Saturday, 16 January 2016

Labour council tries to avoid paying people for flood damage by blaming the SNP


I was planning to enjoy my break from blogging for a while yet, but tales of local government stupidity are just too good to miss, so let's hear it for Dumfries and Galloway's attempt to avoid paying people for the recent flood damage and then blame the SNP government for that.

The government set aside £700,000 to pay the victims of the New Year floods, but D&G Council decided not to tell any of their residents about that fund. Then, when people began to make claims, the council brushed them off with the excuse that the fund was only for the victims of the earlier flooding the month before.

Unfortunately at least one victim of the December floods came forward and told her MSP that when she had applied for the compensation the council had told her that they knew nothing about any fund that the government had set aside to compensate anyone for any flooding at all!

Things became entertaining when Labour decided to make political capital out of the cock-up, which led to John Swinney, the Finance Minister, losing his rag completely and  handed out a dose of the old heavy manners:




Joan McAlpine, who sits in Holyrood for the South of Scotland region posted the full, sorry tale to Facebook on the 11 January, and needless to say, the council promptly altered its website and is now advertising the fact that people who suffered in the floods can get money for repairs to their property, but it's a bit late for all that now, isn't it?

This has nothing to do with Jeremy Corbyn, Momentum, the takeover of the Labour Party by Trotscum, or any other fantasy that the political right wants to come out with. This is the old story of Labour incompetence at its worst, with local councillors sitting back in the members' bar and leaving matters to the council's officers to run. You could not make shit like this up if you tried.

In just over four months Scotland will have a general election, and Labour are going to need a miracle to save them in the South of Scotland.

Thursday, 24 December 2015

Pigs in blankets are renamed Cameron's Delights

All ready for Christmas dinner? Remember that pigs in blankets are now called Cameron's Delights, in honour of our illustrious Prime Minister and the love he has for schlonging pigs.

Just make sure that the sausages that you make 'em with are chipotle sized!

Merry Christmas to one and all.

Wednesday, 23 December 2015

Donald Trump and the schlonging of Hilary Clinton


I am developing a soft spot for Donald Trump, if only because he manages to annoy all the people whose presence on this planet leave me feeling in need of a bath. The lovely thing is that with his most recent comment he did it just by telling the truth.

The Donald pointed out that Hillary Clinton had been defeated badly by Barack Obama when the two had battled for the Democratic nomination for the White House and that was enough to have the pure at heart reaching for their smelling salts.

OK, he didn't put it quite like that. What he said was: "She was going to beat Obama. She was favoured to win and she got schlonged. She lost, I mean she lost." However, it means the same thing. As the British would say: Hillary was given a right good shagging.

Instead of trying to argue that Hillary was not shagged - or schlonged, depending on which version of English you speak - the pure at heart are hoping to make people forget that simple fact by talking about The Donald's use of language. 

As part of that strategy the silly sods reminded us that back in April The Donald quoted as young Texan woman who demolished Hillary Clinton in just 16 words: "If Hillary Clinton can't satisfy her husband what makes her think that she can satisfy America?"

They thought that this was another example of Trump's offensive speech, and either forgot or just didn't know that he was quoting the words of a woman. However, the real problem is that it also reminds America of Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky and Bill's love of cigars...

Somebody should have a quiet word in the ears of America's pure at heart. The reason why The Donald is doing so well is that he gives people a chance to give the American version of the two-fingered salute to them.
‘If Hillary Clinton Can’t Satisfy Her Husband, What Makes Her Think She Can Satisfy America?’ - See more at: http://www.teaparty.org/trump-not-responsible-for-tweet-if-hillary-clinton-cant-satisfy-her-husband-what-makes-her-think-she-can-satisfy-america-94780/#sthash.mLaOSUj0.dpuf
‘If Hillary Clinton Can’t Satisfy Her Husband, What Makes Her Think She Can Satisfy America?’ - See more at: http://www.teaparty.org/trump-not-responsible-for-tweet-if-hillary-clinton-cant-satisfy-her-husband-what-makes-her-think-she-can-satisfy-america-94780/#sthash.mLaOSUj0.dpuf

Saturday, 19 December 2015

Labour & Tories present a joint guide to losing an election


It's rare to have a weekend when both Labour and the Tories drop electoral bollocks, but by God this weekend was one to remember for such an event.

First up was Diane Abbott, pictured above stuffing her gullet with something or other. The Hockney Hippo appeared to stick the boot in her own party when she airily claimed, “I mean, it is too late now to rebuild the position in Scotland in time for May." 

Now parties may suspect that they are going to be left with their arses hanging out the electoral window, but rule one of politics is that you don't say that publicly before the election. 

If you break that rule then it makes you look like a bunch of incompetent losers, something which David "Fluffy" Mundell should have remembered before he went on the break it himself.


Fluffy is the last surviving Tory MP in Scotland, and his contribution to the weekend's joint train crash was to tell the good people of Scotland that they should vote Tory to avoid the country becoming a one party state run by the SNP.

That's right: he wasn't saying how great his party was, or what it would do for the country, merely that we should cast as sort of sympathy vote for his ramshackle outfit just to stop the government that most of us actually quite like from getting too many seats.

So an own goal apiece for both parties, but then Labour came along, dribbled the ball from the half way line right into their own area and scored a blistering goal into the back of their own net. You don't believe me: meet the Labour candidate for the Glasgow Southside seat in next years Scottish General Election:


No, it's not a bloke, it is actually a bird that answers to the name of Fariha Thomas. This woman is so unknown that she has not yet had an insulting nickname bestowed upon her. She has sat as a Glasgow councillor for all of three years, is from London originally and is a convert to Islam.

Glasgow Southside, in case you were wondering, is Nicola Sturgeon's seat. Now I accept that Labour has little chance of winning it, but did they have to choose a candidate who is so far removed from Glasgow, not to say Scotland's, mainstream?

I try to understand what if going through the minds of the two old parties, I really do. The problem is that they come over as two little bunny rabbits caught in the blazing headlights of the SNP truck that is charging down the road and will soon squash them

Friday, 4 December 2015

Labour romps to victory in Oldham West & Royton leaving Kippers smoked


Labour swept to victory in Oldham West & Royton yesterday with an increased share of the vote. Given that an awful lot of people in the media and political bubble were predicting a narrow win, and many were dreaming about the party losing the seat, that means arses have been left stinging all round.

Nigel Farage the UKIP leader rather engagingly lost the plot completely and began to bang on about how the result must have been a fix. His more deranged followers took up that theme, and are now going postal all over the web. For their part the Tories who saw their share of the vote collapse to a derisory 2,500 votes are keeping very quiet in the hope that people will not start laughing at them for this utter failure.

So how did Labour manage it? I will argue that four factors need to be considered:

The first is that Labour under old Stormin' Corbyn really is the party that wants to keep the wages up, the management down and the benefits flowing. The press and UKIP may rattle on about immigration and the like, but working class people in places like Oldham are used to having to make compromises as the price they have to pay to get some of their issues addressed. They may not like Labour's social policies, but so long as the party represents their economic interests then they will support it. 

Secondly, Oldham has changed enormously in the forty years since I had the misfortune to work there. Back then the town really was an isolated shithole, with shops that closed an lunchtime, and its very own lower middle class of shopkeepers and small businessmen.

Today if you want to buy a pie in Oldham then you go to Greggs, which is part of a chain. Buying a newspaper involves going into a shop run by a Pakistani. That traditional, white, lower middle class, commercial group who ran things forty years ago from their small, independent shops are no longer around. Given that those type of people are the bedrock that UKIP rests upon, it should be obvious why the party does not have a voting core in Oldham.

Oldham has a middle class, of course it does, but they are what I like to call the polyocracy who are employed in local government, teaching or the NHS. They are not going to vote for parties like the Tories or UKIP who want to do them over economically. The Pakistani population is just as poor as its British counterparts, but is also outraged by the latest Middle East war, so you can forget them. The rest of the population, roughly sixty percent in total, are largely made up of unskilled and semi-skilled working class people who have been ignored by Labour for at least a generation. Then along came Corbyn and all of a sudden there are polices that Labour's core voters can get their teeth into - is it any wonder that they voted Labour?

Thirdly, Labour has an electoral machine, which may be a bit rusty after the Blair years, but could still be greased up and set in motion. The influx of several hundred volunteers from all over Britain who travelled to Oldham at their own expense to canvass in the pouring rain, before going to sleep another night on someone's sofa was all it needed to get the machine firing on all cylinders.

Working class people actually rather like being canvassed in person. They like it when someone knocks on the door and tells them how important their vote is, especially when it is piss pouring it down with rain outside. People are used to being ignored or taken for granted by just about everyone, and there's a knock on the door and there's some pretty little girl, dripping wet, but determined to treat them as if they matter.

Finally, Labour had a perfect candidate in Jim McMahon. A local man who left school at 16, and then worked his balls off to provide for his family. He is dismissed as a right-winger by some of the Trots, but he is actually an old Labour man who wants what is right for his people. Had Blair still been in power then some Oxbridge type would have been forced on the constituency, but Corbyn left the local party to make its own choice and they chose wisely.

Looked at in those terms, it is amazing that anyone really believed that Labour could do anything other than triumph in Oldham West & Royton.

Friday, 27 November 2015

Labour is almost certain to win Oldham West & Royton


Next Thursday the people of Oldham West & Royton will go to the polls to elect a new MP, to replace Michael Meacher who sadly died recently. Hopefully, Jim McMahon will be chosen to take Michael's seat, but given that this is a by-election in December when  anything is theoretically possible, we cannot blame the Tories, Lib-Dems and UKIP for trying to talk down McMahon's chances.

I used to live in the Oldham West constituency, and in the 1983 general election I was the party member who drove Michael Meacher around what would become his new seat. It was new in the sense that Openshaw had been abolished and some of its wards, including mine, had ended up in Oldham West. Charles Morris had been the Openshaw MP and there was quite a bit of ill feeling in his part of the constituency that he had not been selected to fight the new Oldham West.

In that general election Labour was engaged in another one of its internal feuds between right and left, but the party had an army of new activists who had joined to fight Thatcher and we slogged our guts out to get Michael elected.

He was returned with 44% of the vote, which the old guard told us was a disaster, that was all due to our failure to select Charlie Morris!

Over a generation later later, in Jim McMahon Labour has a candidate who is not only local to the area, but is well respected in it. People know that he is the local lad who left school at 16, was a father in his early twenties and worked two jobs to put the corn on the table for his family. The fact that Labour is once again engaged in a bout of internal blood-letting is neither here nor there.

Labour's new army of activists will be talking about tax credits, benefit sanctions and the cost of any war in Syria. That the war will be paid for out of cuts to benefits strikes me as a logical line to take on the doorsteps. 

The Tories and Kippers who are fantasising about Labour losing this seat really need to remember that the white population of this constituency is by and large made up of unskilled and semi-skilled people, many of whom spend a lifetime going from one minimum wage job to another with long periods on the social in-between. The Pakistanis will vote solidly against the war, but they also have solid economic reasons to oppose Toryism, since they are even more likely to be low paid than the native British.

So what's the best bet on an outcome? Well, turnout will be low as this is a by-election, and Oldham is cold, wet and miserable at the best of times, but especially in December so that will encourage people to stay at home where it's all nice and warm. We should also be honest and admit that Labour people have a habit of being disengaged from politics, anyway, especially at by-elections. It takes a general election to get them out to vote in large numbers, since it needs a lot of  background noise to remind them of what's at stake. UKIP's voters will turn out since minor party people tend to be more engaged than others. So the Labour majority will be cut on the back of a very low turnout of under fifty percent, just as it was in 1983.

I will be travelling down to Manchester tomorrow, and have a hotel in the middle of the constituency. I will try to blog about the campaign, assuming that I am sober enough to do so, but as things stand, and based upon what I know about the division, Labour is odds-on to win.

Tuesday, 17 November 2015

Sympathy for victims of Pais attacks is "Eurocentric," says middle class guilt tripper

I wondered how long it would take before the precious souls of Liberalmiddleclassland would start whining about the response to the obscenity that was delivered to Paris on Friday night. It took until Monday before the Independent decided that grieving over almost 150 dead was too much and decided to put it all into context, courtesy of one Lulu Nunn, pictured left

Lulu's line is that people who place the French tricolour over their Facebook profile photos are guilty of all sorts of waycist things:

It’s a dismaying and damaging truth that Westerners care about and empathise with images of white-skinned women grieving in Topshop bobble hats far more than brown-skinned women grieving in niqabs and, when you lend your voice to Euro-centric campaigns such as Facebook’s flag filter, you exacerbate this. When we buy into such easy corporate public mourning, we uphold white supremacy. We’re essentially saying that white, Western lives matter more than others.
I know, stunningly inane, isn't it? To think that Europeans should have a Eurocentric view, and feel kinship with those of their own civilisation who suffered from the Paris atrocity.

If you are a Westerner then it really does not matter if you are an admirer of Fred Engels or Fred Hayek, because at root you are a product of the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the Age of Reason, the French Revolution and then the Russian Revolution.

Those epochs were all steps on the road to societies that are based on rationality and reason, not inbred superstition. It is therefore quite logical for us to feel more for those who share our civilisation than for those who do not. I might add that we almost expect the more primitive parts of the world to behave savagely as they have not yet gone through the historical processes necessary to reach our level of civilisation.

I do not want to be too cruel to Lulu Nunn, as I prefer to leave that to the political right. She is a part of British society that George Orwell speared very nicely in many of his works: the self-loathing, white, middle class who enjoy all the benefits that a modern, developed economy offers to people of that ilk, and feels guilty about it all.  I accept that she is also a product of the London Metropolitan "University," formerly known as North London Poly, so is hardly likely to be the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Lulu will not like this, but what her background means is that she is no closer culturally or ideologically to a third world goat herder or water carrier than anyone else who is a product of the civilised, advanced world. In fact, she has more in common with elderly, semi-crippled, benefit claiming me than she does with anyone from the primitive parts of the world.

As a good Westerner I will defend to the death the right of Lulu Nunn to write whatever she wishes, as well as flash her admittedly rather nice tits around to all and sundry without fear or favour.

We Westerners are like that.
Views Themes -->