The high moral ground on the left

Well, it's no surprise that Saint Jezza is cleaning up with a certain sector of the body politic. For those whose hearts swell in righteous anger at the murderous, sub-human, cruel and vile Tory; those who like nothing more than a big march through a metropolis and those who feel that it's only good and fair to terrify baristas on minimum wage and bank staff trying to get through the day by smashing windows, throwing trash around and burning things, Saint Jezza is in fact the perfect inspiration.

A kindly-looking, avuncular man who has followed his own moral code all his life, with a belief in the correctness of the ends justifying the means, he has set an enthusiastic and adorable example to thousands of acolytes. For example, his belief in the cause of Palestinians has allowed him to justify turning a blind eye to overt and covert anti-Semitism wherever it may find him. His belief in the cause of a unified Ireland allowed him to ignore the ruthless murders and maiming of innocent people.

Lately, his belief in the non-existence of the Srebrenica massacre meant that it was cool to spend the dinner on the evening of the anniversary of this ghastly slaughter scoffing pizza with a vocal Srebrenica massacre denier.

On the anniversary of the massacre. Let that sink in. I mean, if Theresa May did something like that, the outrage on the left would be able to power London for weeks.

But because Saint Jezza has always been on the right side of history, it's all good. His morality is unsullied by the fact that he's forever hanging out with murderers, terrorists and people with the most hideous of views. His blithely ignoring open Jew-hatred on Press TV, Iran's state broadcaster - that's Iran, that kills people for being gay - in exchange for money, is nothing of import.

John McDonnell and Saint Jezza earn proper fat cat salaries, just like Len McCluskey, but of course that's perfectly OK, because they're all on the right side of history. They all earn their money literally being parasites on the working man, but of course that's perfectly OK, because they're all on the right side of history.

(We will ignore for the moment the slight issue of revisionism transforming things like "overt support for an IRA by any means necessary" into "a vital part of the peace process" when we talk about the "right side of history".)

We are already seeing Stalinist putsches of soft-left MPs, for not toeing the line sufficiently. I'm sure Saint Jezza would never ask for such things, but he's not exactly falling over himself to stop it, is he? He isn't even Secretary General, er, Prime Minister, and already Labour is behaving like a Stalinist party.

Because the ends justify the means.

So here we are. Saint Jezza's fans are clearly quite comfortable with all these things.

They also believe "if you are not with us, you are against us," therefore if you're not an uncritical worshipper of Saint Jezza, you are sub-human and not worthy of civilised discourse. You're a Nazi. You can be, should be and probably will be subject to physical violence.

Of course, worst of all are the venal, Blairite traitors on the soft-left. Their ideological impurity is a stain on the left, that must be expunged even more vigorously than the evil Tory scum.

For those of us on the right, being regarded as sub-human by people on the left is nothing new. Their astonishing arrogance in knowing that their political beliefs make them morally superior has been a source of endless insulting behaviour in the past. Of course, now that the most active and virulent form of left-wing politics has taken over, it's a schadenfreude treat to see Blairites who used to have exactly the same attitude (sans the violence, of course) discover what it's like to be regarded as sub-human by a thug with a different opinion.

And these people are, in their hearts, thugs. I make no apologies to any Labour voters I offend. You regard violence as an acceptable form of political bargaining. If you didn't, you wouldn't have voted for someone who says emollient things but does not do anything to stop Jew-hatred, violence or abuse.

If you're hard-left, at least you're being congruent with your beliefs. This doesn't make you a good human being, though.

If you're soft-left and you voted Labour at the last election, I can only describe you as a self-hating, tribalist moron. Your party hates you more than it hates the Tories. Your blind adherence to "I must vote Labour" is self-defeating stupidity.

Look at the spread of abuse, violence and hatred in politics. Look hard at yourself. If you think that actively hating someone or abusing or committing violence on them for their political beliefs is somehow OK or if you voted for these people, then you're all the problems with society today. You personally. It's not "capitalism" or "free markets" or "bankers" or "Tories" or "libertarians" or "evil right-wing media". You have no right to look down at anyone. You have no moral high ground. Your beliefs or your blind loyalty to a party are poisonous and dangerous.

It's you.

You are the problem.

The BAME of our lives

I see that dreadful race hustler (when it's expedient) Yvette Cooper is playing "Diversity" again:

Prior to the last election there was also criticism from within the party that there was a “shameful” lack of BAME candidates in key seats. Labour currently has 23 minority ethnic MPs.

Really? Why does this matter?

With over a million ethnic minority voters choosing the Tories at the last election Labour cannot be complacent. If Labour is not representative of our voters how can we hope to keep their support?

I'm sorry, what? Are you now saying that minorities are so fucking stupid, they'll vote for the racial mix of a party, rather than their policies? If that's how it works, how do you explain George Galloway's previous electoral success?


A million ethnic minority voters voted Tory because a) Ed Miliband was a complete retard and b) Labour's policies were shit. They didn't vote Tory because the Tory party is more representative of their community.

What she's basically saying is "vote for us, and we'll make sure 'your kind of people' get their snouts into the trough, whether they're useless or not".

Well done, Yvette, you patronising, pork-barrel, Westminster-bubble fucktard.

Iz it becoz she iz black?

@bimadew White people love playing "divide & rule" We should not play their game #tacticasoldascolonialism

-- Diane Abbott, MP

Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but if I'd tweeted something like:

@HackneyAbbott Black people love playing at being thugs and sleeping around with as many lovers as possible #pastimesasoldastime

I would be condemned and vilified as a racist. Yet I am still to see one of the lefties I follow having a go at her. Is it because she's one of their tribe? Or is it because she's black and therefore can't be racist?

Why is it acceptable to make sweeping generalisations about one race and not about others?

Left foot in mouth

I can't decide if Eoin Clarke is a socialist or a fucking idiot, the two terms being entirely interchangeable. But let's have a look at a particular example:

We in Labour Left argue that private companies in general have too big a share in the UK childcare market.

Do they? On what particular basis do you say this?

Fifty nine per cent of childcare providers are private profiteers.

Or, to put it another way, "59% of childcare providers, who parents willingly and voluntarily entrust their most precious bundles of joy with, are private profiteers."

What, exactly, is the problem?

We are going to make the case for co-operatives to play a larger part in the sector. In order to do this we wish to outline the poor value that private providers offer parents.

Right. Because people who have to pay the actual bills don't fucking shop around much, do they? They don't already balance off their individual requirements for cost versus quality versus trustworthiness and a zillion other factors when it comes to their kids? Because let's face it, it's only their fucking kids, what do they know?

In the current economic climate, can the average family afford an extra £910 a year just to send their child for 25 hours a week to a private crèche?

Er, Eoin, clearly they can, or they fucking wouldn't.

If the voluntary sector is able to provide it at a full £1,040 cheaper, then the state has a duty to boost that sector as much as in possible.

I am quoting verbatim from his post so far. I don't know about you, but I've got no fucking idea whatsoever where his numbers have come from. But let's assume they're justified somewhere, I'd like to point out that the voluntary sector, being voluntary, should be able to provide the childcare for free and gratis, it being, you know, voluntary. Unless, of course, Eoin has co-opted a well-known and clearly-understood word to mean something else, something that sounds jolly spiffy, but is actually a nasty, spiteful piece of socialist bollocks. Much like "co-operatives", something I see used with gay abandon, but entirely unexplained.

I'd also like to point out that the state has no fucking money of its own, sponging as it does off the long-suffering and increasingly-impoverished taxpayer. Many of whom either don't have kids or have made other plans for their own kids and can't really understand why they have to subsidise some other cunt's kids.

Given the fact that about 30% of crèche places are unfilled, the practice of charging parents deposits and registration fees to book their children into a care provider is deeply unethical.

Is it? On what grounds do you level this charge? People will either pay it and use the service, or they won't and fuck off elsewhere. I really don't see the word "ethics" entering into this at all.

And it is a fact that profit-making childcare providers are much more likely to engage in the practice. As well as expanding the voluntary sector, the government should also seek to ban registration fees for crèches.

Why? What fucking business is it of the government what pricing and payment arrangements are voluntarily entered into by private businesses and / or individuals?

Personally, I'd like to see the government ban registration fees for cars, but of course, dickheads like Eoin will never argue for that, because the money is going to their preferred thief, the government.

But these are not the only problems that parents face. The growing cost of childcare is also an issue. All of this data is based upon 2010 data but prices are climbing.

Yeah, well maybe it's got something to do with insane levels of regulation, mandatory staffing requirements and, of course, the taxes levied by the greedy state.

No, no, Eoin, you're quite right, it's all down to those greedy profiteers.

More that two thirds of providers have increased their prices in the last year, this comes at a time when the government are cutting by 10% the amount of childcare fees they will cover for low income families. That said, the families that receive state support with childcare only account for about 20% of the total number of children receiving these services. Eighty per cent of families have to struggle with these costs by themselves.

Life is cruel sometimes. But perhaps you'd be better off making a case for it to be easier for people to open up a small childcare business without the insane levels of box-ticking required by the government, and the eye-watering taxation levied on them.

Just imagine, thousands of potentially unemployed people not only earning money, but also reducing the costs for people already in work.

Or does that not fit in with your socialist, centrally-controlled, authoritarian mindset?

No, I did think so.

Oh, for FUCK'S sake, Ed!

The man is clearly a fucking idiot:

Private equity firms and businesses deemed to be “asset strippers” will face higher taxes under a Labour government, Ed Miliband will warn tomorrow.

And how will you know that, Ed? Will it be if someone rats them out? Will you have inspectors who go round analysing businesses to identify

companies with the “wrong values” who do not create jobs, invest in companies or train their staff

So the options are:

• Employers will be at the whim of employees who may take every rejection of jazzed-up training as an excuse to try and get their employer the higher tax level;
• Labour will employ thousands of inspectors to make sure that every business meets a checklist of bollocks criteria that will do nothing to prevent "bad" behaviour, but cost the taxpayer billions;

or

• Ed is blowing smoke up the party faithful's collective ringmeat.

And, of course, there is the tiny but hardly irrelevant matter that asset stripping is, in fact, wealth creation. You fucking idiot.

Oh, I can't wait until these cunts get back into power. Happy days.

Striking off

"Dear fellow socialists, time has come for us to acknowledge that there is a group in society, who have an insidious and far-reaching power; a group who claims to seek truth and act in our best interests, yet has a much darker aim; a group that is completely unaccountable and even when caught acting in an improper manner will escape all but the most symbolic and trite of punishments.

"I therefore propose that politicians be licensed and placed on a register, and if struck off from this register, they will not be allowed to politic at the rest of us ever again."

-- Ivan Lewis, not at all an authoritarian fuckwit, not at all speaking out of his fucking arse later today.

Fuck me sideways

Nothing here that hasn't been said before, but maybe tribal Labour loyalists will take the message on board coming from one of their own.

And tribalists from other parties need to take note of the message too. Just because it's your tribe pumping out message X doesn't make it any more morally just than the views of other parties. And how refreshing to hear a Labour big wig saying:

Take the example of welfare policy. Listen to Labour and the assumption is that IDS wants to punish the poor, somehow that he gets off on increasing vulnerable people’s suffering. What we don’t think is that he wants to improve the lives of the poor but just doesn’t think that the current incarnation of the welfare state is the best way to achieve this. And yet, much of his programme is familiar to the last (Labour) government. Presumably our motives were pure, though.

Hammer. Nail. Head.

And:

What about the heinous charge that they want to “ideologically shrink” the size of the state. We, of course, want to use the state to do good things for people. Their wanting to shrink it clearly indicates that they don’t want to do good things for people. Clearly, therefore, they are morally bankrupt. Well, perhaps not. Maybe they think that over-taxing people is wrong and that an over-reaching state is in itself bad for the same people that we want to help? I am not saying that I necessarily agree, but I am saying that it is a perfectly valid view and one that is not intrinsically immoral.

Is it the End of Days?

Coulson vs Campbell

It's funny reading Big Bad Al Campbell giving it large about Coulson. Especially when Thatcherite Marxist and lifetime Labour voter Dave Spart weighs in:

And say what you like about Coulson, but at least he has never sexed up a dossier on Iraq’s supposed possession of weapons of mass destructive in order to lead Britain into an illegal war. Nor has he leaked the name of a vulnerable man who later committed suicide, simply so that he could ‘fuck’ a BBC staffer, to use his own infelicitous turn of phrase.

Sorry, but compared to Alistair Campbell, Andy Coulson is a saint.

(Do go and read the whole article. Dave is a journo, and makes several very good points.)

Like Dave, I hardly condone newspaper editors for doing this kind of thing (or turning a blind eye to it) but even the saintly Guardian's sister paper, the Observer, has been caught doing it. The whole thing is a contrived scandal by people with huge vested interest.

It's always sweet ...

... watching someone who is suddenly out of government discovering what life is like for hoi polloi:

I had no idea up until this morning, when I was.informed that my racism has manifested itself in a particularly ugly act of race-oriented bigotry and vindictiveness: I have not made a financial contribution to Diane Abbott’s leadership campaign.

Really, Tom? Shucks, you know for years, lefty wibblers have been dropping this shit on us all the time, to the extent where calling someone a racist is now as meaningless as calling someone Tom. If we're not racist, then we're sexist, or disablist, or worst of all: "not progressive".

I'm thrilled to see that these little pinpricks of fatuity get under your skin. Welcome to the world you enthusiastically helped to create in your own Blairite way.

I do fully realise that it'll be far too much to expect you to remember all this shit when your lot take over next time, but while you're in misery about something else, I'm even happier.

Scorched Earth

Capitalists@Work has been running an interesting series on how the Labour government scorched the earth, not just in terms of slashing and burning the money, but also in terms of the legal landmines they left behind.

Not only profligate with someone else's money, but devious and vicious in making it as difficult as possible to pick up the pieces.

Of course, if the coalition was serious about the "great reform bill", it would be the work of a week to list every bit of legislation created by New Labour and quite simply repeal the fucking lot. If there was anything useful, it could almost certainly be re-drafted (better) and re-voted upon.

But, of course, they aren't. They're just a bunch of makeweights and dullards playing the game of politics, posturing as emptily and vacuously as the mad Scot or the cunto di tutti cunti did before him.

Useless cock-suckers.

Fuck off!

Apparently, when Jacqui Smith was asked what she would bring to the BBC that merited £77,000 a year for two-and-a-half days a week, she replied: "Fuck off!"

Jacqui, dear, on behalf of the entire country, I think I'd like to point out that you are the one who should fuck off. And, preferably, die.

Painfully.

The Lard of the Humber

Well, now that fatty Prescott has taken the ermine and the world has taken time to react, I suppose it's only fair that I point out the rampant hypocrisy of the left who have bitched and moaned about the shameful power that the unelected House of Lords has, yet have not found the energy to attack the cognitive dissonance of watching one of their heroes (and one who ironically moaned like a stuck pig about peerages to boot!) take the ermine and go sit in "the Other Place".

Politics is full of people who have no other motivation than their own furtherance. The hypocritical fuckface Prescott rode the wave of left-wing politics as far as it would take him, and then casually stepped off it and into the very chamber he'd spent his life complaining about.

Politics in the UK will never get better until tribal loyalists stop making excuses for the failures of their own tribe and accept that a politician being a member of your own tribe should require more accountability rather than a free ride.

Man of the people!

Hell, not the average Thai mail order bride for Frank Cook, eh? He went balls to the wall and married a princess from Laos. Not bad for a solid, working-class representative of the Labour party, eh?

He then went on to claim stuff that he (and she!) bought in America for his constituency office ... twice!

As the Daily Boreograph says, with remarkable restraint:

The disclosures raise fresh questions about the thoroughness of the official audit of MPs’ expenses carried out after last year’s scandal.

As I have said ad nauseum, they were fucking all at it. The amount is irrelevant, the attitude of "do whatever the fuck you like, it's only taxpayer money" was the real cunter. The official audit was a whitewash. IPSA is an expensive fuckup and I bet they'll be "gamed" as well, soon enough.

Just accept it folks: all politicians from all parties are bottom-feeding cunts. They're all on the fucking make and they're all taking the piss.

And it's all because they fucking know better than us.

Arrogant, thieving cunts!!!

Labour hustings on Newsnight

I made it as far as the discussion of civil liberties before I wanted to shove a brick through the telly, and switched off. Every single one of those intrusive big brotherisms was defended by one or other of the candidates.

Andy Burnham's pitch probably won the award for biggest fucking hypocrite in the room, pretending he's just an 'umble northern lad, by gum, when he's a Cambridge grad.

Ed Balls sounds like he's got Yvette's dick in his mouth, he's easily as irritating to listen to as Jamie Oliver. Plus, he's got a face you truly never would tire of beating to a bloody pulp with a sock full of batteries.

David Miliband was trying very hard to be commanding and masterful, but just sounded like an arrogant tit. And he looked lost without his trusty banana.

If you didn't look at the screen, Ed Miliband came across OK, but every time I looked at him I felt like cowering back in my seat. He looks like one of those lizards from V.

Which leaves Diane Abbott. The arrogant, media whoring twat.

What can I say, really? Which ever one the Labour Party chooses, the Labour Party loses. A less agreeable and more unappealing bunch of amoral shysters, hucksters and cunts I haven't seen since Gordon Brown left 10 Downing St.

What a fucking result!

Ferrets in a sack

Aye, thir's trooble north of tha border, ye ken?

But by announcing he was staying in Downing Street in order to facilitate talks between the two other parties, Gordon acted, if not unconstitutionally, then at least in such a way as to inaugurate a new page in our constitutional setup. The ConDem Coalition is the direct result of that action. We may, one day, come to regret bitterly this development and to wish GB had gone when the voters told him to.

The rumblings have started. Now, where's my popcorn?

This song is dedicated to my hero, Gordon Brown

La la la la la la la la
La la la la la la la la
La la la la la la la la
La la la la la la la la

I just can't get you out of my past
Boy your fuckups are all they think about
I just can't get you out of my past
Boy it's more than I dare to think about

La la la la la la la la
La la la la la la la la

I just can't get you out of my past
Boy your fuckups are all they think about
I just can't get you out of my past
Boy it's more than I dare to think about

Every tax, every woe
Just to be free of your harms
Won't you go
Won't you then go forever
And ever and ever and ever

La la la la la la la la
La la la la la la la la
La la la la la la la la
La la la la la la la la

I just can't get you out of my past
Boy your fuckups are all they think about
I just can't get you out of my past
Boy it's more than I dare to think about

There's a dark secret in me
Don't leave me locked in your past
Set me free
Let me Leader be
Set me free
Go forever
And ever and ever and ever

La la la la la la la la
La la la la la la la la
La la la la la la la la
La la la la la la la la

I just can't get you out of my past
La la la la la la la la
La la la la la la la la
I just can't get you out of my past
La la la la la la la la
La la la la la la la la
I just can't get you out of my past
La la la la la la la la
La la la la la la la la
I just can't get you out of my past
La la la la la la la la
La la la la la la la la

A professional politician speaks (for @tomharrismp )

Tom's played a blinder here:

If Clegg really wants to be a leader, he must at some point stop uttering the banal and populist platitudes so beloved of the PPFKATLD and get on with the job of leading. It would be absurd if he believed a particular law should be repealed but chose not to argue for that in Cabinet just because it hadn’t come top in a vote by the public. Similarly, if he wants to retain a law, make the case, don’t hide behind a superficial popularity vote.

Right, Tom. So what you're saying is that because you're elected, you can and should ignore the voice of the people? Because you're elected?

What a catastrophe!

Disastrous: the Iraq war caused a catastrophic loss of faith in the Labour Party.* This was definitely the most serious consequence of the war.

*Oh, and anywhere between a hundred thousand and a million sand wogs lost their lives. But they don't really matter, because they're not Labour voters.

How to wreak revenge on Labour

It will cost you a pound and it all starts here.

The Labour Party is so desperate for members that it is offering the first year of Labour Party membership for just £1. In exchange for that £1, you get all the perks of Labour membership, such as voting for the leadership.

And that means that for just £1, you can help to inflict someone as useless as Diane Abbott or as poisonous and divisive as Ed Balls or Harriet Harman on the Labour Party. And immediately after the coronation of whichever cunt you helped elect, you simply resign and walk away.

Membership of the Labour Party is currently around 200,000, so if just 250,000 people sign up, we can pretty much guarantee we'll fuck them completely.

"But wait," I hear you say, "are you seriously advocating giving £250,000 to the Labour Party?" Fret ye not: the Labour Party has colossal debts, well over £10,000,000 at the last account. Our donations will do nothing to help climb that particular mountain, and by inflicting someone terminally useless or poisonous on the Labour Party, we can hopefully fuck them into a cocked hat for the rest of eternity. It's money very well spent indeed.

Who is with me?

Tip of the clown wig to Old Holborn.

So: farewell then ...

... you fat, blithering, incompetent, venal, mendacious, arrogant, unpleasant, cowardly, greedy, power-hungry cunt of a freak.

And so the mighty New Labour project draws to an end, not with a bang but merely a shambolic whimper. Gordon was unpleasant and utterly self-centred to the fucking end. Imagine saying how being a father and a husband was more important than running the fucking cuntry. Listen you monocular mong, there are fucking millions of fathers in this country, there's no fucking way I'm swallowing that shit that what we all do is more important than running the fucking cuntry. No wonder it's such a fucking Christless mess!

In my opinion, Labour have fucked the Tories good and proper one last time, bowing themselves out to regroup, let the Tories take the flak for the impending clusterfuck and then charging back in on their white horse, taxing and spending to save the world.

I think a Lib-Lab coalition would have flushed both these odious turds down the shitter of history. Although it may have taken two or three flushes to get the enormous turd that is the Labour Party round the u-bend.

I think the Lib-Con coalition will probably flush the useless Cameroons down the toilet of history instead -- which is no great loss.

So, what can iDave salvage from this catastrophe? Well, he could do a lot worse than implement the Limp Dumb £10,000 tax-free policy for the poorest. He can use the Limp Dumbs as an excuse not to ringfence the NHS (or anything else.) He could stick a Limp Dumb into the Home Orifice and get huge swathes of illiberal Stasi state repealed without offending the Turnip Taliban, or whatever the fuck they're called.

He can have a referendum on PR while it's fresh in everyone's mind just how fucking democratic that is. And he can use the Limp Dumbs to give us that old "in or out" EU referendum he promised us in such a cast-iron way.

Yeah, right!