Quote of the Day: Hookers on the Taxpayer Edition

Clearly oneupmanship by Theresa May over her predecessor Jacqui Smith. Jacqui bought porn, Theresa provides hookers for all!

Via twitter

Coalition spins it hard over the EU Budget

Following on from the previous post about calls for David Cameron to apologise for misleading the House, it appears that what we have here is one of those classic examples in politics where what has not been specifically said is assumed to mean either X or Y, depending on your political viewpoint.

Let's deal with the facts first though. It is absolutely 100% true that Labour MEP did not vote in favour of the 6% EU budget rise that was passed in the European Parliament by 546 to 88. Labour MEPs joined their Tory and Lib Dem counterpart as part of the 88 against.

Clear cut huh? Now let's move into the wonderful world of the grey where politicians and their words really live.

You see, there were a couple of utterly pointless amendments tabled on the budget. I say pointless because given the majority with which the 6% rise was passed they had no chance of actually succeeding.

Firstly there was an amendment that the Labour MEPs were supporting, which included a €1bn cut in agriculture subsidies. Then there was another amendment which was calling for a freeze of the EU budget at 2010 levels, effectively a cut over time given inflation. This is what the Labour MEPs voted against.

So here we have the wonderful grey area. Cameron said that Labour MEPs had been voting for "higher budgets". By voting against a freeze, it can be inferred that they're in favour of "higher budgets" which is what the Tory Spin Press Office was pushing hard yesterday.

Of course, such an argument is tenuous, but then so are most arguments in politics, and we've have quite a week of tenuous stuff, what with Labour people (and Boris??) acting as if housing benefit changes are equivalent to the Serbs forcing Kosovans to leave or be slaughtered and dumped in mass graves.

Cameron does of course have wiggle room as a result of his carefully chosen words, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the implication was that Labour MEPs had voted in favour of the 6% increase in the EU budget that went through the EP.

The Tories may of course suggest such an implication was not there at all, but it is not helped by the Cheif Secertary to Treasury, Danny Alexander, also saying in the Commons yesterday

"I have to say he’d have a bit more credibility on controlling the public finances if his colleagues in the European Parliament hadn’t just voted for the 6 per cent rise in the European budget."

Pretty clear cut too huh? He's gone even further than Cameron and made the specific charge that the Labour MEPs voted for something that they actually didn't.... or did he?

What happens to Danny Alexander's words if we move ourselves into the grey area to which politics resides? Well he said "colleagues" he didn't say "Labour MEPs". Are Labour MPs "colleagues" in the European Parliament just Labour MEPs or are they all the MEPs in the Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats group that Labour belong?

All looks very, monkey see, monkey do, politics is, as politics does to me. Cameron and Alexander are both off the hook thanks to tenuous at best, downright deceitful at worst arguments. I wouldn't be surprised if the pointless amendment was tabled souly for the purpose of providing the domestic politicians something to throw at Labour.

The bottom line as it were is that the three main British political parties in the European Parliament voted against the 6% rise in the EU budget, but not having a dividing line doesn't make particularly interesting copy now does it? Much better to spin it.

Note: Danny Alexander quote via Cathy Newman's FactCheck blog. See also FullFact.org

Call for Cameron to apologise for misleading the House?

Yesterday, during PMQs, David Cameron, responding to Kate Hoey on the matter of the EU Budget said,

we would be assisted if Labour MEPs did not keep voting for higher budgets, which is exactly what they did this week.

However, the Labour MEP, Mary Honeyball, says they didn't and actually voted against the budget.

we voted against the budget in Strasbourg last week. Since Labour MEPs are utterly responsible we took the view that while many member states, including the UK, are facing financial difficulties, the EU should also rein in its spending.

I, and no doubt my Labour MEP colleagues, look forward to an apology from the Prime Minister.

I have to say, I think she might have a point that an apology should be forthcoming if what she says is true.

Then again, might it be that they voted in favour of a different budget that was lower but still in fact higher? Anyone know the details?

It's more likely Pickles' department is incompetent

There is a rather interesting story over on Labour Uncut this morning about the Communities Secretary Eric Pickles refusing to answer a Freedom of Information request, and so questions Pickles' alleged love for transparency.

Essentially, the tale goes thus. An unnamed source at the DCLG slagged off the char of the Electoral Commission to the press. It's then reported by the Local Government Chronicle that Pickles sought legal advice internally to see if the slagging off was actionable. There is then a possibility that Pickles went to an external legal advisor for a second opinion.

The FoI that was submitted asked for the DCLG to confirm that second opinion story, and the DCLG said that it was "unable to either confirm nor deny" that it holds the information requested. As Labour Uncut points out, the "guidance from the information commissioner on FoI requests says that departments have a duty to confirm or deny whether the information requested is held".

Naturally this has led Labour Uncut to the conclusion that Pickles only wants others to be transparent and doesn't play by the rules himself. There is of course an alternative explanation.... sheer incompetence.

You see, this is a Government department after all, and the fact that they can't confirm or deny that they hold information suggests that what they're actually saying is "we don't know", which equally translates to "we're not very good at keeping records".

Conspiracy to conceal the truth, or Government department incompetence? It's up to you. I know which one I would go for every time, but then I'm a complete cynic.

The Internet is not private.... OK?

Here's a little thought for you this morning. Putting aside the question of indecent exposure, if I was to stand at my front window stark naked and opened the blind, would someone walking past who looked at me be invading my privacy? I'd say not, but you may think differently.

Here's another question for you, if I played loud music in my house that could be heard from the street outside, would the people walking past that could hear it be invading my privacy in those fleeting moments that the sound was audible and they knew what (possibly awful) tastes in music existed in my home?

I ask only because this afternoon there will be a House of Commons Debate taking place, unusually, in Westminster Hall, on the subject of "privacy and the Internet", and one of the likely questions raised will be something that the excellent Big Brother Watch is concerned about, that Google, whilst carrying out its street-view mapping, captured publicly transmitted wifi data streams.

Now some, like Big Brother Watch, consider that action by Google, a step to far, but they're unfortunately wrong in my view. The technomological reality is Google were just like the people walking past my house who looked at my family jewels or heard the latest Paramore album pumping through the speakers.

What they did was simply drive along a street and capture public broadcasts akin to walking along the street and hearing people...errrr.... talk to each other as they walk past.

Of course, what you get told is that Google were taking your passwords, email addresses and information about the porn you were browsing, which makes it sound... well quite bad actually without a bit of a reality check.

Firstly, standard email is not a secure communication method. Sending an email is like writing a postcard, anyone can read it because it designed that way. You want to secure it, encrypt it.

Likewise, with passwords, if you're logging into a website that is not encrypted then anyone on that long path between your computer and the server you're logging into can see that password winging its way around the world in plain text. There is a phrase for this in technology which goes "this is by design". You wouldn't walk along the street with a t-shirt on that said "my bank PIN is 1234" but that is what you're doing if you send a password over a non-encrypted channel.

Could the owner of such a t-shirt credibly complain about his privacy being invaded if his card was used after he publicly told the world how to use it?

I guess what I'm saying is this. The Internet is insecure by design and it is a very noisy place. Think of it like Cairo. A heaving mass of traffic going back and forward, most of it open and available for anyone that wants to have a look.

You cannot reinvent this wheel, but you can put locking wheel nuts on it to reduce the risk of someone stealing it.

Let's be clear, and some may not like this, but Google did nothing but tune their radio in to everything we were saying publicly. They were like a person walking through a market of Cairo and listening to the world around them.

As for the secondary issue about them storing search terms it's quite simple. They're a private company, if you don't like it, don't use it. Remember this too, whilst we all get concerned about Google, it's really just a distraction from the signals intelligence activities of AUSCANNZUKUS, because Echelon really is Big Brother.

One last thing though, if you're a little curious about what it actually is that Google "grabbed" then click the image below. Your computer sends and receives millions of these things when you log on each day, and it is buried within these millions of packets that you can find the emails, addresses and destinations people might be visiting.

It's a bit like finding a skip full of shredded documents and trying to piece them all back together for every network you may have heard, it's a colossal job.

Hopefully this might put some perspective into a subject from which you might get the impression that the information appears in a little window on one of those make believe computers you see on Spooks.

Andrew Gwynne MP: A Twat on Twitter

I know I've already done a post on housing benefit, but some of the "outrage" being pumped out on this subject is worthy of a little scrutiny because it's not only hyperbole but in many cases it's pure unadulterated bullshit.

Take, for example, the Labour MP for Denton and Reddish, Andrew Gwynne who said on Twitter in some consecutive tweets the following,

Ed Miliband was right to go on the changes to housing benefit proposed by the Government. It will clobber thousands of people hard.....
I'm not talking about the London situation, but the Greater Manchester housing market!....
Where are my constituents expected to move to?....
It's the 10% cut I'm concerned about; all it'll do is push families into B&B accommodation. Still, we're all in this together!

Now, let's take a look shall we. The housing benefit proposal is, according to the Socialist Worker for a cap of £280 per week for two bed properties and £400 a week for four bed houses, and there will be a 10% cut in 2013, so that's £252 per week for two bed properties and £360 a week for four bed houses. So, variably that is £1120 per month falling to £1008, and £1600 per month falling to £1440.

Andrew Gwynne's constituency in Greater Manchester must be pretty pricey huh? Ahhhh who am I kidding, you know the answer to that already don't you. It ain't.

Let's just see now, in the ward of Audenshaw, the most most expensive three bedroom property to rent is.... £650 per month. In Reddish you can get a four bedroom house for.... £895 per month. Meanwhile, over in Denton, there is a lovely six bedroom detached, yes, six bedroom detached for..... £1000 per month.

Forced into bed and breakfast my fat hairy arse. The MP for Denton and Reddish is evidently not only sitting on his elbow but his arse is full of it too.

Smoking: Government lobbying Government

Following on from the last post about smoking, you may recall that back in August, that giant of a man (literally and figuratively), Eric Pickles, made an announcement that he wanted to see an end to public money being spent in order to influence the use of other public money, alternatively known as "government lobbying government". The question is, will it apply to the anti-smoking lobby?

You see, the freedom to smoke organisation, Forest, have drawn up a report today that shows how the anti-smoking lobby are being funded by public money to further lobby for greater use of public money to achieve their ends where no one smokes ever.

For example, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH UK) across the UK have received millions of pounds in public money in order to carry out research with the purpose of lobbying the government to implement its desired "smoke-free" policies. The charity responsible for "No Smoking Day" - or as I prefer to call it, "Time for Fag Day", is funded by the NHS through the Department of Health

You may have not have heard of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health, however according to their register of interests, they often receive support and "occasional funding of receptions" from ASH UK. It doesn't take a genius to square the circle here does it?

So, can we expect lobbying of government by government on the matter of anti-smoking campaigns to end as per Eric Pickles announcement? Probably not.

Read the full report here.

Official: Lung cancer is Nick Clegg's fault

It wasn't just on housing benefit yesterday that Nick Clegg found himself under fire from maruading Labour MPs demanding he apologise for something. You may not realise this but the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for giving lung cancer to the people of Gateshead, something which will no doubt hold in good stead with the people of Sunderland.

You see, having admitted to wanting a stash of fags if he were stranded on a desert island, he faced the following question yesterday from some bloke called Ian Mearns,

In my constituency of Gateshead one of the greatest factors in continuing health inequalities and shorter life expectancy among some of the poorest communities is the prevalence of smoking. Does the Deputy Prime Minister at all regret promoting smoking by saying it would be his greatest single luxury if he were stranded on a desert island?

God knows what Mr Mearns would have said to that bastard Winston Churchill about the cigars, or that equal killer of the poor Harold Wilson and his rotten bloody pipe.

The sign of things to come

Oh my those poor left wing types across the House and wider world are really out of touch with reality today aren't they? I am of course talking about the rabid opposition to a cap on housing benefit which, if the Today programme is to believed, may actually be reviewed by Iain Duncan-Smith, which would of course be a terrible mistake.

In simple terms, the opposition from Labour, and epitomised by the absurd posturing of Shadow Justice minister Chris Bryant, is that by capping the amount of housing benefit someone can get in line with the average income will "sociologically cleanse" cities where poor people live in expensive areas on the social.

The implication here of course is that the Coalition - no doubt in a secret meeting with funny handshakes where they drink the blood of poverty stricken virgins - are actively seeking to push the poor into pre-Victorian slums in order to protect their upper-class rich friends from having to live next door to chavs.

Yessiree, it's social engineering goddamit!

Now, putting aside for a moment the obvious hilarity of someone from the Labour Party complaining about policy on the grounds of social engineering, it really is coming to something when they cannot see that the vast majority of us, the great unwashed as it were, consider it slightly perverse that someone can be out of work and living on benefits in a mansion in Kensington or Chelsea, whilst they have no likelihood of such opulence unless they win the Euromillion lottery.

Of course, Chris Bryant didn't just leave it there, you see, not only is the policy evidence of that the baby-eating bastards in power want to eat your babies, but also by pushing people to the outer-limits of the city, for example, London, they will be, "disfranchised". Yes, didn't you realise that they're also going to lose the vote as well? No, wait, sorry, that was that little thing called hyperbole again.

What Chris Bryant actually means I think is that if someone on benefits has to move into the cheaper outer-limits of somewhere like London it means they'll be moving into Tory supporting areas and therefore will no longer be in Labour strongholds.

NOTE: At this point please ignore the fact that if such vast numbers of (assumed) Labour voters moved into a Tory area it might just change that area because it doesn't suit the argument that tries to compare a policy to the ethnic cleansing.

So anyway, there we have it, the first signs of how things to come will be. The Government are evil and intend to quite literally rape, eat, pillage and possibly bugger every man, woman and child that isn't a millionaire for good measure; whilst the Opposition are on the side of angels.

Politics is such fun!

Great Hypocrisy of our Times

I may be behind with this one, so apologies if someone else has already pointed it out, but if you think back to earlier in the year, I did a post suggesting the Tories crowd source their response to the last Labour Budget. The idea led to the Tories setting up a site called yourbudgetresponse.com.

Anyhow, at the time the site was ridiculed by the likes of Liam Byrne as evidence that the Tories had no ideas, needed help, and were basically vacuous. Now, all those things might well have been true for all I know, but there is a reason I mention it, because for some reason, Liam Byrne does not appeared to have said that Labour need help and have no ideas when they set up a site in relation to the Comprehensive Spending Review called, yourbetterway.com.

Highly original name of course, and clearly superbly popular too.

Just saying.