Saturday, 3 April 2010
Saturday, 27 March 2010
Labour's Soviet Britain
A New Labour Anti-Social Behaviour Victim's Champion
Labour are wittering about their latest "pledge card" which will detail the promises they're most likely to break if they ever get a sniff at power again. It's the usual airy-fairy meaningless stuff that no one will ever be able to prove one way or another. But one aspect caught my eye -
In an attempt to empower victims of antisocial behaviour, the prime minister says they will be entitled to take out civil injunctions, funded by the local public authority, if the police are not taking action within a set time.
"People have got to know if they have a real complaint they will get a fast response, and ultimately if they feel they have not been given satisfaction, they will be able to take a civil injunction themselves and that will be paid for by the authority."
Right, so let me see if I've got that right. Some local neds pan your window in and you report it to the police. They come round, investigate it, compile a report for the CPS or the Procurator Fiscal who evaluate it and decide if a conviction is likely etc etc. But, if you get bored of waiting, you can launch a civil case paid for by council tax payers. Or if the police point out that you never saw who broke your window and they can't arrest the ned across the road just because "he looks well shifty innit" you can launch your own prosecution.
Lovely. Expect the courts to be stuffed full of "He said, but she said and I said" cases in no time. Which will result in greater backlogs of cases, more people getting fed up and launching civil cases. All paid for by Council Tax Payers.
Then there's this little gem -
Labour is also planning to install champions for victims of antisocial behaviour in every local authority.What? Is that like Block Wardens then? Is this a fancy pc term for the old babushkas who kept an eye on tenement blocks in Soviet Russia, reporting anti-party behaviour to the State?
Tell you what, here's a better idea Gordon. Use the police we have. Let them do their jobs of patrolling the streets and deterring by their presence, instead of being used as personal bodyguards by politicians terrified of their own constituents and keeping a permanent thin blue line around Westminster.
Link
Jury Team are calling for the public to be given a referendum on introducing army-style punishments for offenders. I daresay that will have far more of an effect on anti social behaviour than Gordon's intention to bankrupt councils and logjam the courts.
Referendum Link
Saturday, 20 March 2010
Salmond - a national embarrassment
Ye can tak oor dignity, but ye canna tak oor subsidies
I see Alex Salmond has been shooting off at the lip prior to the SNP conference in Aviemore. The forthcoming General Election does indeed offer opportunities for Scotland. A hung parliament means a disproportionate amount of influence falls to smaller parties. As the Ulster Unionists demonstrated, such power can reap great rewards for constituents.
So it really made me cringe to see what Salmond intends to do in selling Scotland's influence. He wants MORE public funding and geegaws. For a pocketful of gold he'll bend in the wind to his English paymaster and ever perpetuate the image in English eyes of Scots being grasping, avaricious and shallow. It's not a nation stepping forward to grasp independence that Salmond wants, (the SNP have shown they are unable to motivate enough Scots to support the cause), he wants to stir up resentment and disgust of Scots in England to the point that Scotland is repelled into Independence, a pariah state on the British mainland.
At a time of belt-tightening and cutbacks, when all but the most moronic socialist simpleton knows spending must be cut, it is truly abhorrent to see a Scottish First Minister with the begging bowl out demanding "MORE".
BBC LINK
Tuesday, 9 March 2010
Jury Team - The Immigration Question
One of the anomalies of having something great is that you may want everyone to know you’ve got it, but if everyone knows about it then they may want a part of it. And if this happens too much then the real value can become rather seriously diluted.
Such is the case with the enormous privileges granted to us by our being British citizens. It is worth being proud about what this affords us. Little wonder that such privilege has attracted the attention of the rest of the world. Advertise a bargain sale on the television and the queues stretch around the corner for that store the next day. And so it is becoming with the offer of British Citizenship for immigrants entering Britain. Result: services get stretched to their limit and what was once valued and valuable to the 60 million or so people of this country, now cannot cope with the excessive demands placed upon its diminishing resources.
With that in mind, and considering that official figures show that immigrants being granted British Citizenship has increased by a colossal 200,000 in the past year under this Labour government, has the prized possession of citizenship and all it affords in this country become tarnished and poorer because of this?
In light of this pressure on diminishing resources, the Jury Team proposes the amount of time adult immigrants must be resident in the UK before they can claim an entitlement to full British citizenship (and therein those rights granted to every citizen) should increase from the 3-5 year as it is now, up to 10 years. Rather than being an easy result, an applicant with a genuine wish to achieve British citizenship would be tested to properly ascertain the required education and be required to prove their record is void of any crimes (http://tinyurl.com/Citizenship-10).
According to Migration Watch, a respected calculator of these numbers, the levels of migration have increased by a colossal 58% from the previous year (http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/)!
The Jury team believes this ‘open-door immigration’ policy has become a revolving door of issues under the current Labour government, scared to address an issue until it (typically) becomes too late to do anything about it. The Jury Team consider this as another form of Westminster ignorance, failing to acknowledge the incumbent issue of immigrants viewing the short-term qualification (as little as just 24 months) as a platform to live in Britain as they choose and receive automatic government benefits. The UK is the only EU country providing automatic, free medical healthcare; our European counterparts present a cogent policy of acquiring sufficient medical insurance before entry. This seems wholly sensible and therefore the Jury Team suggests making private medical insurance mandatory for non-EU citizens obtaining visas intending to be in the UK for a period of more than three months (http://tinyurl.com/Non-EU-Medical). The resultant saving to the NHS of £4billion a year could be spent better on those who are already the good citizens of Britain, and the value returned to that cherished position that it provides everyone.
Saturday, 13 February 2010
UK Afghan Troop Deaths Are 12 times European NATO Allies
One of Jury Team’s key policies is that British troops should not be put in harms way more than the the troops of other NATO countries. NATO “remains the cornerstone of UK defence policy” according to the Ministry of Defence. However NATO is meant to be a co-operative endeavour among its 28 members and if the UK is not specifically threatened then there should be no reason for it to play more than its fair part and to put its troops in greater danger.
An analysis being published today shows that British troops have been dragged into the Afghan war far more than any other NATO country. We have more troops there, compared with population, than any other NATO country including America.
Compared with the size of the UK, we have had 12 times more deaths than our European NATO allies since 2006 when the army was redeployed to Afghanistan and John Reid, the Defence Secretary at the time, famously said that “our boys” might leave in three years “without a shot being fired”.
In fact during 2006-9, Britain had 240 troops killed but Germany had only 19 deaths and Italy only 16. The total deaths of troops from Germany, Italy, France, Belgium, Spain and Portugal, with a combined population of 273 million, more than 4 times the UK, has been only 76, less than a third of the number of UK fatal casualties. This means that per head of population, Britain has suffered 12 times fatalities more than its supposed NATO allies and has suffered nearly double the U.S.A.
This new analysis is taken from the latest troop numbers posted last week on the website of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan which is run by NATO on behalf of the United Nations.
The Jury Team policy is to “Limit the number of British troops sent to Afghanistan to the average number sent by other NATO countries (relative to their population)”. This would mean that instead of 9,500 troops in Afghanistan, the UK would have only about 4,000. We would still be fulfilling all of our NATO obligations but would also be saving at least £2 billion a year.
Jury Team policies are based on what the British people want. The political class have become out of touch with the electorate. As a result of vested interests and electoral cowardice, the current party system does not deliver the policies that people want. The traditional political parties do not even properly debate the issues. Using its own review substantiated by a series of YouGov opinion polls, the Jury Team has researched the areas where the political class and the public have clearly different views. Jury Team will legislate for those policies and then have an authorising referendum before they become law.
The Jury Team policy on Afghanistan was shown in a YouGov poll to be supported by 67% of the electorate to 14% against. There was particularly strong support from females (71%) and from those aged 55+ (75%).
The following table shows the latest available (1st February 2010) number of troops deployed in Afghanistan by all 28 countries of NATO as shown on the website of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) which is run by NATO on behalf of the United Nations:
The table is in the order of the number of troops per million of population. It can be seen that the UK has the highest number, 154 per million, of any NATO country. In contrast France, Germany and Italy have a ratio of only 58, 52 and 52 per million respectively. The average of this ratio for all NATO countries is 62.4 and if the UK moves to this ratio then it will lead to a 60% reduction, about 6,000, in the number of UK troops deployed, saving around £2 billion from the defence contingency budget. These 6,000 would amount to about 7% of the current total NATO forces deployed. This could be made up by further troops from other countries or by reducing the area covered or the rate of training of the Afghan army. Professor Malcolm Chalmers of the Royal United Services Institute, the military think-tank, has already said it would be feasible for 'the total size of the commitment to go down to around 5,000 by 2012'.
The table also shows the number of deaths in Afghanistan up to the end of 2009 for troops of the various countries since 2006 when NATO was redeployed. Tom Coghlan said in The Times in January 2010: 'The force levels now being deployed show the catastrophic miscalculation that was made before the original deployment of 3,300 British soldiers in 2006; with the famous hope of John Reid, the Defence Secretary at the time, that they might leave in three years 'without a shot being fired' '. It can be seen that at 3.9 deaths per million population, the UK has a death rate slightly higher than Canada and much greater than the US. The UK death rate per million population is the highest with the exception of Denmark and Estonia, whose forces both suffered from serious isolated incidents, and is more than 10 times that for the troops from Germany, France and Italy.
If there is a threat to the West then every country of NATO should be deploying its troops similarly. However there seems no reason why the UK should provide more than its fair share of troops to the NATO campaign in Afghanistan. This Proposal will limit the number of UK troops to the NATO average (relative to population) although for operational reasons during handover periods the government would be allowed to exceed this limit by 10% for up to three months.
An analysis being published today shows that British troops have been dragged into the Afghan war far more than any other NATO country. We have more troops there, compared with population, than any other NATO country including America.
Compared with the size of the UK, we have had 12 times more deaths than our European NATO allies since 2006 when the army was redeployed to Afghanistan and John Reid, the Defence Secretary at the time, famously said that “our boys” might leave in three years “without a shot being fired”.
In fact during 2006-9, Britain had 240 troops killed but Germany had only 19 deaths and Italy only 16. The total deaths of troops from Germany, Italy, France, Belgium, Spain and Portugal, with a combined population of 273 million, more than 4 times the UK, has been only 76, less than a third of the number of UK fatal casualties. This means that per head of population, Britain has suffered 12 times fatalities more than its supposed NATO allies and has suffered nearly double the U.S.A.
This new analysis is taken from the latest troop numbers posted last week on the website of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan which is run by NATO on behalf of the United Nations.
The Jury Team policy is to “Limit the number of British troops sent to Afghanistan to the average number sent by other NATO countries (relative to their population)”. This would mean that instead of 9,500 troops in Afghanistan, the UK would have only about 4,000. We would still be fulfilling all of our NATO obligations but would also be saving at least £2 billion a year.
Jury Team policies are based on what the British people want. The political class have become out of touch with the electorate. As a result of vested interests and electoral cowardice, the current party system does not deliver the policies that people want. The traditional political parties do not even properly debate the issues. Using its own review substantiated by a series of YouGov opinion polls, the Jury Team has researched the areas where the political class and the public have clearly different views. Jury Team will legislate for those policies and then have an authorising referendum before they become law.
The Jury Team policy on Afghanistan was shown in a YouGov poll to be supported by 67% of the electorate to 14% against. There was particularly strong support from females (71%) and from those aged 55+ (75%).
The following table shows the latest available (1st February 2010) number of troops deployed in Afghanistan by all 28 countries of NATO as shown on the website of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) which is run by NATO on behalf of the United Nations:
| | Troops | Population | Troops Per Million | Deaths 2006-9 | Deaths Per Million |
| | 9,500 | 61,634,599 | 154.1 | 240 | 3.9 |
| | 47,085 | 308,181,734 | 152.8 | 689 | 2.2 |
| | 750 | 5,511,451 | 136.1 | 26 | 4.7 |
| | 1,950 | 16,486,587 | 118.3 | 21 | 1.3 |
| | 150 | 1,340,415 | 111.9 | 7 | 5.2 |
| | 500 | 4,799,252 | 104.2 | 3 | 0.6 |
| | 2,830 | 33,880,270 | 83.5 | 130 | 3.8 |
| | 175 | 2,261,294 | 77.4 | 3 | 1.3 |
| | 540 | 7,606,551 | 71.0 | | |
| | 255 | 3,639,453 | 70.1 | | |
| | 295 | 4,435,056 | 66.5 | | |
| | 3,750 | 64,351,000 | 58.3 | 31 | 0.5 |
| | 575 | 10,665,867 | 53.9 | 1 | 0.1 |
| | 4,415 | 82,002,356 | 53.8 | 16 | 0.2 |
| | 3,150 | 60,053,442 | 52.5 | 19 | 0.3 |
| | 1,955 | 38,135,876 | 51.3 | 16 | 0.4 |
| | 165 | 3,349,872 | 49.3 | 1 | 0.3 |
| | 240 | 5,412,254 | 44.3 | | |
| | 945 | 21,498,616 | 44.0 | 8 | 0.4 |
| | 440 | 10,467,542 | 42.0 | 3 | 0.3 |
| | 70 | 2,032,362 | 34.4 | | |
| | 315 | 10,030,975 | 31.4 | 2 | 0.2 |
| | 1,755 | 71,517,100 | 24.5 | 2 | 0.0 |
| | 1,070 | 46,661,950 | 22.9 | 8 | 0.2 |
| | 9 | 493,500 | 18.2 | | |
| | 105 | 10,627,250 | 9.9 | 1 | 0.1 |
| | 3 | 319,368 | 9.4 | | |
| | 15 | 11,260,402 | 1.3 | | |
| TOTAL | 83,007 | 898,656,394 | 92.4 | 1,227 | 1.4 |
| AVERAGE | | | 62.4 | | 0.9 |
The table is in the order of the number of troops per million of population. It can be seen that the UK has the highest number, 154 per million, of any NATO country. In contrast France, Germany and Italy have a ratio of only 58, 52 and 52 per million respectively. The average of this ratio for all NATO countries is 62.4 and if the UK moves to this ratio then it will lead to a 60% reduction, about 6,000, in the number of UK troops deployed, saving around £2 billion from the defence contingency budget. These 6,000 would amount to about 7% of the current total NATO forces deployed. This could be made up by further troops from other countries or by reducing the area covered or the rate of training of the Afghan army. Professor Malcolm Chalmers of the Royal United Services Institute, the military think-tank, has already said it would be feasible for 'the total size of the commitment to go down to around 5,000 by 2012'.
The table also shows the number of deaths in Afghanistan up to the end of 2009 for troops of the various countries since 2006 when NATO was redeployed. Tom Coghlan said in The Times in January 2010: 'The force levels now being deployed show the catastrophic miscalculation that was made before the original deployment of 3,300 British soldiers in 2006; with the famous hope of John Reid, the Defence Secretary at the time, that they might leave in three years 'without a shot being fired' '. It can be seen that at 3.9 deaths per million population, the UK has a death rate slightly higher than Canada and much greater than the US. The UK death rate per million population is the highest with the exception of Denmark and Estonia, whose forces both suffered from serious isolated incidents, and is more than 10 times that for the troops from Germany, France and Italy.
If there is a threat to the West then every country of NATO should be deploying its troops similarly. However there seems no reason why the UK should provide more than its fair share of troops to the NATO campaign in Afghanistan. This Proposal will limit the number of UK troops to the NATO average (relative to population) although for operational reasons during handover periods the government would be allowed to exceed this limit by 10% for up to three months.
Friday, 6 November 2009
Why Smeaton?
It's a common question. Why Smeaton? What gives John Smeaton the right to think he can stand as an MP? How does his role in the events at Glasgow Airport equip him to represent 80,000 people?
The answer's obvious really. It's not so much his actions - I don't think John did any more than most of us would have done given the opportunity, it was the voice he gave to a nation the morning after when a camera crew grabbed him for a quick interview.
Let's not forget the sense of shock in Scotland at the time. We pride ourselves in being different from the rest of Britain, that we are a happy-go-lucky nation comprised of people loved the world over. Terrorism is something that happens everywhere else, not in Scotland. But as those images of a burning car at the airport filled the news-stands and the flames flickered repeatedly on tellys in shop windows it hit home that maybe the world doesn't really love us. Maybe Jocks are as vulnerable as anyone else and any one of us could have been engulfed in tragedy just by going to an airport to fly out on holiday.
As we collectively held our breath, up stepped a glaikit ginger Weegie babbling excitedly and swinging his arms in the air, descibing what he did and more importantly coming out with a line that caught the imagination - "This is Glasgow - we'll set aboot ye".
The relief in us all was tangible. Across the nation people laughed and said "Good for you son". Suddenly, we were back in our rightful place. Jocks are different after all. The terrible evil that was almost perpetrated by religious fanatics intent on burning holidaymakers to death had been thwarted by Scots. A tale of heroism was being told to us by a baggage handler - who was quick to downplay his own role and point out that others did as much, if not more.
That's why John Smeaton deserved his medal. Not for saving Glasgow Airport but for saving a nation from doubt and self-pity. He took away our fears and made us smile again. The immediate fear amongst the Muslim Community in Glasgow was that there would be an unfair backlash against them. That there wasn't can largely be put down to John Smeaton puncturing the pontificating terror "experts" who flooded our tv screens with dire warnings about the "enemy within". All nonsense of course and a nonsense that we Scots instinctively knew, but it took the excited tones of John Smeaton to help us see through that.
John Smeaton is the everyman for our times. His Sun column regularly strikes a chord with the public in a way that more highbrow, more educated, more academic tomes fail to. He doesn't make any claim to being better than anyone else, he just tells it as he sees it, just as he did outside the airport in July 2007. It's that refreshing straightforwardness that endears him to thousands of his readers and so infuriates rival newspapers.
And it's that same welcome gauche approach that makes him an ideal candidate for Westminster. We know that if we send John Smeaton to Westminster, we're going to get some more straight talking answers. Somebody wrote that John wouldn't be smart enough to fiddle his expenses - well he's smart enough to know that taking money that isn't yours is theft, something that a few hundred MPs failed to recognise so he's ahead of 50% of them right away.
Sending John Smeaton to Westminster might be the smartest thing Glasgow has done in ages. Who can doubt that the media circus will descend upon Glasgow North East if Smeaton leads them. As an Independent untainted by the machinations of Scottish politics he can point to Labour and SNP failures equally and cry "enough". He can embarass the sitting governments in Holyrood and Westminster into finally doing something in the constituency. And be sure of this, after such a slap in the face, if Labour regain the seat in the future they will never neglect it again.
In July 2007, John Smeaton made us proud to be Scots. On November 12th, he can make Scots proud of Glasgow.
The answer's obvious really. It's not so much his actions - I don't think John did any more than most of us would have done given the opportunity, it was the voice he gave to a nation the morning after when a camera crew grabbed him for a quick interview.
Let's not forget the sense of shock in Scotland at the time. We pride ourselves in being different from the rest of Britain, that we are a happy-go-lucky nation comprised of people loved the world over. Terrorism is something that happens everywhere else, not in Scotland. But as those images of a burning car at the airport filled the news-stands and the flames flickered repeatedly on tellys in shop windows it hit home that maybe the world doesn't really love us. Maybe Jocks are as vulnerable as anyone else and any one of us could have been engulfed in tragedy just by going to an airport to fly out on holiday.
As we collectively held our breath, up stepped a glaikit ginger Weegie babbling excitedly and swinging his arms in the air, descibing what he did and more importantly coming out with a line that caught the imagination - "This is Glasgow - we'll set aboot ye".
The relief in us all was tangible. Across the nation people laughed and said "Good for you son". Suddenly, we were back in our rightful place. Jocks are different after all. The terrible evil that was almost perpetrated by religious fanatics intent on burning holidaymakers to death had been thwarted by Scots. A tale of heroism was being told to us by a baggage handler - who was quick to downplay his own role and point out that others did as much, if not more.
That's why John Smeaton deserved his medal. Not for saving Glasgow Airport but for saving a nation from doubt and self-pity. He took away our fears and made us smile again. The immediate fear amongst the Muslim Community in Glasgow was that there would be an unfair backlash against them. That there wasn't can largely be put down to John Smeaton puncturing the pontificating terror "experts" who flooded our tv screens with dire warnings about the "enemy within". All nonsense of course and a nonsense that we Scots instinctively knew, but it took the excited tones of John Smeaton to help us see through that.
John Smeaton is the everyman for our times. His Sun column regularly strikes a chord with the public in a way that more highbrow, more educated, more academic tomes fail to. He doesn't make any claim to being better than anyone else, he just tells it as he sees it, just as he did outside the airport in July 2007. It's that refreshing straightforwardness that endears him to thousands of his readers and so infuriates rival newspapers.
And it's that same welcome gauche approach that makes him an ideal candidate for Westminster. We know that if we send John Smeaton to Westminster, we're going to get some more straight talking answers. Somebody wrote that John wouldn't be smart enough to fiddle his expenses - well he's smart enough to know that taking money that isn't yours is theft, something that a few hundred MPs failed to recognise so he's ahead of 50% of them right away.
Sending John Smeaton to Westminster might be the smartest thing Glasgow has done in ages. Who can doubt that the media circus will descend upon Glasgow North East if Smeaton leads them. As an Independent untainted by the machinations of Scottish politics he can point to Labour and SNP failures equally and cry "enough". He can embarass the sitting governments in Holyrood and Westminster into finally doing something in the constituency. And be sure of this, after such a slap in the face, if Labour regain the seat in the future they will never neglect it again.
In July 2007, John Smeaton made us proud to be Scots. On November 12th, he can make Scots proud of Glasgow.
Thursday, 5 November 2009
The Questions Wee Willie Bain Isn't Even Being Asked
It's amazing how compliant the media in Glasgow have been with the Labour Party and their poodle candidate, Willie Bain. They quite happily regurgitate spin-doctor's blurb about how Bain has lived in Springburn all his life whilst somehow managing to work in London. Good trick that.
Here's some more questions the Scottish Press won't ask wee Willie.
- how long has he worked in London at London South Bank University?
- how many hours is he contracted to work in London each week?
- how much is he paid?
- does he have a home in London, and if not where does he stay and with who?
- does he have a partner or any children?
- what did he do between graduating in 1995 and going back to Strathclyde for his Masters in 2003-4? Who did he work for?
- has he ever been employed by Michael Martin or by Parliament or the UK or Scottish Government?
It's amazing how little we know about Wee Willie Bain.
Maybe Labour are hoping no-one will ask.
Here's some more questions the Scottish Press won't ask wee Willie.
- how long has he worked in London at London South Bank University?
- how many hours is he contracted to work in London each week?
- how much is he paid?
- does he have a home in London, and if not where does he stay and with who?
- does he have a partner or any children?
- what did he do between graduating in 1995 and going back to Strathclyde for his Masters in 2003-4? Who did he work for?
- has he ever been employed by Michael Martin or by Parliament or the UK or Scottish Government?
It's amazing how little we know about Wee Willie Bain.
Maybe Labour are hoping no-one will ask.
Sunday, 1 November 2009
Public Money means Public Accountability, Harriet.
Harriet Harman is bleating that MPs should continue to be allowed to employ family members. Like Nadine Dorries and her £28k a year daughter I suppose?
Wrong.
MPs should have assistants appointed to them by the Civil Service, who will recruit, interview and assess their suitability. This is public money. How would Ms Harman react if the PM made his fragrant wife his Deputy? Would she be upset at not even being offered an interview?
When will politicians get it? This isn't a "grace and favour" society any more. They don't get to lord it over the rest of us any more.
Here in Glasgow North East, Labour think they can dump a party hack off on the constituency. The London South Bank law lecturer Willie Bain seems to be a bit confused. He's claiming that he's always lived in the constituency. Either his neighbours are liars or Willie must have the biggest loudhailer in the world to teach in London and live in Springburn.
Why don't they just get real? We know Willie is just showing up cos his bosses have ordered him to. He got out of Glasgow years ago and settled in London. David Kerr will stand wherever his bosses point him too. First Falkirk was his one true love, now it's Glasgow. In a few months it'll be Falkirk again when he goes for three defeats in a row. Is that what they mean by "Taking one for the team"?
And through it all, we've got Harman the huggable harpie bleating that life's not fair.
Tough. Maybe when we clear the liars, crooks and party lickspittles out of Westminster we'll start to see real representative democracy. Remember that? When MPs represented their constituents? Seems to me they look after themselves and their mates at all times.
John Smeaton in Glasgow North East is doing things differently. He helped an ex-serviceman set up a football team to keep youths off the streets. As Jamie Robertson said -
Wrong.
MPs should have assistants appointed to them by the Civil Service, who will recruit, interview and assess their suitability. This is public money. How would Ms Harman react if the PM made his fragrant wife his Deputy? Would she be upset at not even being offered an interview?
When will politicians get it? This isn't a "grace and favour" society any more. They don't get to lord it over the rest of us any more.
Here in Glasgow North East, Labour think they can dump a party hack off on the constituency. The London South Bank law lecturer Willie Bain seems to be a bit confused. He's claiming that he's always lived in the constituency. Either his neighbours are liars or Willie must have the biggest loudhailer in the world to teach in London and live in Springburn.
Why don't they just get real? We know Willie is just showing up cos his bosses have ordered him to. He got out of Glasgow years ago and settled in London. David Kerr will stand wherever his bosses point him too. First Falkirk was his one true love, now it's Glasgow. In a few months it'll be Falkirk again when he goes for three defeats in a row. Is that what they mean by "Taking one for the team"?
And through it all, we've got Harman the huggable harpie bleating that life's not fair.
Tough. Maybe when we clear the liars, crooks and party lickspittles out of Westminster we'll start to see real representative democracy. Remember that? When MPs represented their constituents? Seems to me they look after themselves and their mates at all times.
John Smeaton in Glasgow North East is doing things differently. He helped an ex-serviceman set up a football team to keep youths off the streets. As Jamie Robertson said -
No councillors or politicians listened to us - John is the only person who has. We approached him and he helped. He's already better than any other MP as far as I'm concerned. The rest of them say they are going to do this or that, but John actually does itSunday Post 1/11/09
Parties refuse to trust voters
I see Tavish Scott of the Lib Dems has whipped his members back into line. No doubt harsh words were exchanged at anybody daring to speak their minds. The issue at question was that of giving the people of Scotland a referendum on a constitutional matter. The Nationalists have maintained for years that Scots want Independence, despite the evidence of opinion polls.
Why don't we just hold the referendum? Now. Next month. Do it and get it done with.
What are politicians so scared of? Why do the Nationalists want to rig the question and hold a referendum at an exact time of their choosing? Why do the other parties fight so hard to make sure that Scots do not have a say in the future of their country?
This is the 21st Century. The days of sending off some member of the landed gentry to far-off London to take care of our interests are long gone. We are better educated, better informed, better capable of reaching a rational decision on our own than at any time in our history.
We've seen what comes of trusting politicians - they screw us for every penny they can get, then give themselves ermine & grand titles. Politicians are intrinsically untrustworthy, or so it seems. Given all the evidence, isn't it outrageous that THEY don't trust US?
Jury Team believes in putting the whip back in the hands of the people. Politicians work for US. They've managed to twist democracy into some perverted feudal system which sets them up as our lords & masters.
No more.
A vote for Jury Team is a vote for freedom.
Why don't we just hold the referendum? Now. Next month. Do it and get it done with.
What are politicians so scared of? Why do the Nationalists want to rig the question and hold a referendum at an exact time of their choosing? Why do the other parties fight so hard to make sure that Scots do not have a say in the future of their country?
This is the 21st Century. The days of sending off some member of the landed gentry to far-off London to take care of our interests are long gone. We are better educated, better informed, better capable of reaching a rational decision on our own than at any time in our history.
We've seen what comes of trusting politicians - they screw us for every penny they can get, then give themselves ermine & grand titles. Politicians are intrinsically untrustworthy, or so it seems. Given all the evidence, isn't it outrageous that THEY don't trust US?
Jury Team believes in putting the whip back in the hands of the people. Politicians work for US. They've managed to twist democracy into some perverted feudal system which sets them up as our lords & masters.
No more.
A vote for Jury Team is a vote for freedom.
Saturday, 31 October 2009
If we can't send gunpowder, let's send Smeato
Three beautiful Guy Fawkes' turned up in Duke Street today to support Jury Team & John Smeaton in the Glasgow North East By-Election. They certainly put the soor-faced activists of the parties' gas at a peep.
Thursday, 29 October 2009
BBC Playing With Politics
Away from the canvassing, the shaking hands and the snogging of babies by wannabe politicians in Glasgow North East, there's an important battle going on that affects the basic democratic nature of this country. Last week, the BBC held a hustings on a radio show. A hustings is always understood to be an event where all the candidates have a chance to address an audience and answer questions. Well, the BBC version is different because the BBC pick & choose which candidates they will allow on the stand. Whereas the Electoral Commission treats every candidate equally, the BBC feel they are above such equanimity.
Back at the Euro Elections, the BBC made an important policy decision. They decided to award airtime to political parties on the basis of past electoral performance. Because of this, the BNP were given the same airtime as the Greens. UKIP were given the airtime befitting a party that did well at the Euros last time round, totally ignoring the fact that their vote had collapsed in the interim. We saw the result. UKIP went from around 6% in the polls to a resounding success at the ballot box and the BNP gained their first seats.
It's as if the BBC don't understand the effect of the media.
They meddled in politics again last week with a botched hatchet job at Question Time. Whilst I personally agree that the BNP had earned the right at the ballot box (with BBC assistance) to appear on QT, they hadn't earned the right to have the show turned into a soapbox for their policies. And the result? The BNP bounced to 22% in one opinion poll.
Back with the John Smeaton campaign in Glasgow, the BBC continue to play favourites. At their "hustings", they invited Labour, SNP, Conservative & Lib Dem candidates. When Jury Team questioned the omission of our candidate, we were told "Only the top parties were invited". By what measure do they arrive at "top"? John Smeaton has been a comfortable third in the polls since his hat was thrown in the ring. The BBC say they base such decisions on "Past Electoral Performance". Well, because this was the Speaker's seat and convention says parties don't contest against the Speaker, it's 12 years since the Conservatives or the Lib Dems had a candidate here. And when they did contest it over a decade ago, they were utterly trounced.
If we were allocating airtime according to the last electoral test, the Euros, the BNP with the same number of MEPs as the SNP would have to be given equal airtime. Indeed, if only four candidates were to appear on the BBC on the basis of past performance, last week's Brian Taylor "Big" Debate would have featured Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems and the Greens.
The truth is, all this chicanery shouldn't be happening. It isn't for the BBC to pick & choose who the public gets to hear, it's the Electoral Commission. Chatting with the Returning Officer, I remarked how his office were scrupulously fair in ensuring that every candidate gets exactly the same treatment. Be it an Independent or the ruling Party, every candidate is equal in the eyes of the law.
We've seen how the BBC can throw elections and lead the public by the nose. The BNP & UKIP owe much of their success to the BBC. This is something that Jury Team is arguing vehemently against with the BBC and it's an argument we will pursue doggedly for the sake of this country.
Jury Team is about better governance. We cannot hope to succeed whilst the State Broadcaster is allowed to meddle in politics and influence elections.
Back at the Euro Elections, the BBC made an important policy decision. They decided to award airtime to political parties on the basis of past electoral performance. Because of this, the BNP were given the same airtime as the Greens. UKIP were given the airtime befitting a party that did well at the Euros last time round, totally ignoring the fact that their vote had collapsed in the interim. We saw the result. UKIP went from around 6% in the polls to a resounding success at the ballot box and the BNP gained their first seats.
It's as if the BBC don't understand the effect of the media.
They meddled in politics again last week with a botched hatchet job at Question Time. Whilst I personally agree that the BNP had earned the right at the ballot box (with BBC assistance) to appear on QT, they hadn't earned the right to have the show turned into a soapbox for their policies. And the result? The BNP bounced to 22% in one opinion poll.
Back with the John Smeaton campaign in Glasgow, the BBC continue to play favourites. At their "hustings", they invited Labour, SNP, Conservative & Lib Dem candidates. When Jury Team questioned the omission of our candidate, we were told "Only the top parties were invited". By what measure do they arrive at "top"? John Smeaton has been a comfortable third in the polls since his hat was thrown in the ring. The BBC say they base such decisions on "Past Electoral Performance". Well, because this was the Speaker's seat and convention says parties don't contest against the Speaker, it's 12 years since the Conservatives or the Lib Dems had a candidate here. And when they did contest it over a decade ago, they were utterly trounced.
If we were allocating airtime according to the last electoral test, the Euros, the BNP with the same number of MEPs as the SNP would have to be given equal airtime. Indeed, if only four candidates were to appear on the BBC on the basis of past performance, last week's Brian Taylor "Big" Debate would have featured Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems and the Greens.
The truth is, all this chicanery shouldn't be happening. It isn't for the BBC to pick & choose who the public gets to hear, it's the Electoral Commission. Chatting with the Returning Officer, I remarked how his office were scrupulously fair in ensuring that every candidate gets exactly the same treatment. Be it an Independent or the ruling Party, every candidate is equal in the eyes of the law.
We've seen how the BBC can throw elections and lead the public by the nose. The BNP & UKIP owe much of their success to the BBC. This is something that Jury Team is arguing vehemently against with the BBC and it's an argument we will pursue doggedly for the sake of this country.
Jury Team is about better governance. We cannot hope to succeed whilst the State Broadcaster is allowed to meddle in politics and influence elections.
Sunday, 25 October 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
