Party politics really doesn't do it hardest to eschew complete bollocks at the best of times, and this week's/month's and ongoing year's narrative on "cuts" is one such example where the scrotum and their contents are out in particular force.
Take, for example, the decision of the Labour-run Manchester Council to take the axe to some of their most important public services. Naturally, for the Council, this is all the fault of the bastard Coalition Government, who, having cut their headline budget figure ones to blame for the closure of public sex locations.... sorry I mean toilets.
Yes, the people of Manchester are to face misery you see because the Council, in deciding where to cut its budgets and manage its decrease in funds, had no choice but to hit the proles as hard as possible, and believe me, this had nothing whatsoever to do with party politics.
It would take a true cynic to think that the Labour-run Council decided to hold a press conference and invite the great and good of the national media with their TV cameras along with the pre-prepared sound bite about Manchester was about to face "unmitigated misery".
Then of course, we have the Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, who is now saying that its all David Cameron's fault and that he is creating "nasty confrontation" by "blaming councils" for the decisions councils have chosen to make when it comes to how they to spend, or more accurately, not spend, our money.
No doubt, when he finds himself on the ropes over something in the future (it will happens because it happens to all front line politicians) he'll be saying that his own actions are not his fault but in fact the fault of great-grandparents, for having his grandparents ho went on to have parents and then him.
Of course, Balls is right in a sense, there is "nasty confrontation" ahead, but it's pretty obvious that those confrontations are part of the "nasty" game of party politics that Labour are willing to play, they may not like the accusation of course, but when other Councils facing the same budget restrictions are managing it without bending people over and totally screwing them, you have to wonder about the motives of those that do.
What's more, let's be honest for a moment, it makes sense for them to do it. If Labour are to seek to govern once more, then they need the spending restrictions to appear as bad as possible and they also need to generate the PR to go with such pronouncements of misery. What better place to do it than for Labour controlled councils to swing the axe but blame the Government for their own actions? There are enough idiots out there to believe it.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Rejoice, its a military coup people revolution!
Good morning from the Daily Cynic and what a wonderful morning it is as the shit storm continues to brew.
You see, the "people" of Egypt have spoken indeed and forced their dictator President to step down and they're now celebrating the fact that the high-commands of the armed forces have taken the reins of powers guided by the Defence minister.
Of course, let's be clear right now, this was a quiet and largely non-violent revolution of the "people", all coming from wide-ranging strands of society and thought and not dominated by one single ideology other than a desire for change and freedom.
Any suggestion that within the corridors of powers there was a quiet little coup by the military and its political puppet is 100% wrong... got it?
Yes yes, I know that technically the military have taken over the country, and yes, I appreciate that the politician at the top is essentially the minister responsible for the military, but let's not dwell on that, this was about pure "people" power and nothing more.
It was the "people" that brought down the regime, not some quiet behind closed doors chats where a few generals pointed out that perhaps now was the time to go and let them sort the mess out. No, it was all about that changey hopey thing.
You see, the "people" of Egypt have spoken indeed and forced their dictator President to step down and they're now celebrating the fact that the high-commands of the armed forces have taken the reins of powers guided by the Defence minister.
Of course, let's be clear right now, this was a quiet and largely non-violent revolution of the "people", all coming from wide-ranging strands of society and thought and not dominated by one single ideology other than a desire for change and freedom.
Any suggestion that within the corridors of powers there was a quiet little coup by the military and its political puppet is 100% wrong... got it?
Yes yes, I know that technically the military have taken over the country, and yes, I appreciate that the politician at the top is essentially the minister responsible for the military, but let's not dwell on that, this was about pure "people" power and nothing more.
It was the "people" that brought down the regime, not some quiet behind closed doors chats where a few generals pointed out that perhaps now was the time to go and let them sort the mess out. No, it was all about that changey hopey thing.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
The latest fluff about human rights....
There is, it seems, a new sacred cow in town and it's not the NHS but is instead "human rights". To simply question the orthodoxy of "human rights" puts you just one step away from calling for the state to be all powerful over people and be allowed to connect their genitals to electrodes.
Of course, this sort reactionary hysteria from the "pro" lobby comes about only in response to the equally reactionary response of the "hang'em and flog'em" lobby who scream about "human rights" being a "criminal's charter" etcetera etcetera.
And yet there is a calm and very sane argument in favour of repealing the Human Rights Act and withdrawing from the 20th Century's European Convention of Human Rights that does not mean you're in favour of tyranny which goes like this.
"Human Rights" are predicated on the assumption that the state exists a priori of its citizenry, and that the state confers on to you "rights" that are yours because you have the quality of being "human".
Now compare that assumption to the assumptions of a document like the US Constitution, which says things like,
In the latter the people are sovereign, in the former, the state is sovereign and gives the people rights at its pleasure.
This is why the Human Rights Act should be repealed and Britain should withdraw from the European Convention and draw up its own Bill of Rights that is designed in terms of what the state cannot do, not what the people have been given the right to by a a paternalistic state.
"Prisoners votes" and "criminal's charters" are merely extensive fluff covering the elephant in the room.
Note: No more blogging today, I know I said I would be back next week but had a brief moment in the schedule.
Of course, this sort reactionary hysteria from the "pro" lobby comes about only in response to the equally reactionary response of the "hang'em and flog'em" lobby who scream about "human rights" being a "criminal's charter" etcetera etcetera.
And yet there is a calm and very sane argument in favour of repealing the Human Rights Act and withdrawing from the 20th Century's European Convention of Human Rights that does not mean you're in favour of tyranny which goes like this.
"Human Rights" are predicated on the assumption that the state exists a priori of its citizenry, and that the state confers on to you "rights" that are yours because you have the quality of being "human".
Now compare that assumption to the assumptions of a document like the US Constitution, which says things like,
"Congress shall make no law...."Notice the subtle difference? Here we have not "rights" conferred by a state that assumes it exists separately from its citizens but rather we have "rights" that come about by stating what the state cannot do.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In the latter the people are sovereign, in the former, the state is sovereign and gives the people rights at its pleasure.
This is why the Human Rights Act should be repealed and Britain should withdraw from the European Convention and draw up its own Bill of Rights that is designed in terms of what the state cannot do, not what the people have been given the right to by a a paternalistic state.
"Prisoners votes" and "criminal's charters" are merely extensive fluff covering the elephant in the room.
Note: No more blogging today, I know I said I would be back next week but had a brief moment in the schedule.
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
BBIAB....
Funny how quick a year goes by, but it has. Just a quick note to say blogging is largely canceled this week due to external forces at work and also Mrs Dizzy going for her yearly in one case, and six monthly in another, cancer follow-up tests.
Back next week. In the meantime you can go and read other blogs.
Back next week. In the meantime you can go and read other blogs.
Monday, February 07, 2011
The Blue Peter Terrorist Handbook
Dizzy Jr reached the grand old age of six yesterday. When he opened the Blue Peter annual someone gave him and he said "cool, Blue Peter!" I had the epiphany that he was no longer a toddler, but it was the content of said annual that amused most.
Click Image For Larger Version
Now I presume there must be some copies floating about from the first print run before someone pointed out that perhaps telling kids how to make bombs using at least one bomb popular with terrorists might not be a good idea.
Now I presume there must be some copies floating about from the first print run before someone pointed out that perhaps telling kids how to make bombs using at least one bomb popular with terrorists might not be a good idea.
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
At least they're transparent about wasting money
See that little icon over there which you can see in the real world at the Information Commissioner's website.It cost £585 you know. Yes. Really.
That's 50p per pixel. Nice work if you can get it huh?
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
The World's Worst Hacker
Turn the volume down if the music annoys you. This hacker was caught doing his/her thing not knowing it was inside a honeytrap.
Parliamentary Recess time-delay
Nothing like the joy of Christmas and a Parliamentary recess to cause a time-delay huh? Published in Written Answers yesterday, January 31st 2011, Caroline Flint: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many local authorities have notified his Department that they do not plan to organise events to mark the festival of Christmas in 2010.Only a month and a bit late!
Andrew Stunell: Local authorities are not required to tell my Department how they are celebrating Christmas as this is a local matter. However, the Secretary of State has received approximately 60 letters supporting his stance on the celebration of Christmas.
Perhaps Caroline Flint should've spoken to avid Doctor Who fan Tom Harris and asked if he had a spare Tardis she could use.
Are you sitting comfortably?... they are
There has been quite a bit written about the Audit Commission over the last few months since it's demise was announced, some of which has been supportive and some which has been dismissive of its virtues. If you're not sure what the Audit Commission is meant to do, this is what its website says, The Audit Commission is an independent watchdog, driving economy, efficiency and effectiveness in local public services to deliver better outcomes for everyone..... We appoint auditors to provide assurance and promote value for taxpayers’ money across local government, health, housing, community safety, fire and rescue and other public services.All very straightforward indeed. Value for money for the taxpayer is important, you won;t get any arguments from me on that one. So is it appropriate that, in the last 12 months, the Audit Commission spent £53,507.64 on just 222 office chairs? (that's an average of £241 per chair before you ask).
The "Omni Swivel chair 4812" at just over £850 a piece better be comfortable for the money, and the two hush chairs on sled legs (pictured right) are surely a snip at £840 per unit. Clearly there is one person in the Audit Commission who must have a bad back or something as they were bought the RH Logic 300 at a reduced price of £525.63.
It does make me wonder sometimes who actually audits the auditors for value for money.
So much for a transparent House of Commons
It's well known that during the build-up to the Expenses Scandal, it was the House of Commons and the Speaker of the time that fought tooth-and-nail to avoid a light to shine on the expenses and allowance spending of our Lords and Masters. Thankfully, as a result of a leak it didn't matter anyway.
Whilst it's unlikely that this was a driving force behind the desire by the Tory element of the Coalition to establish the principle that Government department should be publishing their spending on anything over £500, it was probably a factor, hence many department are now telling us, in raw data format at least, what taxpayers money they're pissing up the proverbial.
Well, all except the House of Commons of course. You wouldn't expect that institution, often of lofty "born to rule" arrogance, to take transparency with your money seriously would you? You see, they don't, as, when asked what single tender contracts they'd agreed since May 2010 the response from the House of Commons Commission was as follows,
Whilst it's unlikely that this was a driving force behind the desire by the Tory element of the Coalition to establish the principle that Government department should be publishing their spending on anything over £500, it was probably a factor, hence many department are now telling us, in raw data format at least, what taxpayers money they're pissing up the proverbial.
Well, all except the House of Commons of course. You wouldn't expect that institution, often of lofty "born to rule" arrogance, to take transparency with your money seriously would you? You see, they don't, as, when asked what single tender contracts they'd agreed since May 2010 the response from the House of Commons Commission was as follows,
The House's central contract database contains information on six single tender contracts awarded since May 2010, namely:You didn't expect them to tell you how much it cost to protect them from the rabble throwing stones at their windows did you?None of these contracts was above the EU public procurement threshold for supplies and services which currently stands at approximately £101,000.
- Additional access control
- Supply, delivery and installation of security screening equipment
- Anti-fragmentation film in 14 Tothill street
- Modifications to the House of Commons Chamber sound equipment and supply of specialist radio microphones
- Supply of curtaining fabric
- Replacement of broken glass roof domes, Moncrieff's Restaurant
Single tender contracts under £25,000 within individual House Departments are not recorded on the central contract database, and it is not known how many of these there have been.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)