Urgh...</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Osbo, t'Clown, post-2015 GE: BTW public, I'm taking your tax credits. Peace out (2-fingered victory salute follows as he backs in to heavily fortified #11.)</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Public: like f**k you are.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Osbo t'Clown: pretty much am, but it's OK I'll be raising your tax threshold to meet less than half the drop, so long as you aren't on minimum wage or unemployed or anything you'll be fine. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
Public: like. f**k...</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Cameron: 'hm hum...'</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Osbo t'Clown: apparently I'm not doing that...for now...</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Adam Smith Institute, Oct 2015(and me, pretty much for a decade or longer): why not a <a href="http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-spending/free-market-welfare-the-case-for-a-negative-income-tax/">negative income tax</a>? That way you can abolish your massively convoluted welfare system, abolish the DWP and recognise true hard work and determination in the tax system while remaining a progressive force for good?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Osbo t'Clown: sounds complicated, and I heard reducing government departments somewhere in there, so naw. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Me: but, but, you could <i>abolish an entire government department</i>: the admin savings alone for the DWP's <i><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spending">£170Bn</a> budget</i> would be enough to give everyone a massive tax break; with all benefits folded into a simplified tax system the poorest would get a great deal too, all with fewer wage-takers needed!</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Obso t'Clown: yeah. still no.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Me, pretty much continually: cretins, the lot of ye'.</div>
tomrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14840757143559617554noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3686367864250239822.post-24417981448951772272015-10-07T10:51:00.002+01:002015-10-07T10:52:34.426+01:00The Derpuous Circle<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/06/of-course-bahar-mustafa-should-have-been-arrested-for-her-killallwhitemen-antics/">...and then there's this cleft.</a> (Raheem, not Bahar, who has been summarily dealt with <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/06/bahar-mustafa-should-never-have-been-arrested-for-tweeting/">elsewhere</a>)<br />
<br />
No one is for a minute saying this daft bint shouldn't be hoisted upon her own petard (a term historically related to the misfiring of seige munitions used to destroy rampart defences in revolutionary France, killing the ordinance man in the process), only that the banal, asinine assertions of her ilk are really starting to be shown for what they are: banal, asinine assertions, espoused by losers and maybe the rules designed to protect us all from incendiary calls to arms are a little overzealous.<br />
<br />
I would rather have hate speach, racism and unsavoury types espousing all kinds of things in plain site so that we can easily tag and manage them, either through intelligence or through...intelligence. The number of losers on the web following this kind of idiot are VANISHINGLY small and mainly promoted by an echochamber of idiocy on social media designed to echo sentiments of such losers (I'm looking at you Twitter); we never see the very quick and powerful dispatch of their stupid ideas post-utterance but they are there, convincing the likes of joe-public to do the right thing, ditch their twitter ribbons and unfollow these cretins.tomrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14840757143559617554noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3686367864250239822.post-45056486266270043772015-09-01T13:58:00.000+01:002015-09-01T13:58:10.164+01:00No Little Man<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/01/the-no-campaign-needs-a-bbc-watchdog-operation-and-a-bias-hotline/">This</a> was not a hatchet job of Farage - Sarah Montague quite fairly asked if Suzanne Evans was right in her belief that Farage was viewed as a divisive figure in politics; he then went on to moan about the landslide european election win in which UKIP convinced less than 1 in 10 of the available voting public to back his party in milking the eurestablishment teat for another 5 years and just how horrible the Bory's really area.<br />
<br />
Having wrong-footed the entirety of the last election and the concomitant public opinion and with a little under 2 years to go he now goes on to claim that UKIP are planning on doing...."something, something, something...migrants are bad...we will wholeheartedly support...one of the candidate organisation to lead the #EUNo campaign" (or the <a href="http://order-order.com/2015/09/01/so-its-a-no-know/">"leave" campaign</a> as it will now be known). Could he be more specific about who he wants to lead the leave campaign? "I haven't the foggiest"... I'm not convinced and I doubt anymore than the 1 in 10 will be too.<br />
<br />
Now Master Kassam is now wrong-footing what needs to happen to "thwart" bad press with a BBC "watchdog" and a "bias hotline"; rather than address reasonable criticism yet again proving that the only thing worth reading on Not-so-Breitbart is <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/author/milo-yiannopoulos/">Nero</a>. His entire rhetoric is akin to my 6 year old daughter complaining that her cheeky 3 year old sister punched her then ran off; there is little that can be done to prevent a toddler being a sociopathic asshole and less so about thwarting it again in the future when there will inevitably be another ruckus; moaning at your enemies and the hand you are dealt won't solve anything and certainly not win you sympathy where you need it - the voting public. It just enforces the view of a bully picking on a whinging child, and by the time it is dealt with, if it ever is, the campaign will be long over,<br />
<br />
As has been pointed out elsewhere, ad nauseum, <a href="http://peterjnorth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/brexit-winning-strategy.html">the winning strategy will be to take the high ground</a>; to appear less crazy than the opposition and laugh off their criticism and their overzealous focus on the minutiae of boring statistical and fiscal arguments; you aren't marching to New Jerusalem, you are marching to the door of a customs union and a place on stage of a wider global world. A strategy of whinging and voyeuristic obsession with bias in an organisation known for it's bias will help not one jot; laughing your ass off when the "stay" opponents for a seat at the kiddies table of Little Europe when you point out you want your rightful place with the adults as Global Britain is a winning strategy; looking conciliatory when they warm up the tired old 80s trope about "fax democracy" Britain and you point out that as one of the biggest economies in the world we would be doing the faxing, if we weren't already on email having thrown the fax machine along with all the spice girls CDs and global technicolor tshirts in the shed.<br />
<br />
So can we please stop this?tomrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14840757143559617554noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3686367864250239822.post-20073044159318143782014-11-03T12:56:00.003+00:002014-11-03T12:56:49.700+00:00I don't quite, really get this, no sirree.I fail to see what has actually happened <a href="http://metro.co.uk/2014/11/02/nonsense-to-say-schools-must-teach-gay-rights-department-for-educations-bizarre-tweet-4931738/">here </a>but I'm willing to believe it is my naivety:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="embed-twitter" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: ScoutLight, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 20px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 22px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-twttr-rendered="true" style="background: url(http://s2.wp.com/wp-content/themes/vip/metrouk/img/l_quotes.png) 0% 11px no-repeat; border: 0px; color: #666666; float: none; font-family: ScoutBold, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.2; margin: 5px auto; max-width: 320px; min-height: 64px; padding: 10px 10px 10px 53px; quotes: none; vertical-align: baseline;" width="500">
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Nonsense to say schools 'must teach gay rights'. We want schools to teach broad curric based on British values</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
— DfE (@educationgovuk) <a href="https://twitter.com/educationgovuk/status/528892190496686080" style="border: 0px; color: #a34600; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">November 2, 2014</a></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: ScoutBold, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 22px;">The Department for Education has sought to ‘clarify’ its tweet which appears to brand school lessons in gay rights ‘nonsense’.</span></span></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: ScoutBold, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 22px;">The bizarre tweet was posted on the DfE’s official account this afternoon and reads: ‘Nonsense to say schools “must teach gay rights”. We want schools to teach broad curric based on British values.’"</span></blockquote>
</blockquote>
So my reading of this is:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Gay rights aren't a thing because...</li>
<li>...British Values (patent pending) enshrine tolerance of ones own proclivities as long as they don't infringe on another persons...</li>
<li>And British Values (pp) are a required aspect of the curriculum.</li>
</ul>
<div>
This doesn't seem to me to be that controversial; it all appears to have spilt over from <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11173102/Christian-school-downgraded-for-failing-to-invite-an-imam-to-lead-assembly.html">this rank nonsense</a> currently shat out by cast-iron dave and his bunch of chuckleheads.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There is something very wrong with this current tranche of political correctness and I think it comes down to the poor use of words and phrases; perhaps the most important one being "equality" - this appears to have been in place of "inequality" as it is one thing to respect ones proclivities, a/religion or ideology and quite another to claim your own set of proclivities are better.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What is being promoted here is intolerance and inequality before the law.</div>
tomrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14840757143559617554noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3686367864250239822.post-84063097338201917252014-11-03T09:54:00.001+00:002014-11-03T09:54:27.444+00:00I really feel sorry for the mighty midget<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: #eeeecb; color: #333333; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px; text-align: justify;">
<i>"Ask the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner to investigate an MP’s pre-2010 expenses and <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/11204405/MPs-to-escape-expenses-investigations-after-paperwork-destroyed-by-Parliament.html" style="color: #666666;" target="_blank">here</a> is the answer you get:<br />“All records relating to expenses claims before 2010 have now been destroyed. No unredacted information is now available here…”<br />A committee headed by the Bercow has authorised the shredding of all the evidence..."</i></blockquote>
<a href="http://order-order.com/2014/11/03/business-as-usual-bercow-shreds-the-evidence/">The poor guy</a> can't catch a break can he?<br />
<br />
I mean if only there were some way to keep copies of these documents in a non-corporeal form which would only take up a byte-sized (sorry I slipped - I mean "bitesized", stupid typing-me) amount of space in his office - you know, like an extremely portable document format (lets call it a "pdf" for short), which he could keep on a tiny filing cabinet, perhaps disk shaped that you just need to put some electricity through to open, or "drive" it to open (lets abbreviate that to a "hard disk drive" for short).<br />
<br />
The worst of it is that this would almost certainly be illegal for a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/employer-reporting-expenses-benefits/record-keeping">business to do</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
You must keep a record of all expenses and benefits you provide to your employees.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Your records need to show that you’ve reported accurately and your end-of-year forms are correct.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Now HMRC are vague on how long they need businesses to keep the records for (or at least don't explicitly state it on the top shelf) which to me means you should keep it indefinitely, particularly with all the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/9590784/Were-coming-to-get-you-taxman-warns-dodgers.html">tough talk</a> we keep seeing about tax dodging and fiddling. And how about the shareholders, i.e. us? When it became apparent the vast majority of mps' were on the fiddle were we not told this would be investigated? Who investigated it? If this were a business this would be done by an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_auditor">external audit</a> service who wouldn't sign off on the accounts unless they were kosher.<br />
<br />
We clearly never got that; and I think we should start seeing the accounts ourselves.tomrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14840757143559617554noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3686367864250239822.post-67611763522480621882014-10-17T09:27:00.001+01:002014-10-17T09:27:47.745+01:00<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vv8lnD_JKoQ/VEDRLjYi7sI/AAAAAAAAEdA/T421kLxHxEU/s1600/hand-drawn-matron-illustration-35042291.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vv8lnD_JKoQ/VEDRLjYi7sI/AAAAAAAAEdA/T421kLxHxEU/s1600/hand-drawn-matron-illustration-35042291.jpg" height="320" width="307" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Angel Eagle, yesterday</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<a href="http://order-order.com/2014/10/17/eagle-crash-landed-watch-question-time-audience-turn-on-labour-over-freud/">This is hilarious</a>; never liked Angela Eagle; she has all the charisma of a particularly snotty head mistress or carry-on Matron without the mirth.<br />
<br />
I'm certain people will realise my position on this but here it goes for clarities sake; Lord Freud was clumsily making the point that wages are a *cost* to employers and that cost has to be met by the value of that persons production and, sad as it is, with productivity improvements brought about by innovation and an increasingly sophisticated workplace people who can't grasp this struggle, being severely disabled more so.<br />
<br />
What Lord Freud was alluding to was making it easier for disabled people to get into work by making their hiring cheaper for employers; personally given the sheer scale of the problem with NEETs in this country and chronic unemployment we should abolish the minimum wage altogether and change welfare to a 2-tier negative income tax system: first tier to prevent anyone starving in the streets (say welfare risings to £13k in line with the cost of living calculations the Joseph Rowntree calculations) and the second working tier where guaranteed income rises to £16k depending on hours worked (say £16k window at 30 hours/week) before further income is taxable. You could make work more profitable and worklessness bearable and you could quickly give people the life skills they are(<i>/were</i>) so critically under prepared by schools for.<br />
<br />
This actually underlines the different between the statist and liberal left here and which camp most of New Labourious' useful idiots are in; they are happy to mutter about what <i>should</i> happen ("employers <i>should</i> pay the minimum wage") rather than what <i>could</i> happen ("employers struggle to pay minimum wage, but the state <i>could</i> top it up and redistribute the cost"). I'm more in the could camp.tomrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14840757143559617554noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3686367864250239822.post-77754918170695450502014-10-10T11:06:00.003+01:002014-10-10T11:07:05.498+01:00Yes, but is it a swing?I have a lot of respect for Dougy Carswell; many moons ago he took me to task for challenging Bory policy before I had thoroughly read through the proposals, teaching me to be humble and try to get a rounded view on subjects outside of my normal sphere of knowledge. <a href="http://order-order.com/2014/10/10/your-by-election-results-in-full/">Its good to see a man returned to power and not a party</a>.<br />
<br />
But how big a swing is this to UKIP? A cursory glance at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clacton_(UK_Parliament_constituency)">wiki page for Clacton</a> as a parliamentary constituency shows that Dougy Carswells' victory in 2010 as a bory candidate on a turnout of 64.2% of the electorate meant that a little under 1 in 3 people actively wanted him in power: 34% to be exact with Labour trailing at over half that at 16%; almost certainly a decisive vote against the Brown Gorgon.<br />
<br />
This by-election however, assuming turnout numbers are roughly comparative, saw only 52.6%, meaning his win of 59.7% of this number amounts to 31.4%, a drop in the numbers actively voting.<br />
<br />
I don't think we are seeing a dramatic turning on the Bory's or ship jumping to UKIP; I think we are ultimately seeing a good man returned to Parliament <i>in spite</i> of his party and not because, as many UKIPpers and the MSM believe; on this I think I concur with the good <a href="http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=85242">Dr. North</a>.tomrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14840757143559617554noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3686367864250239822.post-14262018564094863542014-09-27T10:43:00.001+01:002014-09-27T10:43:26.065+01:00Elderly CarelessA colleague on fb writes about the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2770156/More-100-elderly-week-having-properties-seized-pay-care-home-fees.html">following issue</a> and I can't help but have mixed feelings about it, namely:<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Having had years to plan all this why have the elderly not been planning for retirement? I'm willing to believe this is down to innumerable socialist governments writing cheques with their mouth that the electorate refused to cash or that they simply felt they would be dead before they lived to need their arse wiping by someone else.</li>
<li>Is this the last 2-fingered victory salute of the post-war babyboomers? Having picked the cupboard clean for future generations are they now trying to bloc-vote a government into sticking us for more cash? In which case I have little sympathy for their "plight".</li>
</ul>
<div>
But all that aside their is an element of sympathy; having paid in for years and had the rug pulled out from under them and the deal changed on retirement funding and resources I can't help but feel for their upset and that of future generations who won't be treated quite so well, given the young to old ratio is dropping, prices are rising and sympathy for the elderly is dropping. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
But why is elderly care so expensive?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
My mother, after her divorce and not young herself (bad side of 50), got a job as an estate manager of a private, high-end retirement home; one where a small flat in sheltered accomadation went to rich southerners for £100k or more with top up "fees" for "care" services of around £10k a year, and that was before nursing costs and similar, which was all bought in externally.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
These flats were state of the art; solar panelling, hyper-efficient ground boilers and similar to reduce the overall cost of these flats to practically nothing, at least in comparison to the other fees levied.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And this is what bothers me: the company that ran these flats <i>went bust</i>; about 18 months before my mother left they went into administration and were bought up by another company - the reason my mum left was because this company cut services to the bone (not prices though, of course) and tried to put her in charge of 3 sites across Leeds; a 50 year old woman traversing Leeds, putting site wheelie bins out because they've cut the janitorial staff and fixing blockages because the company plumber is on reduced hours resulted in her being injured and bounced out.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Myself I temped as an admin at a home management centre for people with learning and physical disabilities; my boss ran the centre and was nearly in tears by the end of it due to the complete ineptitude of staff and there complete lack of dedication, their constant calling in sick and complete lack of concern for their charges.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So this is what I know: care, no matter which way you play it, public or private, care is badly managed or badly resourced or both; you can't square this circle in this country for some reason and perhaps this is down to our panic at frailty and vulnerability. Who knows.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What to do? I have a cunning plan: outsource the whole lot; I reckon there would be an awful lot of money to be made and jobs to be offered just simply moving elderly care to Portugal, Greece or Spain in sheltered, guarded estates given how cheap properly and how high unemployment is currently; a few years on a med diet to see out your twilight years and happy relatives using the opportunity to get a few grappas and relax in the sun while visiting their granny. Heck I reckon you could leverage greek or spanish debt to annex a coastal island for them.</div>
tomrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14840757143559617554noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3686367864250239822.post-36274713537312648882014-09-22T09:46:00.002+01:002014-09-22T09:46:12.434+01:00Addressing the constitutional clusterf**k to come<div style="text-align: justify;">
A friend on facebook decries <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11111632/Ed-Miliband-rejects-plans-to-stop-Scottish-MPs-voting-on-English-laws.html">a turkey objecting to Christmas</a>:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="secondPar" style="background-color: white; color: #282828; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 10px;">
<div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em; text-align: justify;">
<i>Ed Miliband has rejected David Cameron’s call to prevent Scottish MPs voting on English-only issues in Parliament, despite appearing to accept that the current system is unfair.</i></div>
</div>
<div class="thirdPar" style="background-color: white; color: #282828; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 10px;">
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That friend describes this call for an English parliament and the erosion of responsibilities to English-only MEPs as a thing we should celebrate as it will mean fewer Labour governments and that this is the means to that end.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On this point I disagree with the principle.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Elsewhere Norman Tebbit, a man who is coming into his credit more and and more each year in my opinion writes the following:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>It is extraordinary that after 300 years of successful constitutional political development during which the United Kingdom achieved unparallelled military, scientific, industrial, social and political progress (including the world's finest civil service), it has almost all been vandalised in a few decades of "progressive" politics and modernisation.</i></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Which, again, I disagree with on principle, for similar reasons.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Following 11 years of Margaret Thatcher and tory government we had the odious Major years which were, lets call it what is was, a generation-busting event for the Bory party, ultimately responsible for Blair's "popularity" - less Blair being popular (not as much as his ego led him to believe) but about the Bory's being more unpopular; the giant douche being a better option to an increasingly stinky and corn-filled turd sandwich as <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0dCQnhZFYg">Southpark so expertly put it</a> (I think any political cheerleader of any colour needs to <u>watch this episode</u> before making any kind of defence of the current establishment).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the latter years of the Brown government we saw just how potent this effect was when a blair-lite Cameron failed to win a majority against the worst prime minister in history (couldn't win on "popular" terms, couldn't win on "cuddly-Bory" ones either).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Any constitutional convention can be bent to the will of the strongest political pressure or mob rule; what separates the better ones is how labile and flexible they are and how irresistibly even-handed they are; doing unto others as the constitution says you'd have done to yourself is difficult to argue against.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So no I don't believe this is a means to a Labour government-end in England - Lord knows the Major years and our current "Bory" lot are proof that it largely doesn't matter which turd is in charge; putting this down as a way of installing a conservative autocracy is wrong headed in the highest and will probably mean whatever constitutional convention we ultimately get will be skewed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We need to reassert the <i>kracy (power) </i>of the <i>demos (people)</i> as a whole through this and that means ignoring such calls for Bory english rule.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Why not try pushing our representatives to adopt <a href="http://harrogateagenda.org.uk/">this</a>?</div>
Tomrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15442487511149915434noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3686367864250239822.post-16342251861499946542014-09-20T13:08:00.001+01:002014-09-20T13:44:46.288+01:00And it comes to pass; the wife is back. <p dir="ltr">So the choice is made and the wife is back on her terms and the husband is left a hollow version of himself. </p>
<p dir="ltr">And the commentary is  <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/20/In-the-View-of-the-Political-Class-Voting-No-to-Radical-Change-Is-a-Demand-for-Radical-Change">palpably vitriolic</a>.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><i><b>" </b></i><i><b>Gordon Brown, who has never ceased to regard himself as the rightful Prime Minister of Britain, scribbled a revolution on the back of a fag packet and decreed its implementation. How many people voted No because of the seductive dog's dinner of half-baked pledges offered as "The Vow"? Perhaps 100,000? Be generous and suppose it was 200,000. Possibly it was hardly anyone."</b></i></p>
<p dir="ltr">None of which I can disagree with; sadly, none of this matters and I'll tell you why.</p>
<p dir="ltr">We are a country served by minority government, returned on a minority mandate in league with a foreign invasionary force from Brussels; it does not care about the electorates thoughts or concerns, only for whatever its focus groups and the media tells it, insulated in its own little bubble and protected against a defanged and divided public by an increasingly unresponsive but violent police state. </p>
<p dir="ltr">And noone you select at the next GE will do anything about this state of affairs. </p>
<p dir="ltr">The choice is between:<br>
- A turd with a blue rosette,<br>
- A turd with a red rosette,<br>
- A turd with a yellow rosette,<br>
- The narky teaboy farage who couldn't find his are with both hands and will be establishmentised before the end of his first week in power. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Any way you play it you are voting for the continuity party of the civil service; an EU Corp. Puppet organisation with a now transparently thin veneer of democracy covering it. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Come the general election the only logical choice on the ballot is to spoil it; we won't get real change by selecting the anachronistic bubble dwellers repeatedly. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Then, with any luck, we can push for <a href="http://harrogateagenda.org.uk">real change for the better</a>. </p>
Tomrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15442487511149915434noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3686367864250239822.post-86679720598953886792014-09-19T01:06:00.001+01:002014-09-19T01:06:36.631+01:00Scotland, the WifeImagine your married.<br /><br />You've been married for a long time; you cannot remember a time before it, though you have books and photos telling you such a time existed, and you can't imagine the situation ever changing.<br /><br />Then one day you arrive home and your wife says she wants a separation, "to find herself". You reluctantly concede, and she moves out.<br /><br />Years pass with occasional hopeful meetings, longing glances from both parties and even occasional brushes of affection.<br /><br />Then she tells you she is considering a divorce, to go her own way wholeheartedly. <br /><br />You, stricken, tell her you don't want that, that whatever your problems, your history, we can work it out.<br /><br />Again she says she is considering divorce but hasn't made up her mind. <br /><br />In despair you ask her has there been someone else; she tells you she has had several flings but nothing lasting<br /><br />In desperation you tell her you don't care about the others, that you love her and want things to work. <br /><br />She says she can't go on on what you give her to live on. <br /><br />You promise her more.<br /><br />That she wants to be free to see other people.<br /><br />You eagerly agree. <br /><br />That she wants to have a say on who you see and what you spend money on.<br /><br />Confused, but hysterical with grief and anxiety you agree.<br /><br />You both return home to separate rooms.<br /><br />She's home, but somewhere on that road back you lost something important.<br /><br /><a target="_blank" href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100286613/scottish-independence-the-union-wasnt-strong-enough-to-withstand-one-rogue-poll/">Your self respect. </a><br /><br />And you can barely look your children, your friends or your colleagues in the eye.<br /><br /><br />Tomrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15442487511149915434noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3686367864250239822.post-45735685840455732592014-09-10T12:46:00.001+01:002014-09-10T12:46:39.763+01:00Forget #indyref; what does this mean for the EU? <p dir="ltr">Why are people surprised at our political establishment and it's army of civil servants failing to create a Plan Y? Accounting for every eventuality and possible outcome requires a certain finesse and creativity that is sorely lacking in the Bubble. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Still it is fun to see this all play out, with an almost chronic failing of attention on the EU implications. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Taking the lead from this <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/10/Will-Scottish-Independence-Be-Like-Break-Up-of-Soviet-Union">Breitbart article</a> we see a potentially devastating vision presented on a scale of soviet disintegration - but this isn't just of the UK but of the EU. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Say Scotland does leave and immediately applies to join the EU; that whole process takes several years of worming through the bureaucratic miasma in Brussels.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Then in the interim we see Catalonia and Basque regions in Spain opt for independence.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Then parts of Germany. </p>
<p dir="ltr">And Hungary. </p>
<p dir="ltr">And Islamic State(tm) annexes part of Turkey, scuppering further integration completely. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Then it becomes necessary to set up border controls with a non-covered Shengen-agreement non-EU state on our northern border. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Then in the offshoot Spanish territories. </p>
<p dir="ltr">This all rolls into an even bigger trade miasma with non-EU or even EEC-recognised states within central Europe. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Let's assume Cameron is still there (ha!)- do you really think his "renegotiation" ploy will get very far?</p>
<p dir="ltr">Me neither. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Scotland marks the beginning of the end for the EU as is; events are rapidly out-competing procedure and crisis management for it to survive. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Interesting days. </p>
Tomrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15442487511149915434noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3686367864250239822.post-81481802455647155382014-03-02T23:39:00.001+00:002014-03-02T23:39:12.661+00:00Benefits StreetWill be making updates to this POS blog site in the coming days (maybe) and will no doubt come up with an excuse as to where I've been for over a year and a bit (potential answers can be found in the fourth list down <a target="_blank" href="http://bubblegun.com/topten/index.html">here</a> - not saying they're true or anything...)<br /><br />I may even try to mutter cogently about the changes I've made, for good or ill.<br /><br />Until then - Benefits Street.<br /><br />I just finished watching 'Benefits Street: The Debate' and it's precursor aftermath ephemera; admittedly I only watched about half the episodes as I had assignments (more on that later) and note the following:<br /><br /><blockquote><i>1. Nearly every single person pleading extreme poverty smoked; a habit I gave up because I preferred the alternative vice of getting laid which was severely impaired by said habit as Mrs. Jerubbaal wasn't a fan.<br /><br />2. Several of the most hard up, at-evictions-(their own front?)-door seemed to have cash for widescreen tv's, sound systems, smartphones and sky, which is, you know, weird.<br /><br />3. The education system of the past 3 decades has not covered itself in grace.<br /><br />4. Smoggy deserves a medal; he's a modern Marks, making life a little more bearable for hundreds; as such he's likely to be chased down and bled over hot coals by Osborne the Clown as I find it hard to believe there wasn't a little tax dodging going on somewhere there. </i></blockquote><br /><br />All in all I liked it; it illustrated to me some of the main problems with the poorest in our nation being more closely linked to a failure to aspire to anything beyond the merry jig they did for they benefits which could be taken at a whim. The debate post show was especially interesting in that the following was pointed out:<br /> <blockquote><i>a. The vast majority of the welfare bill does <ins>not</ins> get spent on a lazy, feckless underclass but on pensions for the elderly and the actual system itself; I'm not sure what the difference was from the perceived but it is of a rather embarrassing magnitude (and a point that was definitely conceded to Medhi Hasan and Owen Jones judging by the feeling in the audience.<br /><br />b. The benefits system is largely about sustaining the benefits system; it is unbelievably pointed towards punishing anyone veering out of the predefined routes for welfare dependency or initiative (call it fraud if you will; I don't think its fair in the case of people like Smoggy with his entrepreneurialism or White Dee and her advocacy. </i></blockquote><br /><br />So with all that said here is my solution for when I become supreme ruler of the world/UK: <br /><br /><b>1. Make it easier to come on and off benefits: having known several people who have had to suffer through several weeks of no cash flow due to the sheer idiotic beuracracy of the whole welfare system, it is easy to see why so many fall prey to money lenders and fraud just to make ends meet. We should implement a zero base policy, firing everyone involved in its current asinine intransigence and building a system which puts people, not the state, first in queue for other peoples money.<br />2. Raise the income tax threshold, remove minimum wage requirements, introduce a negative income tax and link it inversely to corporation tax/business rates: simply put let people keep more of their money, let businesses hire more people for what they can attract them for and make business compete through higher wage allocations by lowering the burden on them; doesn't matter how this falls exactly but you could reduce the tax/NI take from SMEs and take out the inbuilt advantage for larger firms a national minimum wage gives them over smaller interlopers.<br />3. Taper benefits so the loss of them isn't as painful when someone does find work: joining the world of work is painful, never more so when you were just getting your beer vouchers for free - can we really not find a medium between the 2 administered by people rather than form?<br />4. Recognise the biggest welfare recipient is...the state: given government borrowing is by far the largest impasse for business growth in the UK we need Osbo the Clown to step up his plans for reducing the overspend and demand lower taxes/no taxes on the poorest - the best way to see money flooding the poorest is to increase <i>the velocity of money</i> which means we need less of the state sitting on it.</b><br /><br />In any case this goes beyond the old libertarian tropes for benefits and we need an adult conversation as such. <br />Tomrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15442487511149915434noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3686367864250239822.post-1329740235675799472014-02-25T22:27:00.001+00:002014-02-25T22:27:51.649+00:00Ok, Let's Try This All Again...<br /><br />Tomrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15442487511149915434noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3686367864250239822.post-82354671621861897672013-01-14T10:57:00.001+00:002013-01-14T10:57:15.829+00:00New Year #FacePalm<br /><br /><center><a href='https://picasaweb.google.com/113003328072366598415/JerubBaalSSpleenVent?authkey=Gv1sRgCJzf0bu7lNj7xwE#5833257212611686050'><img src='https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-j1m871I7JM0/UPPkh2k0bqI/AAAAAAAAAH0/Fc1IZogyN4w/s288/10.jpg' border='0' width='247' height='281' style='margin:5px'></a></center><br />Good one to start the new year in this mornings Metro (apologies for resolution; trying to take a picture on a moving bus of a thin page is tricky). Moaning about MP salaries whilst you earn nearly 40% above the average wage in this country <i>sucking on the exact same teat as the rest of us</i> is a little presumptive of sympathy right. <br /><br />FFS you earn twice what I do in the private sector. <br /><br />My thoughts? Last year I said we should give MPs the ability to moot their own compensation to their constituents at the ballot box who would then be directly liable to pay for them via a council tax levy; stick your desired salary on the ballot paper then convince potential constituents at hustings and hitting the streets. Simples. <br />Tomrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15442487511149915434noreply@blogger.com0