further comments: lying ‘new’ labour trying to spin their failure of house supply | politics news at abelard.org
abelard's home latest changes & additions at abelard.org link to document abstracts link to short briefings documents quotations at abelard.org, with source document where relevant click for abelard's child education zone economics and money zone at abelard.org - government swindles and how to transfer money on the net latest news headlines at abelard's news and comment zone
socialism, sociology, supporting documents described Loud music and hearing damage Architectural wonders and joys at abelard.org about abelard and abelard.org visit abelard's gallery Energy - beyond fossil fuels France zone at abelard.org - another France

news and comment

article archives at abelard's news and comment zone topic archives: politics

for previously archived news article pages, visit the news archive page (click on the button above)

New translation, the Magna Carta

site map

This page helpful?
Share it ! Like it !

real house prices double under ‘new’ labour - clown continues to destroy living standards in britain

It is increasingly difficult for young people to buy their own home in ‘new’ Labour Britain.

One of the best measures of genuine living standards is to match earning power by comparing the cost of goods in terms of wages at two different times.

So, if it cost you 3 hours of work to buy your lunch ten years ago and it now costs you 2 hours work, then you are better off.
If it now costs you 4 hours work, you are worse off.

It now costs 7 years wages to buy a house in Brown’s ‘new’ Labour Britain..
When ‘new’ Labour came to power, a house cost 3 1/2 years wages.

the web address for the article above is

further comments: lying ‘new’ labour trying to spin their failure of house supply...

...and, as usual, relying on the widespread innumeracy in ‘new’-Labour-‘ educated’ Britain.

£510 million of UK taxes are going to be spent by ‘new’ Labour on ‘new’ houses. Do we believe anything they say?

Assume an average house price of £180,000, then less than 3,000 houses can be built! Or make your own assumptions if you prefer.

‘New’ Labour are claiming there will be 3 million ‘new’ homes. Well, that’s a thousandth of the houses ‘new’ Labour‘promises’.

And of course, even that will come out of people’s taxes, or the taxes of the house builders!

“Housing Minister Yvette Cooper unveiled plans for cash boosts for councils to help them create the millions of new, affordable homes needed.

“Councils and communities working to deliver new houses will also have an extra £510 million pot to share to help fund projects under the plans.” [Quoted from guardian.co.uk]

Marker at abelard.org

“There are now an estimated 670,000 empty homes and properties including nearly 300,000 long term empty houses in England, said a spokesman for the Communities department.” [Quoted from timesonline.co.uk]

Marker at abelard.org

Subsidy for property theft

“Councils who aggressively target empty properties, including through compulsory purchase orders, will share in the fund to help pay for the projects.”

Marker at abelard.org

Related news release: National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (NHPAU)

“In its response to the Government’s Housing Green Paper Homes for the Future, the NHPAU concludes that - based on current housing plans in the emerging Regional Spatial Strategies – by 2026, average house prices could rise to 11.3 times earnings* in the East of England, 12.4 times in the South East and 12.9 in the South West. All these exceed London at 11.0.

“2. Between 1995-2005, average incomes rose 92 per cent but average house prices rose 204 per cent (source: National Statistics). There is a disconnect between what we are paid, and what we pay for our housing.”

* Ratio of lower quartile house prices to earnings.”

Marker at abelard.org

UK housing failure report - full 42-page version pdf, with many tables.

the web address for the article above is




dysfunctional brown clown seeks ever more micro-control over government

Gordon Brown is a fundamentalist socialist control freak.

He cannot see money that he does not want to grab, or a freedom that he does not want to remove.

Little wonder he is so keen to avoid a UK referendum on further EUSSR control.

“It is not just political debate the Labour Party needs; it is therapy. Thirteen years after Tony Blair and Gordon Brown carved up their futures (or tried to) over the rabbit at Granita, politics is still distorted by the emotional fall-out.

“Another month, another set of "revelations" - this time the claims, in Anthony Seldon's new book, that the former Prime Minister told friends that he felt like "an abused and bullied wife" in meetings with his Chancellor, and that Mr Brown was accused by his allies of having "bottled it" when he failed to pull the trigger against Mr Blair."

“ MPs and journalists continue to be defined as "Brownites" or "Blairites" by Number 10. Outriders on both sides cannot stop sending out "warning shots" to their long-standing enemies. Younger ministers - such as Ed Balls and David Miliband - behave like children who have been permanently damaged by their parents' destructive rows.”

Without his wife to control his paranoia and emotional violence, Brown now threatens Britain.

related material
unfolding chaos under brown the clown

the web address for the article above is

unfolding chaos under brown the clown

Marker at abelard.org

“Ministers are planning a U-turn on Britain's pledges to combat climate change that "effectively abolishes" its targets to rapidly expand the use of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power.

“Leaked documents seen by the Guardian show that Gordon Brown will be advised today that the target Tony Blair signed up to this year for 20% of all European energy to come from renewable sources by 2020 is expensive and faces "severe practical difficulties".

“According to the papers, John Hutton, the secretary of state for business, will tell Mr Brown that Britain should work with Poland and other governments sceptical about climate change to "help persuade" German chancellor Angela Merkel and others to set lower renewable targets, before binding commitments are framed in December.”

  • brown clown - not fit to run a whelk stall

    “Schools minister Jim Knight has issued a peculiarly purblind statement on the matter, claiming that pupils were being denied educational opportunities by schools letting cash "mount up in the bank, year after year, with no clear idea how to spend it".

    “In fact, many of the schools that will be caught by the new five per cent tariff have already committed themselves to capital projects - such as building works and new staffing provision - that relied on the savings now to be penalised. (And the Government admits that its flagship academy schools are not subject to the same rule: they apparently are denying no one by letting cash "mount up".)

    “The recouped money is to be redistributed to schools that have already spent their budgets: the prudent, in other words, are to be punished in order to reward the extravagant.”

    And this is not the only money Mr. Brown is taking, small business are looking forward to greatly increased taxation, announced in the Autumn Budget Statement.

further background
the clown is lying about public finances, as usual - understanding the lying uk government theft

the web address for the article above is

another example of ‘unbelievable’ dishonesty from the leftist media, reporting on sanchez speech

Retired General Richard Sanchez was top military leader in Iraq between June 2003 and June 2004. The invasion of Iraq began on 20 March, 2003. The Sanchez period was marked by considerable tension between L. Paul Bremer and Sanchez. Sanchez was the highest ranking Hispanic in the US Army. His career came unstitched in the context of the Abu Ghraib chaos. Thus it is easy to see his outburst in that context.

Sanchez, giving a speech to military reporters and editors, launched into a blistering attack on the dishonesty and tattered ‘ethics’ of the leftist fossil media. [I report his full speech below.] He then followed this by some rather muddled complaints regarding the political establishment, in their handling of the removal of Saddam’s socialist dictatorship and the subsequent struggles to build a democratic society.

However, much more interesting is the dishonest reporting of this outburst by the leftist media. For an example, see this from the Washington Post. From the reports you might not notice that at no point did Sanchez refer to George Bush, but only to political and military leaders in general. I do note that in his paragraph [highlighted], he did not suggest that he should be courtmartialed with regard to Abu Ghraib.

For those of you in a hurry, I have marked four of the short paragraphs in the Sanchez speech which are less likely to appear prominently in dishonest media ‘reports’.

Full transcript of General Sanchez’s speech:

[Military reporters and editors luncheon address Washington D.C.
LtG (ret) Ricardo S. Sanchez
12 October 2007]

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen

Some of you may not believe this but I am glad to be here. When Sig asked me if I would consider addressing you there was no doubt that I should come into the lion's den. This was important because I have firmly believed since desert shield that it is necessary for the strength of our democracy that the military and the press corps maintain a strong, mutually respectful and enabling relationship. This continues to be problematic for our country, especially during times of war. One of the greatest military correspondents of our time, Joe Galloway, made me a believer when he joined the 24th infantry division during desert storm.

Today, I will attempt to do two things - first I will give you my assessment of the military and press relationship and then I will provide you some thoughts on the current state of our war effort. As all of you know I have a wide range of relationships and experiences with our nations military writers and editors. There are some in your ranks who I consider to be the epitome of journalistic professionalism - Joe Galloway, Thom Shanker, Sig Christensen, and John Burns immediately come to mind. They exemplify what America should demand of our journalists - tough reporting that relies upon integrity, objectivity and fairness to give accurate and thorough accounts that strengthen our freedom of the press and in turn our democracy. on the other hand, unfortunately, I have issued ultimatums to some of you for unscrupulous reporting that was solely focused on supporting your agenda and preconcieved notions of what our military had done. I also refused to talk to the European stars and stripes for the last two years of my command in Germany for their extreme bias and single minded focus on Abu Gharaib.

Let me review some of the descriptive phrases that have been used by some of you that have made my personal interfaces with the press corps difficult:

"dictatorial and somewhat dense",
"not a strategic thought",
"does not get it" and
the most inexperienced LtG.

In some cases I have never even met you, yet you feel qualified to make character judgments that are communicated to the world. My experience is not unique and we can find other examples such as the treatment of Secretary Brown during Katrina. This is the worst display of journalism imaginable by those of us that are bound by a strict value system of selfless service, honor and integrity. Almost invariably, my perception is that the sensationalistic value of these assessments is what provided the edge that you seek for self agrandizement or to advance your individual quest for getting on the front page with your stories! As I understand it, your measure of worth is how many front page stories you have written and unfortunately some of you will compromise your integrity and display questionable ethics as you seek to keep America informed. This is much like the intelligence analysts whose effectiveness was measured by the number of intelligence reports he produced. For some, it seems that as long as you get a front page story there is little or no regard for the "collateral damage" you will cause. Personal reputations have no value and you report with total impunity and are rarely held accountable for unethical conduct.

Given the near instantaneous ability to report actions on the ground, the responsibility to accurately and truthfully report takes on an unprecedented importance. The speculative and often uninformed initial reporting that characterizes our media appears to be rapidly becoming the standard of the industry. An Arab proverb states - "four things come not back: the spoken word, the spent arrow, the past, the neglected opportunity." Once reported, your assessments become conventional wisdom and nearly impossible to change. Other major challenges are your willingness to be manipulated by "high level officials" who leak stories and by lawyers who use hyperbole to strengthen their arguments. Your unwillingness to accurately and prominently correct your mistakes and your agenda driven biases contribute to this corrosive environment. All of these challenges combined create a media environment that does a tremendous disservice to America. Over the course of this war tactically insignificant events have become strategic defeats for America because of the tremendous power and impact of the media and by extension you the journalist. In many cases the media has unjustly destroyed the individual reputations and careers of those involved. We realize that because of the near real time reporting environment that you face it is difficult to report accurately. In my business one of our fundamental truths is that "the first report is always wrong." Unfortunately, in your business "the first report" gives Americans who rely on the snippets of CNN, if you will, their "truths" and perspectives on an issue. As a corollary to this deadline driven need to publish "initial impressions or observations" versus objective facts there is an additional challenge for us who are the subject of your reporting. When you assume that you are correct and on the moral high ground on a story because we have not respond to questions you provided is the ultimate arrogance and distortion of ethics. One of your highly respected fellow journalists once told me that there are some amongst you who "feed from a pig's trough." If that is who I am dealing with then I will never respond otherwise we will both get dirty and the pig will love it. This does not mean that your story is accurate.

I do not believe that this is what our forefathers intended. The code of ethics for the society of professional journalists states:
...public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. the duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility

The basic ethics of a journalist that calls for:

1. Seeking truth,
2. Providing fair and comprehensive account of events and issues
3. Thoroughness and honesty

All are victims of the massive agenda driven competition for economic or political supremacy. The death knell of your ethics has been enabled by your parent organizations who have chosen to align themselves with political agendas. What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our service members who are at war.

My assessment is that your profession, to some extent, has strayed from these ethical standards and allowed external agendas to manipulate what the American public sees on TV, what they read in our newspapers and what they see on the web. For some of you, just like some of our politicians, the truth is of little to no value if it does not fit your own preconceived notions, biases and agendas.

It is astounding to me when I hear the vehement disagreement with the military's forays into information operations that seek to disseminate the truth and inform the Iraqi people in order to counter our enemy's blatant propaganda. As I assess various media entities, some are unquestionably engaged in political propaganda that is uncontrolled. There is no question in my mind that the strength our democracy and our freedoms remain linked to your ability to exercise freedom of the press - I adamantly support this basic foundation of our democracy and completely supported the embedding of media into our formations up until my last day in uniform. The issue is one of maintaining professional ethics and standards from within your institution. Military leaders must accept that these injustices will happen and whether they like what you print or not they must deal with you and enable you, if you are an ethical journalist.

Finally, I will leave this subject with a question that we must ask ourselves--who is responsible for maintaining the ethical standards of the profession in order to ensure that our democracy does not continue to be threatened by this dangerous shift away from your sacred duty of public enlightenment?

Let me now transition to our current national security condition.

As we all know war is an extension of politics and when a nation goes to war it must bring to bear all elements of power in order to win. Warfighting is not solely the responsibility of the military commander unless he has been given the responsibility and resources to synchronize the political, economic and informational power of the nation. So who is responsible for developing the grand strategy that will allow America to emerge victorious from this generational struggle against extremism?

After more than four years of fighting, America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve "victory" in that war torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism. From a catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan to the administration's latest "surge" strategy, this administration has failed to employ and synchronize its political, economic and military power. The latest "revised strategy" is a desperate attempt by an administration that has not accepted the political and economic realities of this war and they have definitely not communicated that reality to the American people. An even worse and more disturbing assessment is that America cannot achieve the political consensus necessary to devise a grand strategy that will synchronize and commit our national power to achieve victory in Iraq. Some of you have heard me talk about our nations crisis in leadership. Let me elaborate.

While the politicians espouse their rhetoric designed to preserve their reputations and their political power -our soldiers die! Our national leadership ignored the lessons of WWII as we entered into this war and to this day continue to believe that victory can be achieved through the application of military power alone. Our forefathers understood that tremendous economic and political capacity had to be mobilized, synchronized and applied if we were to achieve victory in a global war. That has been and continues to be the key to victory in Iraq. Continued manipulations and adjustments to our military strategy will not achieve victory. The best we can do with this flawed approach is stave off defeat. The administration, Congress and the entire interagency, especially the department of state, must shoulder the responsibility for this catastrophic failure and the American people must hold them accountable.

There has been a glaring, unfortunate, display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders. As a Japanese proverb says, "action without vision is a nightmare." There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight.

Since 2003, the politics of war have been characterized by partisanship as the Republican and Democratic Parties struggled for power in Washington. National efforts to date have been corrupted by partisan politics that have prevented us from devising effective, executable, supportable solutions. At times, these partisan struggles have led to political decisions that endangered the lives of our sons and daughters on the battlefield. The unmistakable message was that political power had greater priority than our national security objectives. Overcoming this strategic failure is the first step toward achieving victory in Iraq - without bipartisan cooperation we are doomed to fail. There is nothing going on today in Washington that would give us hope.

If we succeed in crafting a bipartisan strategy for victory, then America must hold all national agencies accountable for developing and executing the political and economic initiatives that will bring about stability, security, political and economic hope for all Iraqis. That has not been successful to date.

Congress must shoulder a significant responsibility for this failure since there has been no focused oversight of the nations political and economic initiatives in this war. Exhortations, encouragements, investigations, studies and discussions will not produce success -this appears to be the nation's only alternative since the transfer of sovereignty. Our continued neglect will only extend the conflict. America’s dilemma is that we no longer control the ability to directly influence the Iraqi institutions. The sovereign Iraqi government must be cooperative in these long term efforts. That is not likely at the levels necessary in the near term.

Our commanders on the ground will continue to make progress and provide time for the development of a grand strategy. That will be wasted effort as we have seen repeatedly since 2003. In the mean time our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines will continue to die.

Since the start of this war, America’s leadership has known that our military alone could not achieve victory in Iraq. Starting in July 2003, the message repeatedly communicated to Washington by military commanders on the ground was that the military alone could never achieve "victory" in Iraq. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines were destined to endure decades of fighting and killing people without the focused, synchronized application of all elements of national power. This was a necessary condition to stabilize Iraq. Any sequential solutions would lead to a prolonged conflict and increased resistance.

By neglect and incompetence at the National Security Council level, that is the path our political leaders chose and now America, more precisely the American military, finds itself in an intractable situation. Clearly, mistakes have been made by the American military in its application of power but even its greatest failures in this war can be linked to America’s lack of commitment, priority and moral courage in this war effort. Without the sacrifices of our magnificent young men and women in uniform, Iraq would be chaotic well beyond anything experienced to date.

What America must accept as a reality at this point in the war is that our army and marine corps are struggling with the deployment schedules. What is clear is that the deployment cycles of our formations has been totally disrupted, the resourcing and training challenges are significant and America’s ability to sustain a force level of 150,000(+) is nonexistent without drastic measures that have been politically unacceptable to date. The drawdown of the surge to pre-surge levels was never a question. America must understand that it will take the army at least a decade to fix the damage that has been done to its full spectrum readiness. The President's recent statement to America that he will listen to military commanders is a matter of political expediency.

Our army and marine corps will execute as directed, perform magnificently and never complain-that is the ethic of our warriors and that is what America expects of them. They will not disappoint us. But America must know the pressures that are being placed on our military institutions as we fight this war. All Americans must demand that these deploying formations are properly resourced, properly trained and we must never allow America’s support for the soldier to falter. A critical, objective assessment of our nation's ability to execute our national security strategy must be conducted. If we are objective and honest, the results will be surprising to all Americans. There is unacceptable strategic risk.

America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq. A precipitous withdrawal will unquestionably lead to chaos that would endanger the stability of the greater Middle East. If this occurs it would have significant adverse effects on the international community. Coalition and American Force presence will be required at some level for the foreseeable future. Given the lack of a grand strategy we must move rapidly to minimize that force presence and allow the Iraqis maximum ability to exercise their sovereignty in achieving a solution.

At no time in America’s history has there been a greater need for bipartisan cooperation. The threat of extremism is real and demands unified action at the same levels demonstrated by our forefathers during World War I and World War II. America has failed to date.

This endeavor has further been hampered by a coalition effort that can be characterized as hasty, un-resourced and often uncoordinated and unmanaged. Desperately needed, but essentially ignored, were the political and economic coalitions that were the key to victory and stability in the immediate aftermath of the conventional war. The military coalition which was hastily put together in the summer of 2003 was problematic given the multitude of national caveats, inadequate rules of engagement and other restrictions on the forces deployed. Even so, the military coalition was the most extensive, productive and effective deployment of forces in decades. Today, we continue our inept coalition management efforts and, in fact, we are facing ever decreasing troop commitments by our military coalition partners. America’s "revised" strategy does not address coalition initiatives and challenges. We cannot afford to continue this struggle without the support of our coalition partners across all elements of national power. Without the political and economic elements of power complementing the tremendous efforts of our military, America is assured of failure. we continue on that path. America’s political leadership must come together and develop a bipartisan grand strategy to achieve victory in this conflict. The simultaneous application of our political, economic, information and military elements of power is the only course of action that will provide a chance of success.

Achieving unity of effort in Iraq has been elusive to date primarily because there is no entity that has the authority to direct action by our interagency. Our national security council has been a catastrophic failure. Furthermore, America’s ability to hold the interagency accountable for their failures in this war is non-existent. This must change. As a nation we must recognize that the enemy we face is committed to destroying our way of life. This enemy is arguably more dangerous than any threat we faced in the twentieth century. Our political leaders must place national security objectives above partisan politics, demand interagency unity of effort, and never again commit America to war without a grand strategy that embraces the basic tenets of the Powell doctrine.

It seems that Congress recognizes that the military cannot achieve victory alone in this war. Yet they continue to demand victory from our military. Who will demand accountability for the failure of our national political leaders involved in the management this war? They have unquestionably been derelict in the performance of their duty. In my profession, these type of leaders would immediately be relieved or courtmartialed.

America has sent our soldiers off to war and they must be supported at all costs until we achieve victory or until our political leaders decide to bring them home. Our political and military leaders owe the soldier on the battlefield the strategy, the policies and the resources to win once committed to war. America has not been fully committed to win this war. as the military commanders on the ground have stated since the summer of 2003, the U.S. military alone cannot win this war. America must mobilize the interagency and the political and economic elements of power, which have been abject failures to date, in order to achieve victory. Our nation has not focused on the greatest challenge of our lifetime. The political and economic elements of power must get beyond the politics to ensure the survival of America. Partisan politics have hindered this war effort and America should not accept this. America must demand a unified national strategy that goes well beyond partisan politics and places the common good above all else. Too often our politicians have chosen loyalty to their political party above loyalty to the constitution because of their lust for power. Our politicians must remember their oath of office and recommit themselves to serving our nation and not their own self-interests or political party. The security of America is at stake and we can accept nothing less. Anything short of this is unquestionably dereliction of duty.

These are fairly harsh assessments of the military and press relationship and the status of our war effort. I remain optimistic and committed to the enabling of media operations under the toughest of conditions in order to keep the world and the American people informed. Our military must embrace you for the sake our democracy but you owe them ethical journalism.

Thank you for this opportunity

May God bless you and may god bless America.

Praise be to the Lord my rock who trains my fingers for battle and my hands for war. [See Psalm 144]

Thank you.

the web address for the article above is

borrow still and borrow - wider still and wider - deeper still and deeper, brown clown digs britain’s hole

Labour’s land of hopeless debt.

“Yet Mr Darling was yesterday forced to add a further £4.3 billion to his 2007-08 borrowing, so that next year’s deficit rises to £38 billion, or 2.7 per cent of GDP. Then, in the following year, as the economy slows under the impact of the global credit squeeze, borrowing is now slated to be £6 billion higher than previously planned, at £36 billion. In total, the Chancellor yesterday added a further £16 billion to public borrowing plans over five years.

“This repeats a familiar pattern in which Gordon Brown was repeatedly proved too optimistic over tax revenues, even as he pursued his ambitious boost to spending on public services.

“This year will be the sixth out of the past seven in which the Government has overshot the borrowing levels it projected in its Budget at the start of the year. Since 2000, successive Budgets saw Mr Brown borrow £100 billion more than he originally intended, despite steep increases in the tax burden.

“Yesterday Mr Darling followed the same, well-worn route, resorting to still higher borrowing despite tax measures which will raise a further net £1.8 billion over four years. The tax burden remains on course to climb to levels above 37 per cent of GDP in the next few years, taking it to its highest since the mid-Eighties.” [Quoted from business.timesonline.co.uk]

further background

the web address for the article above is

Gordon Brown the Clown - a suitable case for treatment?

on honesty and integrity, taking the example of the new uk prime minister

There are interesting factors involved in this recent demonstration of Brown’s lack of moral compass and integrity.

You will be taught in relationship training (for instance, on courses for managers or salesmen) that if you have made a screw up and you’re going to get problems, you perform what is called in the jargon a ‘frank admission’, or in the slang version ‘when in a hole stop digging’. You do not start increasing your problems by telling obvious lies.

What nobody but a lunatic does is try to do the ‘frank admission’ routine, while simultaneously trying to sell a blatant and obvious lie.

Amazingly, the Clown who has taken over the UK Labour Party has just done exactly that!
What is particularly strange is that the ‘frank admission’ approach is done as a means to demonstrate honesty and reliability. How can anybody be so foolish as to employ such a ploy, while simultaneously lying in so obvious a manner?

Just what sort of lack of intelligence or mental confusion does this person have? And this is the man recently appointed head of the Labour Party and Prime Minister by the universal acclaim of his peers!!

“David Cameron has accused Mr Brown of cowardice for failing to call the election - but it is not the "bottler" jibe that will be most damaging in the end. More corrosive to the Prime Minister's reputation is the perception that he was willing to use the electorate, cynically, for his own ends.

“Few people at Westminster believe that Mr Brown would not have called an election if he had really believed he could win it with as big a majority as Tony Blair. Certainly, the helipads and the advertising campaigns had been booked ready for a three week campaign. The pre-budget report and the Commons statement on Iraq were rushed forward as a launch pad for a snap election. Mr Brown's closest aides were deliberately stoking the election fire, and not just to destabilise the Tories.

“The truth is that Mr Brown changed his mind because the opinion polls changed - which exposes the fact that he was gearing up to call the election for party political (and personal) gain. His aim was to destroy the Conservative Party when he thought it was weak.” [Quoted from telegraph.co.uk]

I am reminded of the ‘frank admission’ made by Rev. James Swaggart, after he was caught with a prostitute. Here is part of that ‘frank admission’:

Of course, it was not long before Swaggart was again caught consorting with prostitutes. Just like so many of the current UK government, his performance was insincere and he did not learn from his mistakes.

I also note the Marxist wish to ‘destroy the boss-class’, or in this case the Tories. Clearly, ‘new’ Labour are dreaming of a one party state.

I have not the slightest doubt that many of the very worst Marxists were honest, and mad. It is a common attribute of lunatics and fanatics that they believe everything that they say.

Venal behaviour is inherent in the Left, whether by virtue of the central venality of ‘the end justifies the means’, or sheer intellectual inadequacy.

There is a strong tendency people emerging from public schools carry forward high ethical standards. Additionally, there is a generally better education on offer which again reinforces integrity, as also does the higher average ‘intelligence’.

I am not only concerned with honesty, but also judgement. There is the cynical saw, “What is important is sincerity, if you can fake that you’re made”. Obviously, Gordon Brown is fake through to the core, but then the problem becomes how to distinguish the fakes from the genuine.

Like any criminal caught with their hands in the cookie jar, the fakes on the Left will do anything in their power to pretend that it is their opponents that are fakes. This socialist Labour Party would be in court for their Enron accounting if they were in the private sector. To quote another old verity:

You may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all the time.

When social and economic education is so poor in the UK, this socialist Labour Party has managed to spread its venality far and wide. A view spreads that, “If the government are a bunch of crooks, what’s wrong with us cheating and lying in our everyday behaviour?”

There is no way out of this mess but to get rid of the shysters and to bring in some people with proper public school attitudes of ‘play the game’. But even that ethic is denigrated by the venal fools/crooks on the Left.

It has become a situation where most people have no standards and do not even know what standards are. There is now a situation where shallow cynicism is presented as ‘fashionable’.

A person like Brown the Clown is not exactly the sort of person any sane person want the young to emulate.

the web address for the article above is

pork barrel and self-interest in the us motor market

“But assisting Detroit’s suicide seems to be contagious. Everyone wants to get in on it, including Toyota. Toyota, which pioneered the industry-leading, 50-miles-per-gallon Prius hybrid, has joined with the Big Three U.S. automakers in lobbying against the tougher mileage standards in the Senate version of the draft energy bill.

“Now why would Toyota, which has used the Prius to brand itself as the greenest car company, pull such a stunt? Is it because Toyota wants to slow down innovation in Detroit on more energy efficient vehicles, which Toyota already dominates, while also keeping mileage room to build giant pickup trucks, like the Toyota Tundra, at the gas-guzzler end of the U.S. market?”

Conversion table imperial [UK] gallon US gallon litre

imperial (UK) gallon

1 1.2 4.546
US gallon 0.83 1 3.785
litre 0.22 0.26 1

the web address for the article above is

more of the clown’s pretend greenery

As usual, the control freak Brown pretends to offer projects and then manipulates the situation to inactivity.

“Householders have all but abandoned their efforts to go green by using renewable technologies such as solar power, because the government's tightening of the rules has made grants almost impossible to obtain.

“As a result, the government's much-criticised Low Carbon Buildings Programme (LCBP) will not run out of funding for 15 years, even though the money was supposed to be used up by mid-2008, according to a Labour MP.

“As revealed by the Guardian, the troubled scheme's annual cash to subsidise the use of renewables was all gone halfway through the last financial year because the grants were so popular. The pot was topped up, but a new system of allocating a certain amount of money monthly led to further embarrassment when it was used up in the first few minutes of each month as homeowners frantically tried to get funds from the website of the then Department of Trade and Industry. In March the scheme was suspended.

“But since its relaunch in May when the grant money available was drastically reduced to a maximum £2,500 a home from £15,000, and the rules under which money can be claimed were tightened up, many frustrated householders have simply given up on the scheme, Labour MP Lynne Jones says.” [Quoted from guardian.co.uk]

For comparison, here is another of Brown the Clown’s scams:

“The delegates were split up into groups and each allocated an electronic voting device. A "minder" was allocated to each group.Then the stars of the show arrived: Gordon Brown, Alan Johnson and Ara Darzi.There followed a rapid succession of questions from the podium on which the delegates were asked to vote. The minder was available to suggest the best answer if there was any doubt.Strangely, almost all the votes were 2:1 in favour of Nulabour's policy. Even the question: "Would you prefer gynaecological surgery to be carried out in your GP practice even if it meant the closure of your DGH facility?" was answered with 2:1 in favour.Following the "consultation" the medical delegates were told to leave but the other 2/3 of the audience were kept back and each given an envelope.

My colleague was intrigued by this and managed to catch one of the "chosen ones" and ask about the contents. Each envelope contained 75 in cash!”

Post this item - click on this link,
then click on your preferred service/s in the list.
More about posting to social bookmarks

the web address for the article above is

You are here: politics news from October 2007 < News < Home

latest abstracts briefings information   hearing damage memory France zone

email abelard email email_abelard [at] abelard.org

© abelard, 2007, 01 october
all rights reserved

variable words
prints as increasing A4 pages (on my printer and set-up)