Wanker of the Week

Is the improbably named 'James T Kirk', for the following comment on the BBC News' Have Your Say:

"In their 2005 manifesto New labour promised a referendum on whether or not to sign the Lisbon treaty."

No, it was on the EU constitution, not the Lisbon Treaty. Irrespective of that, Blair did that to ensure the French held a referendum which he believed (rightly) would reject the Constitution and enable Britain and other countries to renegotiate some of the more ambitious aspects and gain more opt outs. This was achieved with the result that Lisbon really is just a tidying up exercise.

Well, as much as I like Star Trek (alright, alright, stop sniggering at the back... :-), this 'James T Kirk' is an utter wanker. I mean, does anyone seriously buy this shit? Gordon 'Courage' Brown didn't hold a referendum because he was scared that he would lose. As the Meerkat says, 'Simples'...

Meanwhile, most (though not all) of those making comments show their general ignorance by attacking Free Trade. My favourite is this:

We need a bit of both [Free Trade and Protectionism!]. Exporting comes from reciprocity [NB A protectionist concept, much favoured by the French...], and we need to keep key domestic skills safe.

BUT the net result should be that we export a little more than we import.

Eventually that WILL solve our economic woes.

You just can't be a net importer and fund it by debt...as we have seen.

Gordon-Charisma Brown, Brownutopia, Republic of Tax, Spend and Waste.

As much as this person has obviously picked out Gordon the Moron's, ahem, 'qualities', the statement does suggest one slight mathematical problem: how can all countries export a little more than they import?!!! That means that we can't all follow this policy, which makes it unsustainable... that way lies the 1930s Depression, to which protectionism made no little contribution.

What these muppets need to get is some basic economics (and history) lessons:

- Some countries import more than they export. This deficit can be funded in a number of ways: borrowing, a transfer / sale of assets abroad / etc.

- This is not a problem! It's a good thing!

- If a country can no longer afford - or is perceived as no longer being able to afford - to do this, its currency tends to depreciate against those of others. This makes its imports more expensive, and its exports cheaper, allowing it to reduce / eliminate its trade deficit. [For the benefit of the likes of Mr Kirk, this is one reason why joining the Euro is a really dumb idea - just look at its impact on Italy, for example...]

- This is a natural part of the economic cycle... like recessions. You can't 'cure' a recession, as idiots like Brown seem to think. Of course, you can make them worse, by entering them with a structural fiscal deficit, built up during a boom... But who would be stupid enough to do something like that?!

The rise of the pleblic*

*Term coined by The Filthy Smoker, commenting on Devil's Kitchen.

Well, the signs have been there for some time... England's white, 'working' classes are rising up in support of 'British jobs for British workers'.

And, whilst Mandy Pandy tries to stand up for Free Trade and against protectionism (as, to be fair, he did in Brussels, pissing off the French - well, the man can't be all bad!), the reality is that it is his party, the Prime Mentalist that he is supporting, the economic policy which he has supported all along, the EU policy which he has helped implement as well as supported, the adoption of an effective open border policy to immigrants and the rejection of policies to reduce the power of trade unions that are responsible for the rising tide of union action that we're seeing now.

Frank Field - one of the few Labour MPs that I have any time for - writes today about the consequences of the open doors policy in particular - and the stupidity of the 'British jobs for British workers' soundbite that the Great Gobshite in Downing St used a few months ago. Whilst the article is flawed - not least in its call for Splash Gordon to actually adopt a position of British jobs for British workers - it shows the sheer alarm in the Labour Party about the loss of their core supporters and the concommitant rise of the BNP - Labour voters are switching to them, illustrating that they are a left-wing party, not a right-wing one, no matter what idiots on Liberal Conspiracy try to claim...

But is it the 'white, working class' who should be angry - or those of us who have seen our taxes pissed down the toilet (strange and incongruous, I know, given this week's stories that suggest that Gordo can't actually manage to get to the toilet...) by this useless, ideologically-driven Government? Note - they're not just incompetent. They are deliberately fucking our country up.

One example: schools. Because they can't even get schools to teach our kids to read, write and count, they've given up. Instead, schools are to become a core part of 'children's services' policies to tackle 'inequality' - not, as Grammar schools used to, by teaching them useful skills and knowledge, but by telling them that it's not their fault if they don't learn... even if it's because they're fucking lazy bastards. Don't believe me? Have a look at 21st Century Schools: A World-Class Education for Every Child / A School Report Card. It simply beggars belief.

And some people actually thought Brown would be better than Blair. Although, to be fair (and to borrow a phrase), this isn't Brown, it's Balls.

Not enough for you? How about this from Thursday's Times:

There have been intense discussions on Labour’s National Executive Committee about how to help the 4.5 million people waiting for social housing and to get the construction industry back to work, The Times has learnt.

Now, how the fuck, after a boom lasting 15 years or so, are there 4.5 million people on the waiting list for social housing?! Are there that many useless Brits? Probably... Or is it that we have imported 4.5 million people from Poland, Ukraine, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, etc. - well, they all seem to live near me, in my rapidly-depreciating tiny flat in Chav-ville. But weren't we told that these people were generating an economic benefit? So it 'can't' be them!

And what about our wonderfully generous benefits system - generous, that is, to frauds, cheats, liars and other scumbugs (strange that this also fits the description of most members of Parliament...), but not if you are old and need social care, having paid taxes for others' care throughout your working life. Or you've become unemployed in your 50s, after paying taxes all your working life. Just have a look at Ms Snuffy's, errr, heart-warming modern day story about a benefits scam, albeit one perpetrated by an Indian family, rather than by white trash.

So, I ask. What have the striking twats got to strike about?

- They largely voted for this Government of all the Gobshites - or at least funded it, given their membership of Trade Unions like Unite.
- It is the middle classes that are paying for them and their families. The 'poor' cheat the benefits system and / or don't earn enough, whilst the truly rich can get around paying tax. The sods in the middle get (financially) fisted by Gay Gordon and his merry band of cunts.
- They've priced themselves out of the labour market by demanding wages and benefits (wages in all but name) which are out of kilter with their productivity.

It is people like me, who've been paying for all this shite - and will pay for it in the future (although I can move abroad and escape) - who should be going on strike and protesting in the street. Not BNP-voting muppets who believed that Gordon the Moron was some kind of economic genius...

Government Gets Something Right Shock!

Thought that might get your attention...

Of course, it's not any of the parts of Government that are accountable to the Great Snotgobbler...

No, it's the (indepedent) Competition Commission (CC), which has recommended the break-up of BAA, the (near-)monopoly airport operator which owns Gatwick, Heathrow and Stanstead, and Edinburgh and Glasgow Airports. Because, as anyone unfortunate enough to fly from those airports knows, the service it offers is a pile of shit.

What most passengers probably don't know, because BAA's charges are hidden (along with the Government's ridiculous taxes, in the prices charged by airlines for the crime of wishing to leave this rain-sodden, socialist-wrecked piece of shit of a country we live in), is that they have been earning monopoly rents from the excessive charges they have been demanding from airlines. And the 'regulator', the useless Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has done fuck-all about it.

So the Competition Commission, in its interim report, has demanded the break-up of the BAA monopoly. See - economists can be useful! ;-)

Now, what is the Government going to do about the CAA? Today's press reported that the Dept. of Transport was 'surprised' by the strength of the CC's report - despite the gist of its findings being reported for some time - yet another triumph for the Labour Government, which of course is totally against overly-close relations with Big Business (Bernie Ecc... cough, cough).

What the DoT meant to say was, 'We are going to do fuck all about the CAA because it is doing a wonderful job'. As ever, the Government - like its Great Leader - is 'listening'....

The problem with the CAA, like the water regulator after Ian Byatt left, is that it is too soft on monopolies who provide shit services. Just look at the level of price increases allowed for BAA - 23.5% real, followed by RPI + 7.5% for 4 years (note, not CPI, the supposed real level of inflation reported by the Snotgobbler), in order to pay for British Airways' new, ahem, 'wonderful' T5! And they say that BA is not supported by the Government, as, say, Air France is...

[Incidentally, having seen the CC's original report, the CAA did it's best to ensure its future survival by jumping on the 'break up BAA' bandwagon... what the fuck was it doing before? 'Dr' Harry Bush, its 'Group Director of Economic Regulation', is a political animal (formerly a senior bod at the Treasury, where the Bishop gathers he was responsible for the joys of public-private 'partnerships'... and no, that has nothing to do with gay sex or Harriet Harperson...), so is clearly simply trying to save his - and, maybe, the CAA's - skin.]

I have no problem with good service being rewarded - but the investment must be made first, and the service (whether a more pleasant airport, shorter queues, or less leaks from pipes, etc.) should noticeably improve before price increases are allowed. Not the other way round - otherwise the incentives are all wrong.

And don't get me started on the returns that are allowed on what are, essentially, risk-free investments (because, like the Inland Revenue, 'customers' can't go elsewhere). Why the fuck should we - because it is us, the airlines' customers, who pay for the subsidies to BA increased charges - pay a return that's higher than the risk-free rate on something that we are paying for (as the repayments of loans used to fund investments are factored into the prices allowed, and there is nowhere else for customers to go). Now, when BAA is broken up, we can think again about the appropriate rate of return. But we need to get tough on these cunts.

Rant over :)

Or I thought it was, until I read, in this FT piece, that the unions were opposed to BAA's break-up. Because, of course, some of the biggest beneficiaries of monopolies are unionised workforces (as we saw with the old nationalised industries - and the weeks / months spent waiting to have telephone lines installed, etc.).

If you needed confirmation that the CC are right, this should be it...


BB