The EU Datasbase - Are you going to get a place on it?

Via DK, I see that Raewald has a list of the offences that could get you dumped on the EU database of "subversives." The list itself makes for eye-opening reading, but I'd just like to point out two of the things on the list that have my eyes wide open with both incredulity and fear:

Insult of the State, Nation or State symbols
Insult or resistance to a representative of public authority

Insult to the state or the state's representatives? Surely that is the sign of a healthy democracy, rather than being something that should have you listed as a subversive? Holy Mother of Fuck, the contents of this blog would probably have me listed as a subversive and, as we all know, any state that has a lits of subversives is not going to tolerate those subversives for long.

And just go look at the list, and see where you might fit onto the list. Another favourite of mine: "Prohibition from frequenting some places". That could mean being barred from a frigging pub by an awkward publican!

There are caveats attached to the list, as is pointed out in the comments on DK's place. But fucking hell, any organisation that is pulling together a database of subversives should be a massive concern to its citizens. And this should be a warning to any politician who blindly accepts the EU status quo. It needs to be resisted - even if by doing so, you end up on the database of subversives.

Print Away!

The government may be poised, as part of their brave battle against the economic downturn, to print more money.

Good on 'em, I say.

Seriously, ignore the naysayers and doom-mongerers. Ignore those who would call our great Chancellor and even greater Prime Minister economic fucktards of the highest order. Ignore those who would say that this sort of policy was discredited years ago, and is also the economic backbone of Mugabe's politics. And definitely ignore the "do nothing" brigade. They're the worst of the lost. They helped cause this crisis. What with their focus on saving money, and not borrowing to the hilt and way beyond their own means.

The government is absolutely right to print more money. How else are they going to be able to part-nationalise the financial sector, and fund pointless tax cuts? These things don't come for free, y'know! And this crisis can be stopped, if we just shut up and let the government spend, spend, spend!

And to show my support for the government, I'm going to go stock up on tinned goods. And watch as Britain finally crumbles into the dust, and we're left with a broken economy, broken society, and broken country.

The Stamp Duty Farce

Fresh from his guest star billing at the Angry Baby Man's blog, The Moai has sent a couple of interesting links to me. To quote one of them:

'..Estate agents suggested yesterday that buyers might step away from sales amid the uncertainty over stamp duty, stalling the market between now and when any such decision is taken, which could be as late as October...'

The Moai says: It astonishes me that, through dithering, GB's govt is making things even worse, even when they try to help.... can they get ANYTHING right?

Any regular readers will know my answer to that question. No.

But seriously, just how fucking dumb is this government and the badger faced turd who represents it? I posted yesterday about how this policy probably won't work - now it becomes clear that not only might it not work, but it is actually fucking up the very market it is trying to help. Fuck me, how fucking stupid is that?

To say this government is incompetent is a massive, massive understatement. They are the shittest government in living memory; the very definition of utter crap. We would literally be better off with having a brain dead person as Chancellor. A brain dead person cannot, by very definition, do anything. Whereas Darling can - and with his inverted Midas touch, everything he goes near turns to absolute shite.

So a plea to Darling, and Brown, and any other cockwad in the Cabinet who is thinking about announcing or implementing a policy - don't do it. In fact, don't do anything. Please, for the sake of the nation, stop doing stuff. Every time you do, it goes wrong. The country will be better off if you stagnate and literally don't do nothing.

And you'd probably be more popular if you do fuck all, as well.

Gordon's Relaunch #5,067,215

Another month, another announcement of a relaunch for Gordon Brown. Man, I thought we were still implementing the last relaunch. And how many relaunches does one man need? There’s probably a whole industry to be built up here – relaunching Gordon Brown. Hundreds – if not thousands – could be employed as relaunch consultants, working hard on making the premier as loved again as he was when he first moved into Number 10; before people realised what an incompetent fuckwit he really is.

Still, this relaunch comes with some practical policies designed the save the failing UK Housing market:

Stamp duty on properties worth up to £250,000 could be suspended as part of an aid package for the housing market that will be central to Gordon Brown's attempt to relaunch his premiership this autumn.

Ministerial sources said the chief aim of any "payment holiday" would be to show the government was on the side of home buyers at a time when property values have slumped and sales stagnated.

Nice, good to know that the government is on the side of home buyers. Slightly worrying that things have deteriorated so much for this government that they have to clarify that they are on the side of the electorate, but there we go. And on paper this looks like a great policy, even though I doubt there has been any attempt by the government to cost it out. However, there is just one problem with this plan. Have you worked out what it is yet? Yep, the problem is the plan is bollocks.

Officials believe, however, that suspending the duty for up to 12 months is unlikely to reverse the housing slump, and may end up proving more symbolic than galvanising.

And how do we know this?

A similar move by John Major in the early 1990s did not have an impact, and did not halt falling property prices.

Great. So both officials and historical precedent show this plan does not work. And, thinking about it, why would it? Stamp duty is just one of the costs involved with moving. Yes, it is a fucking substantial one, but it is still just part of the huge cost of buying a home. And with banks very reluctant to lend money anymore, how exactly are people going to afford to put themselves in a position to need to pay stamp duty?

Furthermore, the economy as a whole seems resolutely fucked, meaning people are going to be less likely to splash out on expensive items like, you know, a new bastard house. The housing market will have to wait until people start to feel some confidence in the economy as a whole. And something that would help regaining that confidence in the economy would be a little less doom-mongering from Brown himself. On the one hand, he is encouraging us to buy property. On the other hand, he is telling us not to waste food because the apocalyptic food shortages. The message is, shall we say, a little “mixed.”

The housing market slipped out of control. It became a feeding frenzy, encouraged in no small measure by institutions offering loans that made little economic sense in the good times, and make no economic sense when the economy faltered.* The housing market will recover, but there is going to be some pain before it does so. And during that period, people will, most likely, stay put. No matter what the government does with stamp duty.

So Gordon’s relaunch is based around a policy that won’t work. Magic. I look forward to his next relaunch in a few weeks time. Which will probably be centred around a plan to find a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

*And we are still bailing out one of those institutions. At a great personal cost to the taxpayer.

42 Days: For Fuck's Sake

So he won. Gordon Brown managed to break his losing streak, and managed to win something. And, Christ help us, it was the vote on 42 days detention. And how did he achieve this? Bribery, of course! This will be the major policy innovation of the Brown years. If there is a problem, if there is a potential defeat, throw money at it. After all, there is a limitless amount of money the government can get if they want it - their source, the taxpayer, is obliged to fund them. As David Davis notes, the government bought the vote after they lost the argument.

But I'm not going to gripe about the government bribing people with the taxpayer's money too much. We should all be fucking used to that by now. Rather, my complaint is against every single fucking MP who managed voted for this. Those Nu Labour whores, the ironically named Democratic Unionists, that short, fat testicle of a woman Anne fucking Widdecombe - they are either brazenly corrupt, staggeringly naive or terrifyingly stupid.

Or, thinking about it, all of the above.

There is no excuse for this; none whatsoever. Parliament has handed yet more power to the state, and this power is wide open to abuse and will, I don't doubt for a second, be abused by someone somewhere some time soon. And the police don't need extra time to interrogate terror suspects - they have foiled enough plots, and caught enough criminals, with the law as it was before this fuck awful new law. If the Libertarian party want a great policy to nail their colours to, then a loud, determined and eloquent call for the repeal of this law would be a great place to start. Hell, if the Tories and the Lib Dems want to seperate themselves from this shitting government, they should stick the repeal of this law into their next election manifestos as well. Fighting this change to the law is not over, and it should be a point of principle for any incoming government to want to reverse this naive, paranoid and dictatorial little policy.

We all wake up this morning to a country that is a little less free, a little less liberal. That is the tragedy, and the ongoing battle will be to stop further erosions of freedom in this country.

Imprisoned for 28 days plus? Here, have a bit of cash

Magic. The vote on 42 days detention is now going to be so tight that the government is doing what it does best: panicking, and throwing money at the problem. From the BBC:

"Under (the compensation plan), any suspect held for more than 28 days and later not charged could receive £3,000 for each extra day in custody"

Brilliant. Because the problem is the money, right? And not that gross invasion of civil liberties caused by being detained for up to 42 days without charge. Yeah, that'll do it: chuck some money at it and hope for the best.

If the total fucktards in the Labour party actually engaged their tiny, flaccid brains for more than 15 seconds and for more than just thinking about their own, grossly inflated, egos then they might see that this policy is being so roundly dismissed because it is a big old bag of sweaty bollocks. People are objecting - no, screaming their objections - at this plan because it attacks civil liberties in this country and attacks our way of life. This isn't like the rebellion on the 10p tax rate - this is about civil liberties, and their slow erosion in this country in the face of a nebulous and contradictory supposed "war on terror".

Compensation plan or no compensation plan - this bill must be defeated today.

42 Days Detention - No. Just.... no.

The vote on 42 days detention will be tight. Which is good - although not as good as it being a landslide against this freedom consuming, ill thought out piece of abject nonsense. Hopefully the Commons will vote against this awful piece of would-be law - not just because it will further embarrass and enfeeble the man in Number 10, but also because it is hysterical nonsense rather than real policy. This isn't a party political issue, it is far more than that. This policy represents a fundamental attack on civil liberties in this country. It must be stopped.

But part of me wonders who actually supports this policy, other than the bitter, paranoid chumps at the head of the broken, compromised Nu Labour hierarchy. It isn't MI5. It isn't even the Labour party. And the sort of celebrities who would normally embrace any Labour policy or politician are also coming out against this policy. So what on earth do Nu Labour think they will achieve by supporting the policy? It is absolutely beyond me.

Whilst I do despise Brown and his cabinet, I actually think they feel they are doing the right thing with this policy. In their pious, holier-than-thou little worlds, they actually believe this policy will save lives. I think they are so scared of a terrorist attack that they have lost all sense of perspective, and will blindly pursue any piece of policy they think will save lives - regardless of the cost in other aspects of British life.

Well, fair enough. They think they are doing the right thing. But they are absolutely, and completely, wrong on all levels. They are blind to the problems of their policies, that much is clear. So it falls to everyone else to point out how crass they are, and that the support of the narrow minded, ignorant Sun reading fools who might back this legislation is not worth the cost of pursuing this idea. Everyone who has opposes this policy should use their voice and shout out their objections, by any means possible. Everyone in Parliament who has a vote should vote against this. They should engage whatever intellect they have, rather than falling foul of the nagging paranoia and air of quiet panic that so consumes the Labour Cabinet both on this issue, and arguably now everything else they do.

It is not so much the case that this policy should be voted down, but rather it must be voted down. Otherwise we sit and watch as our government sleepwalks towards the dystopian nightmare of the film version of V For Vendetta. Or as they re-enact McCarthyism in a way that is both anachronistic or absolutely wrong for any modern democracy.

Policy should be based on pragmatism and intelligence. Not paranoia.

Brown-Bashing: He's On The Phone

You can tell how desperate a politician is getting by the schemes they dream up. Blair was never that desperate, so his policies may have been gently shafting the Great British public, but at least he seldom had to resort to crass gimmicks. The same cannot be said of his successor in Downing Street. Gordon Brown is now so crap – after less than a year in the role – that he now has to embrace lunatic schemes endorsed by PR wankers that put Major’s Cone Hotline in the category of “a very sensible idea that in no way deserves ridicule.”

Look at it this way: most people know that Brown is not the most pleasant person to be around. The talk of tantrums, of sulking, of rages, is all around, but it has seldom been seen into the public arena. And with good reason – knowing for certain that our Prime Minister is a petulant child would further undermine a man who is already grossly compromised. It would seem to be obvious that any PR exercise should involve giving Brown less access to the public, not more.

But no. Via Guido, I see the plan to make Brown appear as a friendly man of the people is to get him to call members of the public who have sent him a letter. In one case, at 6am.

There is only one reason why Gordon should ring any member of the British public, and that is to apologise. In fact, he should ring every member of the British public who did not vote for him* to say sorry for stealing the keys to Number 10. He should sit and listen whilst those members of the public throw whatever abuse they wish to throw at him. Aside from that, Brown shouldn’t be allowed near a phone.

This exercise is a fatuous bag of shite that indicates nothing more than how detached from reality Brown, and those crass, butt-kissing gremlins he surrounds himself with, have become. Leave the PR alone, Gordon, you are shit at it. Focus instead on trying to find a way to solve some of the problems of this country. Failing that, just fuck off.

*Which is, pretty much, the whole of the British population bar the majority of toadying Labour MPs who rubberstamped his effective coup.

They are watching you...

...and will build the database to prove it!

The Moai and I have a recurring joke. Sometimes I will spot a politician who I despise (of which there is no shortage) on a street or in a car somewhere and I will drop him a text, proposing some sort of terrible, yet faintly ludicrous fate, for that politician. He will then send me a text message back, sarcastically thanking me for getting him on a terrorist watch list. I laugh, thinking that is just plain paranoid and would never happen in real life, now, would it?

The answer, sadly, is yes - it could happen. Because, via a wonderful yet alarming post from the ever readable Mr Eugenides, I see the database is already in place to record all those text message (and, whilst we are on the subject, phone records as well). And that database will be extended to incorporate all internet activity as well. And to top it all off, like pouring bum gravy over a pile of shite, the government will now hold all this information, rather than the service provider. Because, you know, the government has done so well at holding information, as David Davis points out:

“Given [ministers’] appalling record at maintaining the integrity of databases holding people’s sensitive data, this could well be more of a threat to our security, than a support.”

However, the most damning comment comes from Jonathan Bamford, who is the assistant Information Commissioner:

“This would give us serious concerns and may well be a step too far. We are not aware of any justification for the State to hold every UK citizen’s phone and internet records. We have real doubts that such a measure can be justified, or is proportionate or desirable. We have warned before that we are sleepwalking into a surveillance society. Holding large collections of data is always risky - the more data that is collected and stored, the bigger the problem when the data is lost, traded or stolen.”

I was going to add emphasis, but let’s be very honest here, every single comment is both relevant, valid, and (for anyone with half a brain cell and a liking for freedom) very, very concerning.

There are so many points to make about his proposal – it is wrong in almost every respect. But the point I want to make is about what this reveals about the mindset of our leaders. If I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt, then I would say that they are being wowed by new technology. Someone has pitched to them a large database, and they have got over-excited. They’ve missed the point, though, that just because we have the technology to do something doesn’t mean they should. After all, we have the technology to blow this planet back into the stone age. But we don’t use it.

However, I don’t think it is the technology involved that is appealing to our government. Oh no, this proposal will give them even more ways to keep tabs on the population. Because they have no respect that the basis of our legal system is “innocent until proven guilty.” Their approach is much more “treat you as guilty just in case you prove yourself to be guilty at some point.” Fundamentally, they assume that you will use your phone, your text messages, the internet for criminal purposes. Even worse, you might use it to undermine them in some way. The people might be sleepwalking into a surveillance culture but the government certainly isn’t. They know exactly what they are doing. They are keeping tabs on you. Because they don’t trust you.

Well, fuck you, Mr Brown et al, I don’t trust you either. And I’ll be showing this at the next election, as my vote will go to the party that is most likely to dismantle, or at least heartily attack, the surveillance state that has grown so rapidly in the 11 years of Nu Labour misrule.

Pledging Allegiance!

Something weird seems to have happened. Somehow we have slipped back to the 1950’s America. Where people pledge allegiance to the flag (well, the queen, but same difference), blindly, like reactionary fools:

“Schoolchildren may have to swear allegiance to the Queen under proposals aimed at promoting British citizenship.”

What if you are not a royalist? Or not a nationalist? Suppose you just want to live quietly in the UK, without pledging allegiance to anyone? Suppose you find pledging allegiance to an out of date institution like the monarchy hopelessly insulting? Yet again, there is no place for the individual in the world of Nu Labour. Even though some reports talk of being encouraged, we all know what “encouraged” means. “Do it or we’ll fuck you up in some way”.

Why, oh why, are they doing this?

“Prime Minister Gordon Brown commissioned Lord Goldsmith to lead a review into a bid to strengthen national identity.”

Let me rewrite that sentence: “Prime Minister Gordon Brown commissioned Lord Goldsmith to lead a review into a bid to strengthen Labour support amongst Sun readers and knuckle faced nationalistic meatheads.” Of course, they are never going to come out with that sort of honesty. But we all know what they’re trying to achieve.

“Last October, a preliminary report published as part of Lord Goldsmith's review said that schoolchildren should take part in the same kind of ceremonies for foreigners taking British nationality.”

So, rather than trying to make young people feel more included, the government is going to lump them in the same category as what Sky News terribly dubs as the “foreigners?” And how is this rule going to be enforced? If someone refuses to pledge allegiance, how will the government stop them from growing up? Massive doses of hormone suppressants? Actually, I’ll stop there. The last thing we need to offer this government is even more fucked up ideas on how to make the population utterly miserable.

“The style and content of the events should be "re-energised", perhaps with a rendition by schoolchildren of the pop song We Are The World - the US version of 1984's Band Aid single - last year's report said.”

We Are The World? You WHAT? I can’t imagine anything more twee. I can’t imagine anything sadder. Anyone attending such an event should be given a sharp knife. So they can rip open their own guts and use their intestines as a noose.

But it gets even worse. Via The Telegraph:

“And a "small" council tax rebate would be available to those who help out in their local neighbourhood. The discount could be earned by organising recycling projects, helping children learn to read in schools, or setting up a residents' association.”

When, precisely, am I going to get the time to do the tedious work involved in getting this rebate? I work full time to get the fucking money to pay the Christing council tax in the first place!

Still, there is some good news:

“A new public holiday could also be introduced to celebrate Britishness, under recommendations being published today.”

Well, I’m all for that. The extra holiday I mean. Watching random skin heads whack the crap out of each other in the nation’s pubs over who loves the Queen the most (from a safe distance) will also be an entertaining way of spending the holiday.

Good Money After Bad

The Tories are going to outspend Labour on the NHS. That's right. The Tories. Outspending Labour. On the NHS.

No doubt there will be those who praise Cameron's vision, and mark this as a turning point in the electoral fortunes of the Tories. Just as Nu Labour appeared to show they were committed to economic stability* by matching Tory spending plans in 1997, so Cameron's Tories are showing themselves to be committed to the public services by throwing money at the NHS.

Just a shame that it is a bullshit policy then, isn't it?

This comment in the Telegraph article is eye-opening:

"Since 2002, Gordon Brown has pumped huge amounts of money into the National Health Service, increasing spending by more than £40 billion in all. Yet critics including many Tories say the increases in spending have not been matched by improvements in care."

Quite. The "many Tories" are right. Nu Labour has poured a fortune into the NHS, and have got no return on investment. The NHS was shafted when they came to power. A decade and billions of pounds later, and it is still shafted. If the Tories are elected, then they could spend a decade and even more billions of pounds, and the NHS would still be shafted. The problem is not the amount of money spent on the health service. It is more the nature of the health service itself.

The NHS is an embarrassing anachronism. It was created to deal with British society in the latter half of the 1940's - over sixty years ago. Even before the end of the Attlee years in Downing Street, the "free at the point of service"** NHS was already having to charge (causing splits in the Labour party even back then.) Now, decades after the health service came into being, we have a bloated, out dated monoply trying to come to terms with medical technologies and levels of population growth that seemed impossible in the 1940's. You can throw as much money as you like at the NHS: it will simply swallow it, and ask for more.

A truly radical policy would be to attack the NHS - to question why we need this (man made) institution at all. Why not at least consider a future where the health concerns of this nation are not tied up with the money pit that is the NHS?

But the Tories would never dream of risking that level of controversy, so we will see exactly the same policies towards the NHS as we did under Nu Labour. Which is to the detriment of both health in this country and the efficiency of the state. And ultimately, whatever the Tories say, the latter will lead to the taxpayer shelling out more.

The very defintion of madness is to do exactly the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. The health policies of both Nu Labour and Cameron's Tories are, therefore, the very definition of madness.

*Cue hollow laughter.
**Just remember, the NHS is not free. It is free at the (generally shitty) point of service. That wodge of cash that the government took from your last pay slip, that is paying for your right to die on a makeshift bed in a corridor in a NHS hospital.

Cosseting Councillors

The BBC reports on an independent Councillors Commission report that will be presented to the government. There are some striking proposals in there. Strikingly bad, unfortunately.

"People voting in local elections could be offered entry to a free lottery under plans to increase turnout"

Right, so now we have to pay people through entrance in a lottery to actually exercise their right to vote. What a depressing state of affairs. How about educating the electorate about the fact that people fought (and, yes, died) for their right to stick an "x" in a box on a ballot paper. People shouldn’t vote because they are going to get rewarded for it. They should vote because they think it is the right thing to do, and they want their voices to be heard. And if they can’t be bothered on those grounds, then f*ck ‘em. They don’t get a vote.

"It also wants "parachute payments" for council leaders who lose their seats - plans apparently opposed by ministers."

And who is proposing these payments for council leaders? Ah, that would be the Councillors Commission. Part of their focus is on getting good pay deals for Councillors. That would make me question their independence, and therefore the relevance of their findings, somewhat.

"Currently, leaders of Britain's biggest town halls, who earn up to £60,000 a year as elected politicians, lose their salaries the day they are voted out of office."

Good. They’ve been voted out. Democracy in action. Let them get on with their lives. Fuck ‘em.

"But the Councillors Commission argues that there should be "parachute payments for elected mayors, leaders and executive portfolio-holders who lose office through the action of the electorate". It recommends the cash payouts should be equivalent to redundancy money and linked to the amount of time in office."

Bollocks. "The action of the electorate" is called democracy. It is what the report is trying to do - get more people to vote! If councillors are losing elections, then they aren’t representing the people well enough. They deserve to lose their payments, not get more money from the electorate who have just told them where to go. Losing an election isn’t equivalent to redundancy. It is the equivalent of being fired.

"It also suggests that some councillors could be able to claim unemployment benefit"

Well, that will *really* help reduce benefit fraud. Sends out *just* the right example if politicians are claiming benefit whilst working!

"But politicians would be prevented from serving more than five terms in office, meaning that hundreds of experienced councillors could be swept out."

Right, so part of the Councillors Commission’s role is to try to get councillors into place. But at the same time they are trying to boot experienced councillors out after five terms. For some reason I am suddenly thinking of the phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face". And as I’ve said before, we have term limits in this country. They are called elections.

"Department for Communities and Local Government spokesman said: "This is a report from an independent commission and therefore does not represent government policy or government proposals. We will respond to the independent report when it is published.""

If the government has an iota of sense it will ignore this crappy report when it is published. However anything relying on Nu Labour having an iota of sense does not fill me with confidence.

Memo to Jacqui Smith

Re: 42 day terror limit proposal

Drop dead, and fuck off whilst you are doing it.

1 in 10 of us was/is barmy

'The NCH defined an "emotionally well" child as one who demonstrated empathy, self-awareness, an ability to manage feelings, motivation and good social skills.'

Has there ever been a teenager who ticks all those boxes? I'm not sure I do now, and I'm 28. How transparent a funding/headline grab is this?

Shop a Work Mate

According to the BBC, the Home Office is looking for co-workers "to tip off police about anyone they believe could commit a violent crime." Warning signs include "heavy drinking, mental health problems or a violent family background."

I'm sorry, what?

How many people are covered off by these parameters? I mean, heavy drinking? By following this policy the police will inundated with calls from concerned colleagues after each and every leaving do and each Christmas party! And you show me the causal link between mental illness and violent family background and violent crime. Oh, wait, you can't. Why? Because there isn't one. Some violent criminals may have mental health problems, some won't. And the mental health problems may not be the reason for the violent behaviour. The same applies to those from a violent family background.

And it is also worth pointing 0ut that, in theory, everyone is capable of committing a violent crime. Everyone. I could turn round and smack the guy sat next to me bang in the side of the head, and he could do the same to me. Unless someone is in a fucking coma, they could, in theory, commit a violent crime.

So where does this stop? And how can untrained co-workers - with any number of personal prejuidices arising from the politics of the work place - make judgments on who is ok and who might be a potentially violent criminal?

Yet another ill-thought, piece of crap policy designed to further reduce our already dwindling civil liberties. All this policy would do is further create a culture of fear in this country - the nasty, dystopian, spying culture that should be restricted to the Soviet Union in the 1930's. Not the United Kingdom in the 21st century.