A Place to Stand

multiparty democracy as it used to be in communist Poland

The Labour, LibDem, Conservative & in Scotland, SNP parties are, in practice, all one movement. The comparison with Warsaw Pact countries where there were often not merely the Communist Party but a Peasant Party & a few others who all agreed with the basic programme with occasional tweaks has been made by others. The Green party is essentially a government funded & publicised party designed to make the official ones look sane.

They all promise that public spending should be cut, very slightly, from the current 53% of GNP. However none of them will give a figure of what or how it should be & I doubt if there would be 5% between them if they did. None of them want the state sector to include nationalised industries so that means they want the 53% to be entirely parasitic.

They all support war crimes, genocide & the dissection of living untermensch to provide western hospitals with body organs. Indeed the only party to have said there is something wrong with such meta-Nazi atrocities is the BNP.

They all promised us a referendum on EU membership in the most solemn way they could (manifesto promises for the Lab/Libs & a "cast iron" one for the Tories).

They all, under no pressure, cynically & deliberately & showing a total contempt for the electorate, broke their promise proving that there are no circumstances whatsoever under which any promise made by any of these corrupt thieving parasites can be treated as being, in the remotest degree, honest.

None of them intend to aim at achieving world average growth of 5% indeed all of them will go to any lengths not to even mention that figure & have the advantage that the media can be relied on not to mention the world average either.

All of them want to massively increase electricity costs, despite the fact they can be quartered, as in France. Indeed none of them care even slightly about the fact that we are facing blackouts because they won't let the power companies produce more.

All of them are using the catastrophic warming lie to keep us obedient.

All of them are committed to fascism through the eco route.

They have a virtual monopoly of media coverage, particularly of the state funded media like the BBC & Guardian & none of them want to change this means of fascist control.

They are all, at best, sympathetic to Labour's policy of massive 3rd world immigration for "social reasons" & openly in favour of unlimited immigration from the EU. This was foreshadowed in Brecht's bitter satire that "the people Had forfeited the confidence of the government And could win it back only By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier In that case for the government To dissolve the people And elect another?

All 3 believe in petty & vindictive bullying of us over things like passive smoking or eating salt when they know not only that there is no justification for them but that the psychological effects of their own bullying is a far greater health risk.

All of them want to prevent the common people getting houses by the expedient of preventing builders build them or artificially push up the prices through mandating Victorian building practices & extorting either bribes (which are illegal) or campaign denotations (which aren't) for planing permission.

All of them support having a dishonest state controlled propaganda machine supporting fascism dominating broadcasting.

All of them draw their candidates overwhelmingly from people whose backgrounds are as lobbyists, party researchers, media creatures, who have never had a salary that wasn't paid from ordinary people's taxes (that includes most lawyers) & often children from the same group

All of them wish to destroy 60% of our electricity producing capacity & thus a similar amount of GNP by 2050 (or in Scotland an even more insane 50% over the next 10 years).

All of them are making sure that their "campaigns" around the country involve meeting very few, if any, members of the public & are largely resricted to posing for photes in "local" places so that the tame reporters they brought with them have a photo to go with whatever, carefully calculated irrelevances, they write.

Despite their complete exclusion the polls show that 8% of people will vote for unofficial parties - thousands of times more than Kasparov got in Russia (in an uncorrupted electoral system) who, if the BBC is to be trusted, was treated unfairly by the Russian state.

The only issues the parties seem to be discussing is which leader's wife is more suitable & changing & not changing taxes by under 0.5% of GNP through National Insurance. That's it.

[expanded from a Neil Clark comment]

Labels: British politics, election

The Cold War ended yesterday. It went almost unnoticed in Britain's media. It consists of 2 parts. Obama & Medvedev signing a new Start treaty committing them to

It limits the US and Russia to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads each on no more than 800 strategic nuclear delivery vehicles...

But it compares with the 2002 Moscow treaty, which obliged each side to cut strategic nuclear warheads to 1,700-2,200 by December 31 2012.

In fact, both the US and Russia have already been cutting such warheads faster than the rate that treaty foresaw.

This is the first significant achievement in resetting the US-Russia relationship since Mr Obama took office. Relations hit rock bottom in August 2008 during the war between Russia and Georgia. The Kremlin's top foreign policy adviser recently called yesterday's agreement "a huge event that will have an extremely profound and positive effect on the way our countries deal with many other issues".

...This treaty must be ratified by the US Senate. Republicans are resisting. Russia will resist further cuts because strategic weapons are its claim to superpower status and its tactical arsenal is seen as security against Nato's superior conventional forces in Europe. [paradoxically up to the fall of the USSR the NATO position was always that they needed nuclear weapons as security against superior Soviet conventional forces, which the USSR had maintained post WW2 as security against the initial American monopoly & later superiority in nukes]

The highlighted quote & body language of both parties suggest a more general, if not alliance, at least entente cordiale. In particular we may expect Russia to support sanctions, probably with minor changes to prove they are independent, against Iran if they seriously try to go nuclear. Russia's geographical position, gives them, like Israel, reason not to want a nuclear Iran, but under Bush they had more immediate reason not to trust the USA. Probably the US has also agreed not to encourage Georgia & other border states to be belligerent.

There is no real conflict of interest between Russia & the USA. Russia has never asked for Alaska back & that is the only place their territories abut. The cold war was built partly on ideology & partly on the invention of nukes, which is the only way either country could seriously threaten the other.

And nuclear weapons are the other part of the change

The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said in a joint briefing with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Energy Steven Chu on the newly released strategy, known as Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).

This conditional assurance means that countries like Iran and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea that have violated or renounced the treaty would remain on the potential target list of U.S. nuclear forces.

Gates also warned that "if any state eligible for this assurance were to use chemical or biological weapons against the United States or its allies or partners, it would face the prospect of a devastating conventional military response."...

"For the first time, the NPR places preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism atop the U.S. nuclear agenda," said the document. "It renews the U.S. commitment to hold fully accountable any state, terrorist group, or other nonstate actor that supports or enables terrorist efforts to obtain or use weapons of mass destruction, whether by facilitating, financing, or providing expertise or safe haven for such efforts."...

The United States declared on Tuesday in its new nuclear strategy that the "sole purpose" of its nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack on the United States or its allies and partners.

Throughout the cold war the US always maintained that it was ready to use nuclear weapons first, even against non-nuclear states like China in the 1950s. This gave little reason for any non-nuclear state [eg China} not to develop them. For the first time there is an upside to not having nukes. Nuclear proliferation is indeed a genuine problem & in fact it is astonishing that so few states, in the years since 1945, have gone nuclear. The comparison has been made to 2 men pointing automatic rifles at each other. Neither wishes to kill the other but both know that the person who pulls the trigger first is the only one who may possibly survive. In such circumstances trust is difficult. Proliferation is more men with guns in the circle.

Obama is therefore absolutely right to put stopping proliferation as the prime US (& everybody else's) national interest & to be willing to make concessions to do so rather than demanding the role of world policeman & world judge & jury. I am not generally a fan of Obama but this is a major change which has made the world much safer.

It also makes our own "stockpile of no more than 200 nuclear weapons" nuclear weapons a more significant, anachronistic & destabilising part of the world arsenal. That will be dealt with after the election but expect all parties to studiously avoid making that an issue in this generally issueless election.

Labels: International politics, nuclear, Social

The first issue, apart from whether whether the leaders pose for photos with somebody else (the entire cabinet for Brown; Vince Cable for Clegg) to have hit the news is that the Tories don't want to have the National Insurance rise Labour have decreed for next year. It is a very small straw in the wind showing the Tories making a tiny cut in government spending to produce a tiny cut in the burden on burden on the productive sector. The strange thing is that Brown has made such a big issue of it.

"The public must make up their mind whether they want public services to be maintained or a traditional Tory policy of putting public services at risk"

Plus his ludicrous claim that business leaders who say not raising NI would help industry have been "deceived" by the Tories, business leaders being morons who don't understand their jobs presumably. Which puts it as being a clash not between the Tories not raising NI as against Labour not increasing the deficit but about the Labour option being simply maintaining government spending. If the money were to be spent on cutting the deficit it might be arguable though I would prefer to see higher growth than cutting the deficit since higher growth means that there will, in due course, be enough money to balance the budget. However on the question of what will work better - cutting the money available for government spending or cutting the money available to the productive part of the economy Labour's support of the latter is economic insanity.

It also conflicts with Alastair darling's claim, during the economic TV debate, that Labour would cut the deficit while the Tories, by cutting taxers, wouldn't. Labour have put maintaining "public services" ie spending, as their priority.

The BBC are doing their impersonation of impartiality ending their report on the news last night by saying "the issue is that the Conservatives want to cut the government sector & increase the private sector" which places the Tories as the ones changing the rules, when in fact Labour have increased government spending from 40% to 53% of the economy.Roger Peston also sums up his "Who's got it right" blog by saying, after acknowledging that all the experts say cutting this tax will work, that it isn't really an economic question but about maintaining "the good society". Labour good, Tories bad then, impartially.

The BBC could equally truthfully have said:

"the issue is that Labour want to expand the government sector & reduce the private sector"

"the issue is that Labour want to expand the government bureaucracy & reduce the productive sector that pays the taxes"

"the issue is that Labour want to increase the government sector beyond the present 53% & reduce the wealth creating sector below the current 47%"

"the issue is that Labour claim the productive sector, already reduced to 47% of the economy, can be supported by the productive 47% in the private sector while still promising that they are the party of growth"

"Labour have staked their claim to integrity on the assertion that, by taking more money from the productive sector & using it to pay the inefficient & unproductive government workers whose numbers they have increased by 2 million, will produce a more efficient & productive economy"

All of these are equally factual ways of saying it. The state funded broadcasting corporation parasites can be relied on to say it in a way that spins towards ever bigger government parasitism.

Labels: British politics, election, Fixing the economy

From the Times

Versace, the renowned fashion house, is to create the world’s first refrigerated beach so that hotel guests can walk comfortably across the sand on scorching days.

The beach will be next to the the new Palazzo Versace hotel which is being built in Dubai where summer temperatures average 40C and can reach 50C.

The beach will have a network of pipes beneath the sand containing a coolant that will absorb heat from the surface.

The swimming pool will be refrigerated and there are also proposals to install giant blowers to waft a gentle breeze over the beach.

The scheme is likely to infuriate environmentalists. The revelation comes as more than 11,000 politicians, green campaigners and others are gathered in Poznan, Poland, for the latest talks on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Last week the Met Office released a report warning that if greenhouse gas emissions continued to rise, the world could warm by an average of 5.5C by 2100. Inefficient buildings are one of the world’s greatest sources of greenhouse gases.

However, Soheil Abedian, founder and president of Palazzo Versace, said he believed it is possible to design a refrigerated beach and make it sustainable. “We will suck the heat out of the sand to keep it cool enough to lie on,” he said. “This is the kind of luxury that top people want.”

Hyder Consulting, a British construction consultancy, is overseeing the engineering on the project. The hotel will be marketed strongly in the UK where Dubai is a popular tourist destination, attracting about 800,000 Britons a year.

Abedian’s firm began its association with Versace a decade ago with the idea of creating the first chain of luxury fashion-branded lifestyle resorts.

The first Palazzo Versace is already operating on Australia’s Gold Coast – where Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey, the actors, have stayed – and the Dubai hotel will be the second when it opens late next year or early 2010. The 10-storey hotel will have 213 rooms, several with their own internal swimming pools, plus 169 apartments. Fifteen more such hotels are planned.

Competition to serve the world’s rich is getting intense, especially in Dubai. The city already boasts the world’s first seven-star hotel, the Burj Al Arab, while Armani, a competitor with Versace, is building a similarly branded Dubai hotel.

The refrigerated beach is designed to give Versace the edge in this battle of luxury lifestyles. The system will be controlled by thermostats linked to computers.

Versace's plans have shocked environmentalists. Rachel Noble, the campaigns officer at Tourism Concern, which promotes sustainable tourism, said that the carbon generated by such projects would contribute to climate change, whose worst effects would be felt by the poor.

“Dubai is like a bubble world where the things that are worrying the rest of the world, like climate change, are simply ignored so that people can continue their destructive lifestyles,” she said.

--------------------------

Good for Dubai. I have previously described Dubai as being the equivalent of a seastead - ie a small piece of territory with nothing going for it except the absence of government parasitism. Dubai is not oil rich, unlike the rest of the Emirates, but is the most successful of them purely on having a high growth, free market attitude. I suppose that can be considered a "bubble world" but the fact is that climate change, far from being something to be concerned about, is being used, fraudulently by government & eco-fascists to get more control over us. There is nothing destructive about using energy if there is no shortage of it. We know that there is no shortage of energy - there is enough for at least the next 5 billion years in easily available natural uranium & millions of times more than that could be produced by solar power satellites. It is only a matter of government ceasing to prevent us using it.

One thing that can always be said for certain is that if somebody is doing something, or it has been done in the past, it is possible to do it & every politician who says it isn't is a liar.

Any person or indeed political party or "news" outlet which claims that that there is any need for a shortage of, or the present high price of electricity is personally a wholly, completely & totally corrupt fascist who will tell any lie whatsoever to enhance their power & whose word can never, ever, on any subject whatsoever, be trusted. This, of course, includes the Labour, Lib Dem, Conservative & SNP parties & the entire news & managements staff of the BBC, ITN & almost all our press - not one loyal member of whom can claim as much integrity & human decency as a normal person's toenail clippings - no offence.

With presently understood technology we can make everybody in the world the equivalent of a billionaire within decades & all of these politicians know that to be the case but prefer power.

Labels: British politics, eco-fascism, Government parasitism

So we have an election. As Henry Kissinger said about the Iran/Iraq war "to bad they can't both lose" & in fact that war ended up with not an inch of territory or anything else gained so they both did. My preference is a hung Parliament, leading to the replacement of David Cameron & either a Conservative party with real policies or, as Peter Hitchens has called for, a complete new competent & free market party.

There is no question that we can have a successful economy simply by government parasites getting out of the way & letting the market operate. There is equally no question that the 3 main parties (4 main Scotland) are overwhelmingly committed to destroying at least 1/2 our national wealth, wish to increase state power at all points, are willing to use any scare story to promote their fascism, have a proven record showing that their promises, as with the Lab/Lib/SNP manifesto promises of a referendum & the similar Tory "cast-iron" promise, are of absolutely no worth whatsoever. The Lab/Lib/Con party is also undeniably involved in war crimes, genocide, the sexual enslavement of children & dissecting living people to steal their organs

The facts prove that & cannot be honestly denied.
===============================

http://www.votematch.org.uk/2010/index.php Provides a useful way of checking which party is a closest fit with your wishes. It isn't perfect - there are questions like "the Bank of England should have overall responsibility for financial regulation" or that "the government should be compelled by law to halve the deficit in 4 years" (a Labour Bill brought forward simply to have something to say while doing nothing in reality but still who can deny the principle that government should be cutting the deficit) to which there isn't a simple yes/no answer & the questions obviously & incorrectly, imply that each party actually has an intention to keep its promises, which we know not to be the case.

Nonetheless it is a vital tool for anybody who thinks we should vote for what we want not for the leader with the most attractive wife, accent, smile etc.

My result:

76% - UKIP
71% - BNP
63% - Conservative
39% - Liberal Democrat
35% - SNP
21% - Labour
20% - Green

That seems decisive. I assume this is because I support nuclear power as the only practical alternative to blackouts; believe catastrophic global warming isn't a problem; want the promised EU referendum; & am opposed to massive 3rd world or EU immigration for Labour's vaunted "social reasons".

There are other considerations - The BNP are, if the BBC, the rest of the media & a general agreement among the other parties are beyond the pale. On the other hand the BBC is a corrupt, racist, criminal organisation whose employees will tell absolutely any lie to promote genocide & worse whereas in reality the BNP is the only party to have publicly denounce dissection of 1300 living human beings to steal their organs, chosen on racial grounds & murdered by "police" deliberately hired by our own government. No other party or part our monolithic media has shown any opposition whatsoever to such Nazi crimes.

Another consideration is that promises from the Lab/Lib/SNP/Con party, even manifesto promises, which are the most important they can make, can't be trusted in any way.

My constituency, Glasgow North, is expected to be a Labour/SNP marginal. Thus if I vote tactically to get a hung Parliament the best option is to vote SNP. I suspect, but don't know, that UKIP will not put up a candidate & the BNP will (the BNP, being more socialist & less libertarian tend to do better in working class constituencies) in which case if voting for principle, which I would prefer, I will vote BNP.

I would not have expected that before but the facts, of what each party stands for, is clear & I always follow the facts.

Labels: British politics, Government parasitism, Yugoslavia

An interesting article on North Korea. If correct NK is becoming increasingly unstable. The Chinese would like to replace the government with a sensible pro-Chinese one. If mobile phones have made it impossible for NK to seal itself off from the rest of the world then the regime, whose failure is proven by satellite photos, cannot survive. The problem is to make sure it dies with a whimper rather than a bang & in that case a Chines supported coup would seem to be the best option. If such a coup were successful I doubt if it would be possible to form an NK government that would not seek some form of union with the so much richer south. When the Russians sought to replace the Czech government with reformers their coup succeeded but they could find nobody to lead such a government.

North Korea knows that Chinese options are few, because the last thing China wants is chaos in the north. That would mean millions of starving North Koreans pouring into China, and the risk of unification under South Korean rule. China, however, fears that North Korea would use those nukes to threaten China. Thus it comes as no surprise that both China and North Korea have increased espionage activity against each other. North Korea fears that China is trying to organize a coup by pro-Chinese officials in the North Korean government and military.

But the situation in North Korea is worse than it's ever been before. The people are not only angry, but they have more information about what's going on in North Korea, and the world, than ever before. Cell phone users along the Chinese border allow information in, and out. This despite secret police mobile cell phone monitoring patrols... most of the illegal cell phone users get away with it, and North Koreans not only know they are screwed, but how and by whom. Thus the looming famine is unlike the big hunger of the 1990s (that killed two million and stunted the growth of a generation), in that back then, the population were convinced that they were victims of an international conspiracy. This time around, North Koreans know that the cause is their own government. People are increasingly speaking out in public, and the security forces do nothing (or, more ominously, nod in agreement.)

One of the more damaging stories to spread through North Korea recently was the one about the several billion dollars Kim Jong Il has stashed in foreign banks...

March 26, 2010: A South Korean warship suddenly exploded and sank off the west coast, near the maritime border with North Korea. Most of the 104 crew survived, but 46 apparently died. Given the nature of the explosion, and how it broke the ship in half, the most likely cause was a naval mine. And probably a mine of recent manufacture (the 3,000 laid during the early 1950s by North Korea have long since been found and disposed of). The media is rife with speculation, but since the 1,300 ton Cheonan (PCC-772) went down in shallow water, it will be salvaged. That means the cause of the explosion will be obvious eventually.

Labels: International politics, space