1. Craig Murray on I Decide to Join the Establishment
2. Biased BBC on Marred By Bias
3. Subrosa on Dimbleby’s Derision
4. Longrider on Lord Help Us
5. Dick Puddlecote on The Maddest Man on the Planet
1. Craig Murray on I Decide to Join the Establishment
2. Biased BBC on Marred By Bias
3. Subrosa on Dimbleby’s Derision
4. Longrider on Lord Help Us
5. Dick Puddlecote on The Maddest Man on the Planet
Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, ventures forth in the Sunday Telegraph today to set out his view that a closer alliance with France will be good for Britain. In doing so he intentionally attempts to mislead the public about the long term direction of Britain’s defence policy.
But his derisory effort to give the impression that Britain’s interests come first, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is worthy of scorn. It is a disgraceful attempt to deceive the British public. If you are not sure what I mean, try to make sense of Fox’s opening sentence:
Too often, the debate on defence within Europe has been focused on what the EU should or should not do. Yet it has always been my view that defence must be a sovereign, and therefore an inter-governmental issue.
The visions are mutally exclusive. You cannot have sovereign defence and make defence an inter-governmental issue. Fox continues:
When nations can benefit from co-operation without losing sovereignty, they should aim to do so – which is why this week will mark the beginning of a long-term commitment to closer defence and security links with France.
This is delusional rubbish. It doesn’t stand up to even cursory scrutiny. Any national defence capability that is dependent on the active cooperation and involvement of another nation before it can be deployed is, by definition, not sovereign. The Fox rationale of ‘cooperation’ being important in saving money is a red herring. The problem with our defence spending has not been the amount spent, but how it has been wasted on the procurement of the wrong equipment, usually at grossly inflated prices.
Let us be clear, Fox is not talking about international cooperation – a good example of which is NATO. Cooperation equates to the sovereign and independent defence capabilities of a number of countries coming together to achieve specific operational goals of mutual interest. What Fox is describing is interdependence – where the military force of a country (in this case Britain) is incapable of acting unilaterally and can only be deployed if another country provides the missing elements required to conduct operations.
This is not good for Britain.
As a number of people commenting on Fox’s Telegraph piece point out, everyone can think of conflicts in recent years where France would have refused to allow its assets to be deployed to enable British operations, because involvement in such actions would have a negative impact on French trade or financial interests. We know that even the closest of friends and allies sometimes oppose actions undertaken in our self interest – America during the Suez crisis anyone? We know that the interests of our friends and allies often conflict with our own wishes – France selling warships to Russia anyone?
But the observations of nearly all the commentators on Fox’s essay fail to make the final step on their journey. For any number of reasons they fail to recognise what the end game really is, perhaps because the destination is such anathema to them they could not conceive our government would work towards such an outcome… namely that defence is being readied to become an EU responsibility.
The goal is that the defence of the United Kingdom will cease to be the sovereign responsibility of the British government and that it will be, at some point in the future, managed by the EU. The goal that the most essential pillar of self determination of a nation state will be removed as a part of the objective of ever closer union on the path to full federal governance from Brussels.
No matter how close our friends and allies might be the United Kingdom absolutely must maintain an independent and sovereign military capability that can be deployed unilaterally to protect this country and defend this country’s interests overseas. Liam Fox, David Cameron, the coalition government and the rest of the political class are not serving Britain’s interests, but serving the wishes of the EU. And yes, the Tories with their weasel words and attempts to wrap themselves in the flag are complicit in this and have actively driven this forward.
Without being melodramatic there is only one word for such behaviour and that is treachery. When are people going to shake themselves out of their slumber and stand up against the dismantling of this country? How fitting it is that the word treachery comes from the Old French trecherie, from trechier, meaning to cheat, compare or trick.
One of the finest undertakings by any blog, the Battle of Britain series of posts by Dr Richard North on EU Referendum, has reached a natural finale today. If you’ve not read the series I wholeheartedly commend it to you.
The series of posts, with at least one published on the anniversary of each of the 114 days of the ‘Battle of Britain’ represents a masterclass in historic research and analysis. It has been a fascinating examination of those events during 1940 and the spin, disinformation and interpretation not only during the war but in the construction of the subsequent narrative.
We have to wait until next September for North’s compilation of the blog posts to be expanded upon and published in book form. But the endeavour promises to be an essential and enjoyable read for anyone with an interest in military history. Congratulations to Dr North on such a magnificent achievement.
1. A Place to Stand hosts the Forth Bridge Scandal
2. Pavlov’s Cat on Too Cynical?
3. Watts Up With That? hosts Disputing The Skeptical Environmentalist
4. English Pensioner on Cameron’s Not a Real Man!
5. The Appalling Strangeness on The Vodafone Protest
One can excuse people who make disparaging remarks about others for whom they have real antipathy – provided the comments relate to the essence of the person’s character, integrity, honesty, ability or similar quality. After all I did just that about David Cameron yesterday.
But one cannot excuse those who engage in namecalling and abusive comments relating to someone’s personal identity or physical attributes. Such actions are the preserve of the mean spirited and the vicious.
Perhaps it is no surprise that Labour’s deputy leader, Harriet Harman, has engaged in such spiteful abuse by describing Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, a ‘ginger rodent’. What has Alexander’s physical attributes got to do with his politics or ability? Attack the man for being deceitful if he is, attack him for being incompetent if he is, but leave his ethnicity, skin colour, hair colour and the things he has no control over out of it.
There is a particularly nasty streak among many of Harman’s fellow travellers in the Labour movement. They have a habit of using a person’s identity or physical characteristics as a key element in the attacks they construct. It tells us a great deal about how their minds work and the depth of the contempt they have for people who deign to disagree with them. Is that really the kind of person we want as part of this country’s supposed leadership?
It’s true! David Martin, the head of the European Union Election Observer Mission also said that:
If democracy wins we all win.
We cannot disagree with that sentiment. However Martin was not speaking of reforming the unaccountable legislative bodies of the European Union to make them democratic, rather he was talking to The Citizen in Tanzania about Sunday’s General Election where EU observers are acting as monitors. It never ceases to amaze me how an entity like the EU can send its bureaucrats around the world pontificating about democracy while its own political structures are themselves fundamentally undemocratic.
However, what is most notable about the interview is the EU’s change of approach to reporting on the conduct of elections they monitor. When asked by The Citizen’s reporter ‘What are the things, which will make you, arrive at a conclusion that the election was/was not free and fair?’ Martin replied:
We do not use the term “free and fair” as these are very subjective terms. What we will judge is the election against well established international norms and ask ‘’did the people get the government they voted for?’’.
Well established international norms have regularly seen monitors benchmark an election by questioning whether an election it was free and fair. The EU’s change of language is a curious development. The EU does not make such changes unless it has a vested interest in doing so. Therefore we should be asking what benefit the EU will derive from this.
1. 13th Spitfire on The EU and our money
2. Archbishop Cranmer on Cameron’s EU betrayal
3. EU Referendum on being Sold Out!
4. Bishop Hill on More workers sacrificed to green god
5. Longrider on Snooping and Forms
The village in question is the self regarding Westminster village. The idiot in question is David Cameron.
The extent of this man’s stupidity and lack of honesty is laid bare by his comments concerning the EU budget, of which he said, get this:
We have succeeded quite spectacularly, we put together a big alliance to stop that juggernaut of 6% in its tracks.
Does this remind you of another British leader who returned from Europe lauding another grand achievement? This ‘spectacular success’ means British taxpayers will have to send around £450m to the EU. If that is considered a success then what in the name of all things holy is the definition of a failure? He genuinely expects us to believe this nonsense and embrace him as a conquering hero rather than what he really is – the impotent figurehead of an EU province sent home with his tail between his legs and carrying a tax demand for nearly half a billion pounds extra per year. Ask yourself:
The man does not live in the real world, the one the rest of us live in. What should really concern taxpayers is something Cameron added to his inane comment. He said he had secured an agreement that from now on the EU budget:
[…] will reflect the spending cuts being made by national governments.
This is, I think, incredibly important, it will have a direct impact on the pocket of the UK taxpayer back at home. It is a significant prize.
Two points here. First, UK public sector expenditure is rising by £43bn between now and 2015, so Cameron is signalling his acceptance of further increases in the sums that will be demanded by the EU. It really will have a direct impact on our pockets, we will be paying even more. Second, to describe the manner of the confiscation of our tax pounds by the EU as a ‘significant prize’ demonstrates our political power within the structures of the EU. It is like saying that instead of being stabbed to death our assailant has kindly agreed to beat us to death with a brick instead. Some prize.
On this blog I’m not usually given to using profane language. However please forgive me for making an exception on this post. David Cameron is a shit for brains, spineless, lying, quisling bastard, devoid of any integrity and possessing a character that makes a plague infested rat skulking in a sewer seem respectable in comparison. I wish he and the rest of the charlatan political class would just fuck off.
Update: The Boiling Frog is equally unimpressed and asks the question answered above, ‘Is This Man Stupid’? Frog goes on to share the interesting comments of German MEP Martin Schulz and an unnamed European Commission official, who both pour scorn on Cameron’s claims that a deal has been done.
Expert meterologist Joe Bastardi uses his Accuweather.com European weather blog this week to remind people about NASA’s global warming narrative and its predictions for Arctic Sea Ice cover, made in 2001.
In doing so Bastardi does what the media is failing to do, look back at what we were told was going to happen due to global warming/climate change/global climate disruption and compare with current observations visible to everyone. As Bastardi explains:
Yet here we have people plainly saying in 2001 that by this past summer and in summers before, the Arctic would be free enough for ice to be able to have shipping go through there. How can one ignore the forecasts made, that busted horribly? That would be like me saying last year would be a top 10 warm winter in the United Kingdom, which it plainly was not.
Bastardi points out that the increase in Southern Hemisphere (Antarctic) sea ice is roughly equivalent to the decrease in Northern Hemispheric (Arctic) ice. In terms of the earth as a whole there has not really been a change. Climate varies in different of the world. He rightly argues what we have seen is something that is cyclical in nature. He then goes on to pose a thought provoking question:
Is common sense that big a threat that people refuse to acknowledge the dire forecasts of only 10 years ago, by a major player in this debate, so that other ideas simply appealing for the chance to prove their point, are dismissed, while no one in the mainstream questions the fact that you can’t freely ship through the Arctic in the summer, no matter how much we want to quibble about where the ice stands now?
Perhaps that question should be answered by the likes of Al Gore, George Monbiot and their fellow global warming/climate change/global climate disruption travellers in the political and media claque. But you can be sure the silence will be deafening.
When Bastardi issues his challenge to journalists ‘that are fair-minded’ to look into that 2001 forecast and do what they are supposed to do… namely get to the bottom of the story, he could not have been talking about Louise Gray of the Telegraph or Roger Harrabin at the BBC. They are not journalists, they are mere propagandists pursuing an agenda.
The idea sits very nicely with Sir Martin Sorrell, the chief executive of advertising giant WPP. Quelle surprise! If the government wants to do the public a service they should spare us the prospect of more taxpayer funded infomercials and reduce public sector spending to ease the burden on us.
The EU arrived one day, took the key from under our plant pot, opened the front door and with the connivance of our idiot big brother it moved into our house… It has since gone on to take over the master bedroom, control access to the bathroom, decide what we can and cannot buy, chosen who we can have as friends, demands feeding at huge expense and won’t let anyone else use the TV remote. It has quietly raided our wallets for years… Now, increasingly emboldened, it is openly ordering us to re-decorate in its chosen scheme, disable the burglar alarm, turn out the money from our pockets and is taking from the piggy bank in our room. The EU has turned us into serfs, guests in our own home and ensures our big brother repeats ad nauseum that we cannot survive without it, despite dissent from our other serf siblings… Our paternal political class is craven, cowers in the EU’s presence and hasn’t got the balls to shove it out of the door. Someday though the siblings will be strong enough to overcome the big brother, reject the weakness of the parents and remove the EU from the house for good.
The EU’s budget will increase at a time our own public expenditure is being swollen, despite the moronic rhetoric of cuts. We will pay more than £435m extra to that overseas entity per annum and the UK government will spend £43bn more of our money by 2015.
So much for a low tax economy that allows business to grow and flourish. The fatted calf is watching as the slaughterman’s van pulls into the farmyard.
How much longer will people tolerate this?
Prime Minister David Cameron says a 6% rise in the EU budget would be unacceptable, as he arrives in Brussels for a summit meeting of the European Council.
However, Cast Iron Dave then tempers his faux intolerance of this insane largesse by meekly pleading that the increase is limited to the ‘lowest possible’ amount. Our national leader is reduced to the humiliating role of beggar.
But then, it’s all sophistry.
The fact is unless Cameron can secure the support of a majority of the Council in rejecting an increase in the EU budget – which he will not – nothing he says makes any difference at all. The Tories are fond of arguing they should remain aboard the EU gravy train in order to have ‘influence in Europe’. But issues such as this underline the fallaciousness of that self serving argument. We have no influence over the EU. The bureaucracy is beyond our reach.
Even the Prime Minister – the most powerful UK politician – is incapable of preventing the EU from doing what it wants. The desire of the political class to be at the ‘heart of Europe’ has cost this country dear. Not only has our sovereignty been eroded, we are increasingly paying the price in pounds and pence too. The EU means Britons have no say over how Britain is governed and means Britons have less money in their pockets.
None of the limited and questionable ‘benefits’ of EU membership necessitated this loss of sovereignty and drain on our wallets. We get nothing from the EU that make any of this a price worth paying.
With each passing day David Cameron’s deceit becomes more evident and further vindicates my decision to resign as a councillor and leave the Conservative Party.
Cameron is an unprincipled and self serving politician of the worst kind. Those Conservatives who hoped when in office he would reveal himself to be a Eurosceptic have had their delusions shattered.
The simple truth is if you want the UK to be a sovereign nation that determines its own laws and regulations and is governed by elected representatives we can remove from office, then do not vote Conservative. The ConservativeHome commentator, Melanchthon, lays the truth bare today when he says:
But, in reality, it appears that when Labour said our Eurosceptic promises were all hot air, they were right; that when Heseltine said that in government every Conservative Prime Minister is Europhile, he was right; that when UKIP said Conservatives were not to be trusted on Europe, they were right; that when I and others said that the Conservative Party had changed, and that Cameron and Hague were genuinely convicted Eurosceptics who understood what must be done and would not let us down, we were wrong.
His piece is titled ‘They’ll call us quislings’. On that score he is wrong, for the fact is we have already been calling the Conservatives that. And rightly so.
But let us not forget the useless and craven fools in the media who slavishly peddle the Conservative line and misrepresent the facts of how this country has given up its sovereignty and how it is governed by an overseas entity. For the truth about our situation we have to cast our eyes away from the mainstream media and focus upon knowledgeable elements in the blogosphere that understand what is going on and are not frightened to give it to us straight:
[…] Cameron cannot bat it away. It is now a matter for the conciliation committee, as I explained earlier, over which he has neither jurisdiction nor control, the decision in any event being QMV, with the final arbiter the EU parliament.
Thus, no wonder Cameron is “softening”. He has no option, because he has no power. And the turds-for-brains in the Telegraph can’t even be bothered to learn the procedures before they write their unmitigated garbage. They and even darlink Hannan can’t even apply their limited intellects to understanding the difference between a “summit” and a European Council.
Cameron and his vichy Conservatives like to wrap themselves in the flag and waffle at length about patriotism. The problem is the flag is blue with gold stars that their loyalty is to Brussels rather than the people they are supposed to serve. As a result we are bound into a bloc devoid of democratic legitimacy or oversight and powerless too for as long as we remain part of it. We should feel nothing less than furious contempt for these sickening creatures who have dragged us into this situation and are working hard behind the scenes to keep us there.
The BBC’s Roger Harrabin graced Autonomous Mind a couple of days ago to comment on this blog post. It is always pleasing to see people engaging with the arguments and observations presented here and a reply to the comment was left for Mr Harrabin. However he hasn’t as yet addressed the points it raises. So Roger, if you’re reading, we are looking forward to your response.
Although it’s been some months since I last used Twitter for short comments and observations, I am making an effort from today to use it more frequently. If you’re on Twitter please consider following me. Just click on the image below to read my tweets and follow.
If I’m not already following you just tweet me – @Autonomous_Mind – so I can follow you. Thanks.
When it comes to Government announcements concerning the economy, be it a statement, the budget or a comprehensive spending review, a good rule of thumb is to wait until the dust settles and the facts emerge before rushing to comment.
The mainstream media doesn’t have the luxury of time as they have copy deadlines, so reproducing press releases and soundbites about George Osborne’s spending review without analysis is the order of the day – not any different to any other day when you think about it. But some blogs, that look beyond the headlines to look at the detail, can be relied upon to give us the story straight.
So, step up the ever reliable and news-breaking EU Referendum.
As Dr Richard North makes clear, public spending is not being cut at all in this spending review. The ‘cuts’ are to nothing more than reductions to forecast spending. The top line figures are completely clear. Public sector spending in 2010-11 remains as forecast at £696.8 billion. In 2014-15 public sector spending is now forecast to be £739.8 billion. That is an increase in public spending between now and then on £43 billion. How is this a spending cut?
What we are seeing is a massive redistribution of spending. It is a smoke and mirrors exercise. As EU Referendum makes clear, money will be spent on servicing existing and additional debt and patching some of the massive blackhole in pensions.
Tax increases will account for much of the additional spending. But the fact remains the state will not be shrinking, it will be bigger. The question now is, when will the media and the markets realise this? When that is answered, perhaps this damnable coalition managerialist spin operation in Downing Street will be asked how an increase in public spending of £43 billion is a spending cut.
It seems clear the ‘new politics’ is no different from the old.
It’s no joke. The PRWeek magazine judging panel comprising 62 senior PR professionals:
…praised Clegg for his smart general election communications campaign that positioned him as a fresh alternative to the other political parties.
You really could not make this stuff up. The falling reputation of PR professionals is taking them into the same bottom division as politicians and estate agents. When senior members of a discipline such as PR confer accolades upon a man who blatantly lied, distorted and misrepresented their way through an election campaign the only conclusion that can be drawn is that they themselves are not honourable. Perhaps there is a political element to the decision as the write up of the award goes on to add:
In fewer than 12 months, Clegg has gone from leading a party frustrated by a lack of media attention to the full glare of the world’s media, as he walked side by side with Prime Minister David Cameron into 10 Downing Street on 11 May.
His greatest achievement was his performance at the General Election’s three inaugural leaders’ debates. At the time, PRWeek’s survey of 3,000 members of the UK public found 62 per cent said Clegg was the leader who came out the strongest, compared with 21 per cent for David Cameron and only 16 per cent for Gordon Brown.
As PRWeek editor Danny Rogers said: ‘Clegg’s comms prowess won over viewers and ultimately led him to Downing Street.’
Communication is not just about cascading messages, it is also about listening to people. Nick Clegg has shamelessly ignored the wishes of the voters he courted and served his own interests, yet he is being lauded by leading lights in the Public Relations industry. Professionals who work in the field of Communications and PR should be feeling very uncomfortable today.
The questions should be seen as preposterous because they are. But these are the scenarios facing our senior service, the Royal Navy, thanks to a government that is determined to make much needed spending cuts, but refusing to make them in those areas that have been soaked in additional or wasteful spending by the profligate Labour administration.
Either the government is serious about the defence of the United Kingdom and its interests overseas, or it isn’t.
The threat to this country, while recognising there are homegrown terrorists eager to attack us, originates overseas. The people who wish to harm this country and its people train overseas. Therefore we need to be able to act to defend ourselves overseas and air power is an important element in such actions.
There is no middle ground here. The government must retain a maritime strike capability until HMS Queen Elizabeth II and HMS Prince of Wales are fully operational with the proper complement of strike/fighter aircraft. HMS Ark Royal should not be retired early. And it is ridiculous that we might only have an intermittent nuclear deterrent in future because the plans for reducing the submarine fleet mean at times we will not have an attack submarine at sea.
Billions of pounds have been swallowed in welfare overpayments and the errors have still not been fixed. Billions have disappeared into the black hole of PFI projects where the taxpayer has been fleeced. Billions have been wasted on idiotic defence procurement flights of fancy. The list continues. These things should be fixed instead of degrading our military capability. Perhaps we can copy the Russians and fill the flightdeck with inflatable decoy aircraft to give the impression we are serious about defence.
Hey, heard the one about the country that had a defence strategy that allowed it to build two supercarriers but didn’t budget for the planes they’re supposed to carry…?
The New York Times has published a partisan political editorial that is beyond parody. They have alighted on the issue of global warming/climate change in order to attack the Republican party in an attempt to distract people from the US going to hell in a handcart under Barack Obama. It is the kind of trash that one would expect to be issued by Bob Ward and his fellow travellers. But then the lobby is so incestuous they almost certainly share notes and punchlines to use. It’s been a while since a fisking by the Mind, so here are some of the choice bits…
Former Vice President Dick Cheney has to be smiling. With one exception, none of the Republicans running for the Senate — including the 20 or so with a serious chance of winning — accept the scientific consensus that humans are largely responsible for global warming.
Err, that is because it is a consensus assembled around a belief rather than facts borne out by evidence.
The candidates are not simply rejecting solutions, like putting a price on carbon, though these, too, are demonized.
Perhaps because there is no logical basis for carbon pricing, it costs consumers a fortune for no good reason and is abused by large corporations to make huge sums of money without even having to reduce their emissions. It is a redistributive scam.
Some candidates are emphatic in their denial, like the Nevada Republican Sharron Angle, who flatly rejects “the man-caused climate change mantra of the left.” Others are merely wiggly, like California’s Carly Fiorina, who says, “I’m not sure.” Yet, over all (the exception being Mark Kirk in Illinois), the Republicans are huddled around an amazingly dismissive view of climate change.
Damn those pesky Republicans for wanting some kind of standard of proof before accepting the assertions of the climate change lobbyists.
A few may genuinely believe global warming is a left-wing plot.
Well, actually, most believe it is nothing more than the continuation of natural climate variation with various influences such as solar activity.
In one way or another, though, all are custodians of a strategy whose guiding principle has been to avoid debate about solutions to climate change by denying its existence — or at least by diminishing its importance.
It would be easy to clear this up in seconds if the New York Times and the ‘scientific consensus’ produced evidence that man is largely responsible for the changes in climate on this planet. Perhaps the problem is that they cannot produce such evidence, which is why they focus on attacking all counter arguments and steering clear of their own flimsy position.
Nothing, it seemed, could crack the administration’s denial — not Tony Blair of Britain and other leaders who took climate change seriously; not Mrs. Whitman (who eventually quit after being undercut by Mr. Cheney, who worked for the energy company Halliburton before he became vice president and received annual checks while in office); and certainly not the scientists.
No good climate change lobby smear is complete without painting someone as holding their view because they have been bought off by Big Oil or an energy company of some description. But it is so unoriginal and its repeated flawed use demonstrates the paucity of the lobby’s argument. What really makes me laugh is the ignorance of the NY Times, which fails to point out Halliburton cites two of its major areas of focus to be Carbon Capture & Storage and Unconventional Gas. Halliburton has a financial and strategic interest in the warmist argument so it can cash in on the kool aid to make money for its corporate shareholders. How thick is this NY Times editor?
In 2007, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its most definitive statement on the human contribution to climate change,
Mr. Cheney insisted that there was not enough evidence to just “sort of run out and try to slap together some policy that’s going to try to solve the problem.” To which Mrs. Whitman, by then in private life, said: “I don’t see how he can say that with a straight face anymore.”
Well, if its good enough for Mrs Whitman then it has to be good enough for us, right?
Until the end of the 1990s, Republicans could be counted on to join bipartisan solutions to environmental problems. Now they’ve disappeared in a fog of disinformation, an entire political party parroting the Cheney line.
Strangely enough the change in Republican attitudes has coincided with greater awareness of the flaws in the climate change lobby claims and factors such as Climategate. One would have thought that with all its investigative brilliance even the NY Times could work that one out. But perhaps they already have and just don’t want their readers to be better informed about the facts of climate change rather than the hysteria. And we thought the BBC was bad.