Won't somebody think of the children?

All this talk about cuts really makes me laugh. Last week it was all about the children and the fact that Osborne's plan for means-testing appears to have been drafted by an innumerate, illiterate, demented fuckwit with the common sense of a rabid vole.

This week, it's been all about the spazzers, flids, spackers, crips and mongtards. Apparently, they're going to be savaged and people are up in arms.

But as usual, the discussions with the clitterati have been an exercise in futility. "The state should provide more!" "Tax the bankers more!" "Why should the disabled suffer while the bankers get bailed out?"

And everyone's talking about the "savagery" of the cuts. And who knows, they may actually be savage -- as far as the ostensible beneficiaries are concerned.

But the reality of it is that the state's spending on non-jobs, on quangos, on other absolute cuntery grows apace. The nett effect of these "cuts" will not actually be to reduce the state in any way, shape or form, all that will happen is that the rate of growth of the state will not be quite as much under the Tories, it will still be growing all the time.

Quite often I get chastised as "uncaring" by asking for the state to be starved. "Think of the children / crips / flids / whatever! They'll all be left to die on the street without tax! British people are proud to be a caring society."

The last statement really did make me laugh. If British people are so caring, why do you believe that they need to have the threat of prison levelled against them before they'll actually fund all this care? If I am so uncaring, why do I believe that people will not need to be threatened with prison to take care of the needy?

Anyway: the government may be cutting what it gives us back in exchange for the money it extorts with menaces, but it's not actually cutting back on the money it spends. So it's taking more and giving less back, which can only mean that either the state is growing despite delivering less or that it's pissing away money with even less care than usual.

And yet, the very same people who are bitching about the cuts to "front line services" are the exact same fucking people who want everyone else to give more money to the government so that "front line services" can be "protected".

I have a better idea: fuck the state, fuck the government. Let people spend their own money on what they want. I bet that nobody will fucking starve.

The new politics ...

Tom Harris has been running a series of how the new politics does things the same way that Labour used to. No opprobrium for Labour having done such a thing, of course.

But it really is an endless display of rehashed tired "initiatives" showing the poverty of Tory ideas:

Anyone remember the special telephone line 101? It was a little idea to have a non-emergency phone line that people could use instead of 999 to report crimes that didn't require SO19 to pile in with their H&K MP5s.

It was, naturally a complete waste of time and money, being piloted then slowly dropped having cost the taxpayer £1.8 million

Calls to the line, designed to ease pressure on 999, included such requests as, "can you tell me the times of trains to Brighton?", "I'd like someone to test my smoke alarm." and "Do you know when the next bus leaves for Southampton?"

You'll be glad to hear therefore that our Coalition Government would not be so stupid as to introduce a similar sort of scheme ever again, less face the embarrassment of throwing more of our money away at a service that would be used and abused... oh wait, no... what am I talking about, they are introducing such a scheme.

For those wondering, this is the point at which you put your head in your hands and scream "Oh God no! Not again!".

Oh God no! Not again!

Still, I'm sure some Tory lickspittle and apologist will be along shortly to tell me how different it is because the Tories are doing it this time. And how much better the Tories are than Labour.

The problem is that our elected representatives are unable to do anything effective to the civil service and wedded to statist thinking. Every one of the things that they have done, even Eric Pickles's alleged cuts have just transferred the pointless activity to the private sector, rather than doing away with the pointless activity altogether.

I suppose it's too much to ask for politicians to ask whether everything that government currently does needs to be done by the government or done at all?

It comes as quite a shock, I tell you!

Dizzy examines the proposed graduate tax scheme:

The fact is, when you actually look at the graduate tax proposal it's clear who will really gain from it. The Political Class.

It will be the bag carrier greasy pole types, the policy wonks, the NUS presidents and the assortment of other "never done a proper job" politicos on crap money with great quality degrees who'll be subsidised by the graduates from crappy ex-polys with a Desmond, who then work their balls off to earn as much as they can in an area with no relevance to their education.

Well, bugger me! Who would have thought it, eh?

But no, it's all fine, because the increasingly libertarian Tories and hugely "liberal" Democrats are in charge, so they will definitely not be doing anything to buttfuck the ordinary man.

So, not only frightened to death of repealing shit Labour legislation, but also quite happy to introduce new cuntishness for the benefit of the political class. Oh yes, I can definitely see how the new lot are completely different from the old lot.

That campaign to modify the Tory party from the inside is clearly paying benefits.

More proof ...

... if it were needed:

The government's first attempt at crowdsourcing its coalition programme has ended without a single government department expressing a willingness to alter any policy.

Meet the new boss. Completely different from the last boss.

Oh yes.

Kingbingo.

Hallelujah! Rejoice!

The biggest problem bloggers have had with the ConDems is that there is no bumbling fuckwit that displays the monumental incompetence and blatant vacuous mongosity of Gordon "The Nose Picker" Brown.

But now, bloggers, we can rejoice, relax and feel rejuvenated: we have our bumbling basket case!

Ladies and gentlemen (and bloggers!) may I present the new Master of Disaster, the Mong of the Moment: VINCE "TWAT" CABLE!

Bankers are to be forced to lend to businesses or risk losing their bonuses under plans to be outlined by Vince Cable, the Business Secretary.

Oh yeah? Well, let's just stop there for a second, shall we? Banks shouldn't be "forced" to do anything, let alone fucking forced to lend money to people they don't want to lend money to.

Let's just rewind to a couple of years ago and the banking bailout, shall we? Why were the banks in a position that required them to be bailed out? Could it possibly be that "constrained" by government- and inter-government-decreed levels of liquidity, they lent out money to people who might not have fitted their normal risk profiles.

In this, they were not at all encouraged by a number of governments running wildly expansionist monetary policies and using artificially low interest rates to encourage more lending.

The nett upshot of all this was that people who couldn't possibly repay loans were given money on ludicrous schemes like self-certification. And when it all went completely tits-up, banks got given huge amounts of our fucking money and told "this better not happen again".

Right in front of the jeering crowds was Vince "Twat" Cable, arguing for tighter regulation of banks and bonus control. The taxpayer, he sonorously proclaimed, should not have to bail out the greedy banks again.

And what is the fucking twat saying now? He's saying "lend more to struggling businesses or you will lose part of your bonus". Struggling businesses are actually businesses that are more likely to fail Vince. Which means that the banks will lose money, and also increase their risk, possibly to unsustainable levels. Which could precipitate another crash. Which will lead to more bailouts. Which will lead to Vince "Twat" Cable calling for more regulation and smaller bonuses.

Look, Vince, you're a fucking idiot. You are a fucking danger to shipping and you're my number one candidate to replace Gordon Brown as "Asshat of the Decade".

Can somebody get shot of this useless fucking mongtard before he causes some real damage?

Update: Timdog and the Angry Teen weigh in.

*Sigh*

So there's this, very funny, ha! ha! Gurnadia lives up to its name, etc., etc.

But what is the actual story? The Regional Development Agencies got shitcanned for being a total fucking waste of taxpayer dosh. Instead of an unelected, unaccountable bunch of timeserving tossers sitting there pissing our money away on the ideals of the Labour government, we're going to get ... an unelected, unaccountable bunch of timeserving tossers sitting there pissing our money away on the ideals of the LibDem/Tory coalition.

What the fuck is wrong with British politicians? Why is the answer to every problem yet another quango?

And I can't wait for Kingbingo to wander along and tell me how different and how much better this is all going to be from Labour's idea of a quango.

Manic depression

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Squeaker squeaks

Apparently, John Don'tHaveABercowMan has just made Theresa May apologise to the House for leaking shit to the press before announcing it in the Commons.

Good.

Although I have some reservations:

1. Why wasn't he quite so keen to nail Labour ministers for the same thing?
2. Why isn't there a more severe censure than having to "apologise" to your mates who would do the same fucking thing anyway?

New Politics. The more things change, eh?

Budget thoughts

Well, it was pretty inevitable that I was going to say "not nearly enough", but I do have to say I have a grudging respect for Boy George after today. You can see the limp-wristed hand of the Limp Dumbs in some of the stupider aspects (a green bank, for the fucking sake of fucking fucking fucking fuck!) but by and large, I think he did the business.

For a statist social democrat, anyway.

There's no way I would have left that room alive, but I would have ripped the beating heart out of the state and pissed all over it if I was in that position. George really didn't go nearly far enough in my opinion. There's fucking tonnes of savings he could have made and if he was going to renege on VAT he might as well have gone for broke and butt-fucked the useless NHS as well. And international aid? FUCK OFF!

And even if he did ring-fence those two, he could have easily slashed the same again off the budget. Well, I could have, anyway.

Mark my words: the NHS is going to become a flashpoint in years to come, with tales of waste, overpaid execs, jollies and all sorts of other shenanigans. George should taken those fuckers roughly up the arse.

And I really can't see why we should be giving the fucking Indians money to buy our steel industry.

Cunts.

And they're off!

I had been hoping against hope, I must confess. I really had. I was prepared to give them every chance, prepared to view every initiative without the immediate scorn that I'd pour on useless "New" Labour.

Alas, alas...

The Tories said:

"A Conservative government would "dismantle" central NHS IT infrastructure, halt and renegotiate NPfIT local service provider contracts and introduce interoperable local systems."

The Lib Dems said:

"The Government needs to end its obsession with massive central databases. The NHS IT scheme has been a disastrous waste of money and the national programme should be abandoned."

So both parties wanted to shitcan this abomination, yet now they're both in power together... why, they going to take it forward! Did I miss some mass public uprising where people were demonstrating in the streets, demanding that the NHS should be allowed to lose our private medical records like HMRC loses our financial records? Did I miss some compelling statement of importance from the Labour Party that made the government change its mind?

I don't think I did.

So, for entirely hidden and opaque reasons, the New Politics has decided to carry on with an expensive, wasteful, pointless and unnecessary IT project. Oh, and the "announcement" thereof was rather handy as well:

it was "announced" by brief Written Answer, without debate, on the day of the statement made to the House on the Cumbrian shooting, so it didn't get picked up anywhere. A Jo Moore 9/11 situation writ large, but after weeks in power rather than New Labour's years in office by the time of Moore's disgrace. New government, old tricks. No change, and no shame.

The "civil liberties won" headline has gone out to the people, but the reality, the outcome of this policy is completely different. Just like "New" Labour with their endless announcements of "good things" that turned out to be poisonous.

The heir to Blair? I cannot think of a more fitting epithet for this slimy politician.*

Update: This. Fucking Jesus, here we FUCKING go again...

Update 2: Oh for the fucking sake of fucking fucking fuck.

*Apart from "cunt", obviously!

On the Breaking of Laws

Sad to say, I was quite impressed with David Laws. He seemed to have a bit of an appetite for the job and he seemed to be getting on with it. So I was more disappointed than usual to find he'd been on the trough. But two things really bothered me about his falling on the non-pork sword:

His "apology": it was a real politician's apology, full of weasel words and empty of genuine remorse.

His playing of the pink joker: for someone who wanted to protect his sexuality, he certainly didn't mince (ho! ho!) his words.

Personally, I couldn't give a flying fuck about whether he was a poof or a goat-fucker, if he could do the job, he could do the job. However, he was caught with his fingers in the till and now he's gone.

To Charlotte Gore and to Labour MP Chris "Underpants" Bryant, both of whom have written excellent pieces about the difficulty of coming out I say this: it is sad that some people still find it difficult to come out and I am pleased that people are not vilified for being gay. But this was not about being gay.

This was about wrongly taking money from the taxpayer and I don't care if you're straight, gay, white or a transgender lesbian one-legged black ho: taking money from the taxpayer that you're not supposed to is fucking wrong. So, Mr Laws, I'm going to give you full marks for actually going, but nul points for the manner of your departure.

On the other hand, Iain Dale's ludicrous appearance on Sky News was almost enough to turn me ... into a queer-basher. What a load of old cock he dribbled.

And to the Cleggeron, I would also say this:

Cameron and Clegg both failed to apply rigour in vetting. Each appointment should have been preceded by a process of full discovery and disclosure.

For a start, it’s no big deal to work out what candidates’ potential exposure to the expenses scandal is, without even asking them.

Secondly, if Laws was asked if there was anything Clegg/Cameron should know, and he didn’t disclose at least his expenses exposure, and preferably his other skeletons, then he should not only lose his post in government, he should trigger a by-election and let his constituents decide.

We've given you every fucking chance not to screw the pooch. We wanted this to succeed. But thanks to your fucking do-nothing, don't-rock-the-boat handling of the expenses fuckup, here we fucking are again.

You just know that the Cleggeron's failure to really grasp the expenses nettle is going to keep biting the coalition in the arse. And at some point, people are going to forget that Labour were just as guilty (or even more so!)

My best guess is that Danny Alexander is the only candidate they could find who had the proverbial clean nose. How fucking sad is that?

And then, of course, there's this.

Meet the New Politics, completely different from the Old Politics.

Oh yes.

WTF?

What?

And that ladies and gentlement is part of the reason why many people - me among them - want nothing more to do with national elected politics.

Nothing to do with the fact that you've whored yourself around a dozen constituencies who all told you to fuck off, then? Jesus, talk about being up yourself...

One step forward, two steps back

So, another small step in the right direction: Gerald Howarth no longer has responsibility for defence procurement.

Good. It's vital that no whiff hangs around the business of government spending OUR money.

Now, Dave, when are you going to sort that bag Spelman out?

Oh dear, more gesture politics

What is this?

George Osborne and David Laws (Osborne and Little as they’ve reportedly been tagged by their officials) have announced that Sarah Teather and other very important persons will no longer be entitled to ministerial cars to ferry them to and fro at the expense of hard-pressed taxpayers. Only those in the four great offices of state — the prime minister and his deputy, foreign secretary, chancellor and home secretary — will get their own car and chauffeur.

What is this? The eeeeevil toff Tories getting rid of the ministerial Jag and chauffeur? That the fair and equal Labour apparatchiks were so fond of?

Well, how can I possibly disapprove of anything that forces politicians to live a bit more like us? Another tiny step in the right direction!

More shilling on behalf of the government

Here we go: David Cameron is a weapons-grade cock-end:

The news comes on the back of confusion about what last week's ballot actually meant, making a curious affair even curiouser. But, whatever the case, this outcome should take much of the sting and urgency out of the situation – even if it still leaves some backbenchers aggrieved at how David Cameron went about things in the first place. And as for the Tory leadership, the question now is whether any of this was really worth it.

Way to go, Dave. Two weeks into your job and the back benches already hate you as much as they hated Blair after a fucking decade. That's gonna really help your agenda, isn't it?

Twat.

Update: Fraser Nelson unrolls his tongue and shoves it right up iDave's arsehole.

Update 2: Iain Martin asks: WTF?

Do we really need more Lords?

Guido has just tweeted that the Condems are going to create 100 new Lords. Given that we have so fucking many of the cunts wandering around already, is there really a need to do this? Isn't this just "meet the new politics, same as the old politics"?

Update: This is definitely the new politics, same as the old politics.

Cunts.