Click to get your own widget

Saturday, September 21, 2013

Some UKIP Stuff

    In all the fuss about Godfrey Bloom using the word "slut" in what was undeniably a humorous manner (but the word ticks a box) expect to see almost zero coverage of a journalist hitting a UKIP woman. Granted he is a minor reptile but has worked for the Observer which is the Guardian at weekends.

Timur Moon, 36, who has worked for the International Business Times, the Evening Standard and the Observer, has been charged with counts of common assault after allegedly attacking three people at the Young Independents ball hosted at a mansion in Clerkenwell, central London.
One of the alleged victims is Alex Nixon, a graduate of University College London who is deputy chairman of Ukip’s youth wing in Scotland.
She declined to comment. But a friend alleged Mr Moon had attacked the three after being asked to leave the party, which had a ban on journalists.
The friend alleged Mr Moon had called Miss Dixon a “fascist”, before striking her and pulling her hair.
Mr Moon studied English at Oxford University and creative writing at the University of East Anglia. He has worked at the National newspaper in Abu Dhabi and Al Jazeera in India.
The Metropolitan Police confirmed Mr Moon had been charged with three counts of common assault.
    The Fascist scum has probably got a future with Channel 4

    Some good news is that UKIP just scored 37% in an opinion poll.
"Perhaps not to be taken too seriously, but today’s AOL poll (don’t ask how we found that one) shows UKIP storming ahead of Britain’s other political parties in a manner that would leave the party just 9 seats short of a parliamentary majority at the next general election.

Fantasy, sure. But with 15,000+ people voting online, it has got to give UKIP some hope of at least picking up a few seats in 2015.

The AOL user poll at the time of publication of this article shows UKIP on 37 percent, with the Conservatives on 27 percent, Labour on 23 percent, and the Liberal Democrats on just 3 percent."
     I commented:

"That the Tories are still shown doing, comparatively, well against Labour suggests AOL users are better off than average. So we should expect to be doing better too, but that much better is amazing.
Perhaps the computer literate are just smarter or more politically informed. Or perhaps, and this strikes me as likely, people getting their news online are less subject to the outrageous propagandising by the state owned BBC, whose "news" is as slanted towards big state parasitism as any in the world but North Korea. Thus better politically informed.
Or perhaps computer users are all early adopters ahead of the curve. That would be nice."

    OK a "poll of the day" isn't in any way a randomly selected statistical population. On the other hand it is just over 5,000 out of 15,000 real human beings. What it means is open to a lot of interpretation/guesswork but it isn't meaningless.

   The news and videos from conference are on the UKIP site which is good because the only BBC coverage was 80 minutes last night on the parliament channel - bookended by 2 x 2 hour reprises of the LudDim conference - that's LudDim stuff from a conference past which was described by a beeboid as "like watching paint dry" first time. That is how the BBC's legal duty of "balance" is reinterpreted.

    It would be interesting to know what average viewing figures are for the various conferences but that will be another of those secrets necessary fir the BBC Fascists to maintain their journalistic
  A comment I put up on Delingpole's site - hopefully my readers will like the anecdote.

Farage is on the money in that quote - and I have an anecdote to prove it.

I was expelled from the LibDems on a charge of being an economic liberal. I also live a few hundred yards from where this year's LD conference was held in Glasgow.  I amused myself by handing out a flyer telling them how corrupt their party is. This is it  http://a-place-to-stand.blogsp...

Anyway, to the point - I was surprised to find the police generally shared my opinion of the conference they were guarding and in conversation with one of them I was told how the Rumanian mafia are already responsible for fast increasing credit card crime, even in Glasgow which is not heavy in such immigrants and his informed opinion is this industry will become truly massive as the immigration restrictions are lifted.

To be fair to the LD's his contempt extended to Labour, Tories & SNP, none of whom allegedly have any interest in the issues important to ordinary people.


    And finally John Redwood takes a pop at those considering voting UKIP and thus depriving the Tories of their rightful victory. I put up a comment that has not appeared. I have now put up this new one which says much the same:

My previous post seems to have suffered from some glitch. This largely repeats - SINCE THEN BOTH POSTS HAVE APPEARED. THE LARGE MAJORITY OF COMMENTS THERE PREFERRED UKIP TO THE TORIES:

John you said "UKIP have said they are going to fight all the seats at the General Election. That means there is no deal to be done between the Conservatives and UKIP"

But if that were meaningful it would be the Tories, who have always said that, who are refusing to deal. In fact negotiations always take place after each side has said what their ideal is and politics is partly the art of negotiation. Remember that at the last election UKIP offered a deal if the Tories would guarantee a referendum and were rejected. No such easy deal would work now but don't pretend that UKIP are being intransigent.

In the council elections we got 22% putting all 3 main parties close. The Tories are clearly preparing for us to push them into 2nd place in  the EU elections. Everything is to play for.

I am not privy to our election tactics or I couldn't speak but I think, if no deal is on offer, we should simply fight for every vote and let the chips fall where they may. At 25% of the vote we would struggle to get more than a seat but at 35% we would have a majority.  This will increasingly show how corrupt our electoral system is.

I note that in your post you mention no actual policies on which you think the Tories right & we wrong.  I suggest that on all our main policies - the EU, immigration, ending fuel poverty & recession through giving up the catastrophic warming lie, popular referendums, PR, supporting technological progress, cutting government spending - we are right and largely more popular too (& I suspect you know it)

If the Tory tactic is to try to bully people with an openly corrupt FPTP electoral system you may find you are merely offending those who believe in democracy or the British sense of fair play. If the Tories do that, rather than try to fight on the issues, they are intellectually bankrupt and in the country's interests, do not deserve to win."

   Hopefully that will appear this time. If it is I will post any reply John makes. I do think the underlinings are important. Everybody recognises PR is more democratic and while it might be possible for UKIP to be squeezed if our base vote is small and if we are within 10 points of the Tories (say us 20% & the LabCons 30% each) going into a campaign our support of PR and the LabCons opposition (& Pseudo-Liberal's increasing silence) might well incline a number of people to say that this is the only chance for democratic reform - if we make an issue of it.

Labels: , ,

Friday, September 20, 2013

The Way The Future Was

   This is a spin off from a serious discussion on the von Mises Institute which I am going to summarise later. As part of it I suggested a scenario whereby Einstein went into some more profitable business and atomic power was delayed by 5 years. Bob replied with my quote and I counter replied.
"but had it been even 5 years later think how different history would have been"

Not different in the slightest.

Well, ok, very different for some million Japanese who would not have been irradiated, but the firebombings did more damage and cost much less.

- Knowing they would have to invade Japan the allies accept peace without occupation

- Japanese fight to the last man
- No atom bomb by 1945 means Soviets are able to attack western Europe.
- No atom bomb by 1945 means Soviets do not need to keep troops in Eastern Europe to counterbalance Bomb threat (these 2 depend on which side you think was the initial threat in the cold war - I incline strongly to #2)
- During peacetime the money for the Manhattan project is not secretly available (& the US is a relatively open society and in peacetime could not have built it without massive popular debate) so the US Bomb is at least 10 years later and the Soviets get it first
- Nuclear hysteria is not a factor so cheap nuclear electricity brings worldwide prosperity
- Since nuclear is a completely unknown quantity greater hysteria develops and it never becomes common
- Because there is no anti hysteria the Orion atomic rocket is built reaching "Mars by 1965, Saturn by 1970"
Don't know which, or others, would have happened but it would have been different.
This really only takes changes up to early 1970s. Further changes and indeed further branchings from those would certainly have happened.
I think this shows that historical extrapolation must be an extremely chaotic system. butterfly's wings and all that producing unpredictable secondary, tertiary, quadriatic(?) results.
But fun, if you are into that sort of thing and strictly logical.          

Labels: , ,

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Pseudo-Liberals Conference - Lies and Fraud

     Following up the LudDim conference.

     The big "news" was that they had come out "in favour of nuclear power". Unfortunately, since this was one of the issues on which they officially left the liberal movement by splitting from me, the motion passed is less than supportive.

   The motion is among the agenda papers here. Among a 114 line motion, all about subsidising and enforcing windmillery are lines 51-4:

"i) Accepting that in future, nuclear power stations could play a limited role in electricity supply, provided concerns about safety, disposal of radioactive waste and cost (including decommissioning) are adequately addressed and without allowing any public subsidy for new build."

"could", "limited", "provided" & "adequately" are some new definition of support. I would be willing to support the LudDims if they could get rid of all the fascists, for the very limited roles of dogcatchers, provided they adequately proved that they now opposed genocide, child rape, recession and alleviated the justified concern that they are all thieves, but none of them feel to believe that qualifies me as a supporter.

    Actually that is a little unfair to me since my concern that they are genocidal, child raping, poverty promoting thieving fascists is entirely justified and could thus be ameliorated if facts changed whereas their alleged fears aren't and thus couldn't.

     Their "policy change" is obviously no such thing but a purely PR change because polls show 60% of the public strongly in favour of nuclear and they want to say "wisnae me" as they put the lights out.

     The other news is Clegg promising school dinners for all "worth £400 m a year" (though I suspect a lot of parents could make lunches for rather less). This was the basis of the BBC Radio sales pitch for them today (there has been an awful lot of BBC support during this conference & I look forward, since the BBC are legally "balanced" to UKIP, based on the ratio of popular support, getting about 2 1/2 times as much.  The total cost is said to be £600 million.

    I sent this email but, for some reason it was not read out:

  Clegg has said this will save parents £400 a year which means, bearing in mind that everything has to be paid for and that there is always the cost of collecting extra taxes and of administrating the payout, this means about £200 extra taxes every year for all employed households.
   To be fair to the LDs, Clegg has said he intends to raise taxes but when the BBC is reporting this honesty should require you to spend as much time discussing the tax rises needed as the spending.
    Obviously honesty did not get much of a look in, though they did have somebody from the TPA who made that point and was only interrupted by the Beeboid throughout. Other than that the "balance" was almost entirely "wouldn't you like more government money" without any "wouldn't you like to pay more taxes".
   My estimate is that collecting taxes and then disbursing the money adds about 60% to the total so spending £600 million means raising £1 bn or about 0.3p on income tax. I look forward to the LDs acknowledging either that this is their intent or saying what other specific tax they will raise to get another £1 bn.
   It is conceivable that this would be a good use of society's resources - I would be willing to spend more on education if it was going to provide more education - but if we aren't allowed to discuss both sides of the equation it is impossible to confirm it.
PS I note that not a single party member has felt able to defend the proposition that they are in any way liberal.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

If The EDL Said All Moslems Were As Bad As Child Rapists Do You Think The Police would Object?

This went on the Glasgow West End police form today. My guess is they are not going to arrest the staff of the BBC, call it a hunch, but if not we will at least have established that freedom of speech allows one to say such things. Of course I would never do so unless it were true, something which the BBC have not even attempted to claim, but then my standard of integrity is at least thousands of times better than all the obscene, lying, fascist parasites working for the BBC put together:

Dear Sir,
               On 11th May 2012 the BBC broadcast a programme claiming that those of us who failed to see catastrophic global warming are the moral equivalents of the Rochdale child rape gangs. Listen here

     Clearly this was an obscene and disgusting lie that could never have been broadcast and maintained by the BBC were they were in any slightest way honest. It has, of course, been maintained by the BBC while they have refused to produce even the slightest piece of evidence for it.

     You are the legal experts but it strikes me that if somebody made an accusation that all coloured people were, inherently, the moral equivalents of such child rapists this would be criminal so, assuming the law applies equally to all, I am reporting the BBC's obscene lie and incitement of hatred to you for appropriate action.

   Another BBC assertion that anybody who doubts catastrophic warming is visible is the moral equivalent of a paedophile was made by Michael Buerk, on Moral Maze Feb 2011
   Once again if the BBC had not been a wholly corrupt fascist propagandist they cou7ld not have refused to retract that lie. They refused to retract that lie.

     Clearly we have a trend of the BBC lying to promote hatred  in a manner which, if applied to other groups, would be considered likely to incite violence.

     I would therefore like to know if their obscene behaviour is indeed criminal and what action will be taken.

      A further criminal activity by the BBC is that they have obviously refused carry out their legal duty, defined in their Charter, to report in a "balanced" manner. Since they obtain about £2.5 billion from the public on that basis they are clearly engaged in criminal fraud of an extent possible unmatched in this country.

   I do recognise that there are political problems with treating the BBC according to law, but equality under the law is important. I look forward to your advice.

   Mike Haseler has a useful list of the threats of violence, obscenities and open boasting of lying by the ecofascists and the remarkable restraint of us sceptics, worldwide in being comparatively courteous to the thieving scum.

Chris Huhne “Fighting Climate Change Deniers Is Like Fighting Hitler”

At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers? So when the right wing fucktards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events – how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn’t we start punishing them now? ” 5

Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed.” -Pentti Linkola, Finnish Ecologist

 examples of the more honest boasting of being liars themselves:

A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.” -Richard Benedik, U.N. / U.S. Bureaucrat12

It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” -Paul Watson, Co-Founder of Greenpeace13

The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reducing CO2] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models.” -Chris Folland, UK Meteorological Office

Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful [propaganda].” -David Frame, Oxford U

The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” -Daniel Botkin, ex Chair of Environmental Studies, UCSB

Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” -Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

Fortunately, by definition, every single honest person pushing the scare has publicly dissociated themselves from such behaviour.

Unfortunately, so far not one honest person in the entire movement has been found. But if anybody knows of one....

   The police have sent this reply confirming that obscenity and promoting hatred, even on a massive scale, is not illegal. I'm happy with that since the law is, officially, the same for ordinary people like me as for the obscene, lying, thieving, child raping, Nazi whose of the BBC, though obviously I would never dream of telling the sort of gratuitous lies that every one of the whores is guilty of:

Good afternoon,
Thank you very much for your enquiry.
In the first instance you should report these matters to OFCOM, they regulate and handle all complaints for the BBC.
They would then pass any relevant information over to the police to deal with appropriately.
Contact us
Thank you for your confirmation that, under no circumstances, will the police ever take action against anybody involved in obscene or threatening behaviour, unless it is also subject to non-criminal  Ofcom regulation. This confirmation is noted.
Sincerely -
       Neil Craig

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

"Science" As Gets Done In Academe

        This, from a PhD who decided to get out because academic research shortly before finishing his PhD, has been going round the net (H/T Jerry Pournelle). I have edited a fairly long article.

        The comments are overwhelmingly in agreement that this is how academic science is done.

        More directly confirmatory, my wife did study for a PhD in anthropology and quit with similar disillusion at the behaviour of alleged scientists and the level of ineptitude to be found among those in charge. Actually to be fair to other sciences her stories of anthropology "researchers" average somewhat below what is mentioned here.

        As a libertarian I would suggest that this is largely because, with government funding "research" and actively dictating what results are acceptable, "research" is bound to produce results which don't have real world relevance; where grants are obtained by who you know rather than what; & where backstabbing, bitchiness and mobbing are inevitable.

         Such bitchiness and feuding are caused by there being no real, testable science going on.

       Note, for example, how grants have been made available by government to those who slip into their proposal, a reference to how it would help "research" climate change even (for example with papers about medieval stained glass) how any finding could prove or disprove the CAGW hypothesis is not obvious. However the psychological effect of thousands of papers nominally supporting the fraud, even when they actually say nothing, will persuade many who never read them.

(1) Academia: It’s Not Science, It’s Business

I’m going to start with the supposition that the goal of “science” is to search for truth, to improve our understanding of the universe around us, and to somehow use this understanding to move the world towards a better tomorrow.....I’m also going to suppose that in order to find truth, the basic prerequisite is that you, as a researcher, have to be brutally honest – first and foremost, with yourself and about the quality of your own work. Here one immediately encounters a contradiction, as such honesty appears to have a very minor role in many people’s agendas. Very quickly after your initiation in the academic world, you learn that being “too honest” about your work is a bad thing and that stating your research’s shortcomings “too openly” is a big faux pas. Instead, you are taught to “sell” your work, to worry about your “image”, and to be strategic in your vocabulary and where you use it. Preference is given to good presentation over good content – a priority that, though understandable at times, has now gone overboard.....

(2) Academia: Work Hard, Young Padawan, So That One Day You Too May Manage!

.... the majority of the world’s academic research is actually being done by people like me, who don’t even have a PhD degree. Many advisors, whom you would expect to truly be pushing science forward with their decades of experience, do surprisingly little and only appear to manage the PhD students, who slave away on papers that their advisors then put their names on as a sort of “fee” for having taken the time to read the document (sometimes, in particularly desperate cases, they may even try to steal first authorship). Rarely do I hear of advisors who actually go through their students’ work in full rigor and detail, with many apparently having adopted the “if it looks fine, we can submit it for publication” approach .... – the PhD student is often left wondering if they are only doing science now so that they may themselves manage later....

(3) Academia: The Backwards Mentality

....many PhD students don’t truly get to choose their research topic, they are forced to adopt what their advisors do and to do “something original” on it that could one day be turned into a thesis....This seems to leave the student with a nasty ultimatum. Clearly, simply telling the advisor that the research is not promising/original does not work – the advisor has already invested too much of his time, reputation, and career into the topic and will not be convinced by someone half his age that he’s made a mistake. If the student insists, he/she will be labeled as “stubborn” and, if the insisting is too strong, may not be able to obtain the PhD. The alternative, however unpleasant, is to lie to yourself and to find arguments that you’re morally comfortable with that somehow convince you that what you’re doing has important scientific value. For those for whom obtaining a PhD is a *must* (usually for financial reasons), the choice, however tragic, is obvious.....this habit can easily carry over into one’s postgraduate studies, until the student themselves becomes like the professor, with the backwards mentality of “it is important because I’ve spent too many years working on it”.
(4) Academia: Where Originality Will Hurt You

The good, healthy mentality would naturally be to work on research that we believe is important. Unfortunately, most such research is challenging and difficult to publish, and the current publish-or-perish system makes it difficult to put bread on the table while working on problems that require at least ten years of labor before you can report even the most preliminary results. Worse yet, the results may not be understood, which, in some cases, is tantamount to them being rejected by the academic community. I acknowledge that this is difficult, and ultimately cannot criticize the people who choose not to pursue such “risky” problems.....the majority of us are avoiding the real issues and pursuing minor, easy problems that we know can be solved and published. The result is a gigantic literature full of marginal/repetitive contributions. This, however, is not necessarily a bad thing if it’s a good CV that you’re after.

(5) Academia: The Black Hole of Bandwagon Research

Indeed, writing lots of papers of questionable value about a given popular topic seems to be a very good way to advance your academic career these days. The advantages are clear: there is no need to convince anyone that the topic is pertinent and you are very likely to be cited more since more people are likely to work on similar things. This will, in turn, raise your impact factor and will help to establish you as a credible researcher, regardless of whether your work is actually good/important or not. It also establishes a sort of stable network, where you pat other (equally opportunistic) researchers on the back while they pat away at yours.
Unfortunately, not only does this lead to quantity over quality, but many researchers, having grown dependent on the bandwagon, then need to find ways to keep it alive even when the field begins to stagnate....

(6) Academia: Statistics Galore!

“Professors with papers are like children,” a professor once told me. And, indeed, there seems to exist an unhealthy obsession among academics regarding their numbers of citations, impact factors, and numbers of publications. This leads to all sorts of nonsense, such as academics making “strategic citations”, writing “anonymous” peer reviews where they encourage the authors of the reviewed paper to cite their work, and gently trying to tell their colleagues about their recent work at conferences or other networking events or sometimes even trying to slip each other their papers with a “I’ll-read-yours-if-you-read-mine” wink and nod.....

(7) Academia: The Violent Land of Giant Egos

.... peer reviews, where these people abuse their anonymity to tell you, in no ambiguous terms, that you are an idiot and that your work isn’t worth a pile of dung. Occasionally, some have the gall to do the same during conferences, though I’ve yet to witness this latter manifestation personally.
More than once I’ve heard leading researchers in different fields refer to other methods with such beautiful descriptions as “garbage” or “trash”, sometimes even extending these qualifiers to pioneering methods whose only crime is that they are several decades old and which, as scientists, we ought to respect as a man respects his elders. Sometimes, these people will take a break from saying bad things about people in their own fields and turn their attention to other domains – engineering academics, for example, will sometimes make fun of the research done in the humanities, ridiculing it as ludicrous and inconsequential, as if what they did was more important.  (my perhaps biased view is with the engineers here) ed

(8) Academia: The Greatest Trick It Ever Pulled was Convincing the World That It was Necessary

Perhaps the most crucial, piercing question that the people in academia should ask themselves is this: “Are we really needed?” Year after year, the system takes in tons of money via all sorts of grants. Much of this money then goes to pay underpaid and underappreciated PhD students who, with or without the help of their advisors, produce some results. In many cases, these results are incomprehensible to all except a small circle, which makes their value difficult to evaluate in any sort of objective manner. In some rare cases, the incomprehensibility is actually justified....

Labels: , ,

Monday, September 16, 2013

Ed Davey Conference Speech Fisked

          For a bit of fun - the great man's comments are in bold and the minister's in normal typeface:

Conference, Liberal Democrats entered this Coalition – put aside party politics – for a very good reason. Our country was in a mess. And not any old mess. It wasn’t some sort of short term financial hiccup. No. The morning after polls closed, we faced the most difficult decision in our party’s history. To govern in coalition in the most difficult economic circumstances any British Government had faced in modern times. ACTUALLY TRUE

And I am proud, immensely proud, that Nick Clegg, our party and you – we didn’t duck that decision. Clearing up the mess is taking time. It was always going to. It was never going to be easy. Not least because clearing up the mess means building a new economy. And Liberal Democrats – from banking to energy, we are rebuilding Britain’s economy with new foundations.

Our Deputy Prime Minister - delivering on fairer income tax; Vince Cable - driving a new industrial strategy; and my job - fighting for greener growth. NO FIGHTING FOR "GREENERY" IN PREFERENCE TO GROWTH ....

So this afternoon I want to move on to the green growth opportunity. For it’s much, much bigger than many realise. And bigger than the sceptics want people to know about. Partly, we have  Labour to thank  – because Labour’s record on energy was so poor. Ageing energy infrastructure, increasing energy imports, and rocketing energy bills. IT WAS POOR, BUT THE COALITION HAVEN'T EVEN STARTED BUILDING THE NEW POWER GENERATORS AND THE ENERGY BILLS ARE EVEN HIGHER NOW, SO EVEN BY HIS OWN STANDARD HE FAILS.

Even when Labour began to wake up to their mistakes – and with all-party support passed the Climate Change Act – they still lacked ambition for green growth. But Liberal Democrats, we have always known the potential of a green economy for Britain. ALL PARTY SUPPORT FOR THE CCA IS TRUE, AND SHAMEFUL

So I have no time for the sceptics who say we can’t afford green investment. So it’s good that the Government’s growth push is on building – like railways, like housing. But the green energy opportunity is even greater. For the rest of this decade we need to spend more on investment in our power grid than we do on roads and rail combined. A LIE SINCE HE KNOWS WE COULD BUILD NUCLEAR REACTORS AT £600-£800 MILLION A POP. WE DO NOT "NEED" TO SPEND IT WASTEFULLY ON NON-VIABLE "RENEWABLES"

Replacing our ageing power stations closing over the next decade will attract £110bn of investment. Energy is half, yes half, of all Britain’s planned infrastructure investment. And since this summer’s Olympics was so fabulous – let me get in on the act. Britain’s green growth opportunity is like building 20 Olympic Stadiums every year until 2020. So that’s why British industry wants us to crack on with our energy reforms – the foundation of Britain’s future low carbon economy. Industry knows this will stimulate the investment the economy needs. Our reforms will unlock billions of private investment in energy produced here in the UK: wind, marine, solar hydro, nuclear and carbon capture and storage. BY "OUR REFORMS" HE MEANS TAXPAYER SUBSIDY WILL "UNLOCK" PEOPLE AFTER IT - THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER ANY OF IT IS USEFUL, HE IS SIMPLY SAYING THAT OFFER SUBSIDY AND YOU WILL GET TAKERS

Be clear: our aim is nothing les, nothing less, than the world’s first ever low carbon electricity market. Moving Britain from dirty to clean electricity. OF COURSE IF "LOW CARBON" RATHER THAN PARASITISM  WERE THE OBJECTIVE SINCE THE LOWEST CARBON SYSTEM IS NUCLEAR, THAT IS WHAT THEY WOULD BE AFTER 

Conference, to deny our green energy revolution is good for growth, is as perverse as denying climate change. Now a few of you may be worried this might break our fiscal rules, So let me calm you. Private investors will fund the vast bulk of what we need. Danny need not worry. Unlike many other projects, green growth need not mean red ink. The energy projects that I want to drive are ready now, they are what the Treasury calls shovel ready. LETS BE "AS PERVERSE AS DENYING" CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING (ONLY HOCKEYSTICKISTS, LIKE DAVEY. EVER DENIED CLIMATE CHANGES. TO CLAIM THAT SUBSIDISING WINDMILLERY "NEED NOT MEAN RED INK" IS CLEARLY NOT SOMETHING ANYBODY WITH ANY SLIGHTEST TRACE OF INTEGRITY, OR INDEED SENSE, COULD SAY SINCE SUBSIDY FREE SUBSIDY IS IMPOSSIBLE.

 We can win investment now. Create jobs now. Get green growth now. And not just in London and the South East. Where jobs are really needed. In the last year alone, companies in the North East have invested £700m and created more than 2000 jobs in the green economy. In Scotland, almost £3bn, creating 5000 jobs. BUT COSTING £5,000 PER PERSON ANNUALLY I.E. £310 BILLION, "ALMOST £3 BN" IS NOT A GOOD PAYBACK

Green growth is the fastest around. And at the heart of rebalancing the British economy. How can the critics ignore this? Why won’t they champion this British growth opportunity? How can they let ideology blind them to what is happening right before their eyes? My message to them is simple: no turning back from tackling climate change; no turning back green jobs; no turning back from green growth. THIS IS SIMPLY A DIRECT AND DELIBERATE LIE. IT HAS BEEN PROVEN THAT EVERY "GREEN" JOB CREATED IS AT THE EXPENSE OF 3.7 JOBS IN THE REAL ECONOMY SO DAVEY IS LITERALLY PROMISING "NO TURNING BACK FROM DELIBERATE CREATION OF UNEMPLOYMENT AND RECESSION

Conference – the Liberal Democrats are not for turning. Conference, we are putting in place the policies on low carbon energy that will attract the billions of private investment Britain needs. But just like the rest of the global economy, investors crave certainty. Stability. The confidence that Governments will stick to their word. That’s why the Climate Change Act was so important. That’s why there’s a strong case for a carbon limit for Britain’s energy grid for 2030 as I hope you will back tomorrow. Energy is always a long term investment. So if we are to create greater investor confidence in Britain’s low carbon energy future, a long-term target is best. IF WE ARE TO FULLY SATISFY THE SUBSIDY JUNKIES WE MUST OFFER THEM MORE. IN FACT SUBSIDY JUNKIES ARE NEVER SATISFIED

When I was asked to look after the country’s energy and climate change future, some people called me “a safe pair of hands”. When it comes to gas and electricity, I think that’s a good place to start. Not least because some people want me to play it anything but safe. They want me to risk Britain’s energy policy on one solution – one technology. Bet the economy on nuclear. Gamble UK plc only on renewables. Play Russian roulette with shale gas. Well, these safe hands won’t take those kind of risks with jobs and Britain’s growth. AND HE CERTAINLY WON'T "GAMBLE" ON FREE MARKET LIBERALISM AND THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE ENGINEERS MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO WITHOUT HIM

And just as we must not play fast and loose with people’s jobs, we must  not take risks with their pockets and purses. Look at how rocketing world oil and gas prices have led to rocketing energy bills for millions. Green growth must be affordable. And it can be. We will protect energy consumers from the higher prices of climate threatening fossil fuels. Our vision of a green economy can lead to lower energy bills not just in the future – but now. That means putting a cushion between the bills people actually pay and world energy prices. And Conference, the answers aren’t new – but red and blue never makes green. WHAT AN OBSCENE CORRUPT LYING FASCIST THIEF HE IS. PROMISING TO "NOT TAKE RISKS" WITH ENERGY PRICES WHEN IN FACT HE AND EVERYBODY IN THAT HALL KNOWS HE IS NOT MERELY RISKING, BUT DELIBERATELY INCREASING FUEL POVERTY

Saving energy, energy competition will be how we get people’s energy bills down. And we have the new ideas to make these work much harder for people than ever before. Let’s start with energy saving. My vision of the future is one in which houses are so well insulated they cost no more to run in winter than they do in summer. Think about what that would mean: no more arguments about the kids putting on an extra jumper; no more shivering when you make the morning cup of tea; no more anxious calculations at the end of the month when the bills stack up. HIS VISION OF THE FUTURE IS ONE WHERE PARLIAMENT REPEALS THE LAWS OF ENERGY

That’s why the Green Deal is so different. Different to anything that has gone before. First, everyone is included. Every home in your community – every house, every flat – all can benefit from the Green Deal. Indeed, every business can benefit too. Past schemes were full of red tape. If you didn't qualify for this benefit you weren’t eligible. If you didn't want the work done in a certain way you couldn’t have it done at all. Well, we won’t save energy and keep people warm by wrapping them up in in red tape. And the Green Deal is creating a new market – a competitive market. Open to all, not just the big energy firms. With local builders and plumbers, DIY chains, boiler firms. 60,000 jobs. The energy of liberal free enterprise unleashed to save the energy leaking from our homes. EVERYONE IS INCLUDED IN THAT EVERYONE'S POCKET IS ROBBED BY THESE THIEVES TO PAY THEIR PALS. THE PROMISE OF "60,000 JOBS" IS ACTUALLY A PROMISE TO DESTROY 162,000 NET SINCE EACH JOB "CREATED" BY SUBSIDY DESTROYS 3.7 IN THE REAL ECONOMY

And we need more enterprise and competition in Britain’s energy markets too. The old way – of door-step selling and door-step misselling – didn’t work – and I’m glad to see it gone. We can’t – like Labour – just urge people to switch and leave the rest to chance. That hasn’t worked. Switching rates are down. Only the well-heeled internet savvy now get the best deals. But we need to give people value for money on their gas and electricity. THE CLAIM THAT THE ENERGY COMPANIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENERGY PRICES IS. LIKE THE CLAIM THAT THE BANKS CAUSED THE RECESSION, WHILE THE GOVERNMENT WASN'T THERE, IS  PRECISELY AS CORRUPT AS THAT OF THE GERMAN NATIONALISTS AFTTER WW1 WHO SAID THE JEWS AND SOCIALISTS WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOSING THE WAR. BY DEFINITIONM THEN, THE SCUM WHO SAY IT ARE AS CORRUPT AND DISHONEST AS THE NAZIS WHO SAID THE ORIGINAL LIE

In July, we launched ‘Cornwall Together’ – it has brought together the council, the NHS, Unison, voluntary groups and the world famous Eden Project. And St Austell’s Brewery. That really got me interested. Cornwall Together will help Cornish people buy energy together – in a collective switch. To get 20,000 Cornish residents to sign up, aiming to save them an average of nearly £200 a year. So millions of pounds stay in the Cornish economy. That matters. That cash boosts local economic growth and cuts fuel poverty.

Our policy is to encourage exactly such schemes. So today I am announcing a £5m competition and it’s open to local authorities and community groups across England. We want councils and communities to come up with their own schemes. And we will make only one main rule. Winning schemes must include the fuel poor. And Liberal Democrats, armed with this new opportunity to push energy competition, we must campaign to help people cut their energy bills – campaign in our cities, towns and villages – and work with anyone who will work with us. Cooperating for for cheaper, energy. And I want to go further. I want nothing short of a community energy revolution. STEALING £310 BILLION FROM THE PEOPLE HE NOW WANTS TO SPEND ANOTHER £5 MILLION ON AN ADVERTISING STUNT

Let’s start by buying energy together. But let’s also save it and generate it together. Just look at Germany to see what is possible. 100 councils aiming to be 100% renewable. Nearly 600 energy co-operatives. So next spring I bring forward with a new community energy strategy – so people can and will see the benefits of a green economy for them. But I will do more for families struggling with bills. Now. SIMPLY ANOTHER PROMISE OF MORE BILLIONS IN SUBSIDY TO FRIENDS...

Take tax. We campaigned and have won a great change to build a fairer new economy. Taking millions out of tax and incentivising work with our £10,000 income tax-free allowance. But we also campaigned for a green tax switch. To incentivise energy saving.  Now we need renewed vigour for that smarter tax. I’ll be working with Don Foster to look at council tax discounts for energy efficiency to see if they will encourage people to sign up to the Green Deal. The Budget announced a review of vehicle excise duty, as car tax to you and I. I am interested in an idea that would push the car industry to make more fuel efficient cars, to save motorists money and cut carbon. And to cut motoring costs even more for the greener car drivers. After all, we have a commitment on environmental taxes. There is a coalition commitment. Not more tax, smarter tax. We need to make sure that happens SINCE THIS CLEGG HAS MADE A SPECIFIC PROMISE OF MORE TAX UNDER THE PSEUDO-LIBERALS

Liberal Democrats, we can build a new economy from the mess we inherited. From banking reform to employee share ownership and the Green Investment Bank. From new energy infrastructure to railways and electric cars. From the Green Deal to clever green tax and buying energy together.  Green growth will mean more jobs and lower bills. And don’t let anyone tell you different. HE KNOWS "GREEN JOBS" IS A LIE AND THAT HE IS PROMISING TO DESTROY 3.7 REAL JOBS FOR EVERY SUBSIDY DEPENDENT ONE "CREATED"

My vision, our vision is of a new green economy. Of course there will be some with outdated views who don’t want to make the change. Don’t want Britain to move forward. But their ideas got us into this economic and environmental mess in the first place. Our vision of a new green economy has never been needed more than now – from reskilling young people for tomorrow’s low carbon world, to investing in the science to drive innovating firms. That is the new economy liberal democrats want to build.

I joined the party when we were just 4% in the opinion polls because this party, even then, in a green future. They scoffed at us then, but we were right. And it’s the same people trying to sabotage that future now. Our campaigns changed the political agenda so much that we can now become a world green leader. That’s how far Britain has come, that’s how far we have come so let us say loud and clear, on our green future there will be no turning back SIMPLY BOASTING OF BEING A THIEVING FASCIST PARASITE


Labels: , ,

Sunday, September 15, 2013

"Caring Professions" Stealing Children - Probably The Most Obscene Political Parasitism We Have & One Of The More Expensive

   H/T Tim Worstall for leading me to this:

"Education Secretary says officialdom and red tape have prevented the authorities from stepping in to protect children and have helped grooming rings to operate.

He also condemns social services departments across the country for the “indefensible” practice of “decanting” problem children to far-flung homes, away from friends and family, and routinely located in some of the country’s worst crime hot spots. And he voices dismay at how children’s homes have failed to provide basic protection while costing taxpayers on average six and a half times
as much to care for a single child as it would cost to send them to Eton.

Mr Gove makes the comments, in an article for The Daily Telegraph, as his department publishes the most comprehensive information ever compiled about children’s homes in England.

The report, seen by The Daily Telegraph, exposes how councils in England are spending more than a £1 billion a year to care for fewer than 4,900 children. It calculates that councils now spend an average of £4,000 a week — or £208,000 a year — to place one child in a home, several times what it could cost to educate them at some of Britain’s top public schools.

In some cases the total amount spent is running at several times that level. According to the figures, one council — Bexley in Kent — spent more than £58,000 a week per child — £3 million each — on specialist privately run homes last year."

   From Michael Gove which says a lot about how much power ministers actually have, unless they are willing to go to the wall.

   Clearly our "social services" are out of control, some, like Bexley, further out than others.

   I have previously discussed this as a particularly obscene example of Pournelle's rule that "the purpose of government spending is to pay government employees and their friends, the nominal purpose is, at best, secondary".

    Relatively few children are taken seized by "professional carers" because they are being harmed. Indeed when they are really being harmed, overwhelmingly by a new, stupid and violent, boyfriend of the mother, who is acting on the same evolutionary drive that causes a lion to kill the cubs of its mate when they aren't his, because it increases the chances of his cubs replacing them. For some reason "professional carers" tend to steer clear of violent boyfriend situations and much prefer stealing children from law abiding, decent people.

     The fact that our "social work" class insists that in virtually all circumstances they prevent the real father looking after Baby P and his ilk is why this obscenity is repeated so often. The solution is obvious.

     What normally happens is that they are said to be "at risk", a classification that needs no actual evidence beyond the gestapo/social worker saying so (or occasionally an opinion from an "expert" who has been paid £25K for the opinion without having to go to the inconvenience of seeing the kid. In a number of cases the "at risk" definition has been proven not only corrupt but an entirely political charge made against UKIP, EDL or members of with unapproved political opinions - how long till somebody who doesn't approve of redefining marriage or total power to social workers is thus punished. Then they disappear into the "care" system, thereby ensuring continued employment and empire building by the "carers" and a life of abuse for the victim/care charge.

    Nobody seriously disputes that sexual abuse is not merely common but endemic within the "care" system and, as with the police who didn't investigate the Rochdale case because it was "a lifestyle choice" by the victims, this is nodded at.

   Nor is there any dispute that, by almost any definition of human failure - imprisonment, homelessness, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, illiteracy, unemployment, failure of their own children - those who grow up in "care" are deeply damaged.

   All of that not only justifies but demands that any civilised society get rid of these obscene "caring" parasites. A society that puts children in harm's way is not a society to be proud of.

    Even if the real parents aren't perfect - a certainty since who is - all of history shows they will be more caring of their own kids than those with no stake.

   I suggest:

A - All these cases should be investigated and in any circumstances where the kids want to go home (they must be free to say so not browbeaten by the presence of their tormentors)

B - In any case where a child has been taken into "care" officiously as an abusive act of overgovernment, the "carers" involved and the immediate boss who instructed them, should be fired, and never again be eligible for state employment. Ditto any "expert" paid to testify in support of grabbing children, when their report turns out to be false. there is also a case for suing such scum for fees, pay and indeed the harm they did.

C - From now on there should be an explicit duty of whistleblowing, affecting all "social workers" and police, that if they know, or are in a situation where "a reasonable person" (common legal phrasing) would know, of abuse, unjustified seizure of children or "expert" collusion, they have a duty to go public and if they don't are then also inelegibale for future state employment.

   My guess is that this would reduce child social work departments by about 90% while leaving in place almost everybody who had a positive role.

   The other point here is the amount of money we are paying for this obscenity.

   Gove says £208,000 a year. However the number in care is far greater than that.

    It is 91,000 in the UK in 2012 (incidentally 89,000 when I previously reported so things are getting worse).

    That comes to £18.93 billion, one sixth of our entire national governmental deficit.

     Bear in mind that we can probably sustain a deficit of about £50 bn without increasing the national debt as a proportion of gdp.

     This is on the assumption that all 91,000 are being treated the same and on the more questionable assumption that all the costs of child departments of social workers are being counted. Thus the figure may not be exact but it is unlikely to be overcounted.

Scottish case:

"31 July 2012 there were 16,248  children looked after by local authorities, an increase of less than one per cent since 31 July 2011.  The number of children looked after has increased every year since 2001"

    That is 18% of the UK total, with 8.5% of total population (or taking England, NI and Wales alone at 74,752 - 22% in a population of 9.1% the size.

    It is, unfortunately, the experience that our government "services" tend to cost 25% more than the UK average (apparently due to "the freight" costs in the Highlands ;-) ).

   In which case the assumed cost in Scotland should be {16,248 X 204,000 X 1.25} £4,143 million.

   Roughly 1/8 of our total budget for something which not only does not add one iota to human happiness but adds a massive amount to the total of human misery.

   I can also call this #26 of my 24 point programme out of recession

   And, of  course, not only is this censored from our state broadcasting propagandists but they are actively assisting the parasites in extending their reach.

    This is the BBC pushing for these "carers" to keep their meal tickets up till age 26. Naturally the BBC censor any slightest hint anybody might not like that. And of the need to increase numbers taken, again, naturally with any disagreement censored.

Labels: , , ,

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.