Political principals

Iain Martin writes in the Daily Telegraph, an article of nine paragraphs - and which on first reading I was about to dismiss as nine paragraphs of the usual political written excreta - when it dawned on me that actually it was rather good in that it showed up the lack of principle Cameron - and politicians in general - actually have. With the points raised, Martin shows (although he probably hasn't realised it) how every decision Cameron has made has been for one reason only, namely to maintain his position and grip on power. In a related article in the same newspaper, Christopher Booker likewise shows how a politician, in this case Obama, is concerned only with his career - and therefore, in common with Cameron; to hell with principle.


That the people seem content to allow and continually partake in a system which permits what amounts to the practice of dictatorship, - and this in a system that is supposed to be democratic - beggars belief. It is beyond doubt that both Obama and Cameron are, indeed, Judas Goats leading we, the sheep, to our slaughter both metaphorically and physically. But then sheep are supposedly held to be 'brain dead', are they not?


Where, oh where, is the politician or journalist willing to educate the people and show them how they are being screwed by the political class? Of the former it can be said that Nigel Farage does try - however it would seem he has been handed the wrong script. In the journalistic field the only ones who spring to mind are Ambrose Evans-Pritchard and Gerald Warner - and possibly Norman Tebbitt, although doubts remain there.


When the people are safely corralled it is obvious from whence the loudest bleating will come - yup, the sheep!

Just a normal piece of 'flint'?

Caroline Flint virtually bares all (steady male readers, I write in the metaphorical sense) in the Standard, during an 'interview' in which she provides details of her past, details which if we wanted to know we could quite easily ascertain from the internet.


Leaving to one side the 'PR' and 'Spin' aspects of the article, it is important to pay attention to the contradictions contained in what amounts to a 'puff piece' by one who is supposed to be a 'journalist'. The fact she has turned 50 is neither here nor there - and it would have helped if some indication had been given as to what the figure '50' referred. Presumably it did not refer to any aspect of her physical appearance - like the size of her mouth?


She states that energy companies should do something to simplify energy tariffs, yet were not said tariffs just as complicated during her time in government? Also the reason people are paying so much must surely be due the government, of which she was a member, adhering to diktats 'de Bruxelles'? She complains of being used as 'window dressing', yet presumably there was no coercion suffered by her when she posed for pictures such as these? Was not Flint also 'tolerating sexism' when she posed for those pictures? It is not surprising, knowing the standard of journalism currently practiced, that there is not one word on the points I have raised.


In agreeing to this article Flint can be accused of being hypocritical, just as the newspaper - and the journalist writing for that newspaper - can be accused of engaging in 'propaganda' for the promotion of a politician. That is not what journalism is supposed to be about, unless of course said journalist worked for the likes of OK Magazine, or similar publications.


I am fairly certain that were anyone to praise prostitutes and the use thereof, both Flint and Mensch would promptly mount (now there's a thought) their high horse and complain about sexualisation of women - yet is that not what both have done, Flint in this article and Mensch by posing for GQ magazine?


Oh the power of the press - used so expertly by both our government and our politicians!

Not more money to the IMF.........

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard and Louise Armitstead, writing in the Daily Telegraph, link to the fact that Britain may be liable for yet another 'bung' to the IMF; a story to which Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, links. This relates to a statement given by Barroso to the European Parliament about decisions made at the meeting of Heads of State on 8/9th of December, from which:

"EU leaders will decide soon on whether to provide the IMF with up to €200bn more to help debt-stricken eurozone countries."

Helen is quite correct when she writes that there was no mention of this small matter by Cameron when he 'reported' to the House of Commons on that meeting. For the record, this is the Hansard report of his opening statement, one that contained the words: "Let me take the House through the events of last week". By his omission of that little snippet from 'the events of last week' might one accuse Cameron of having misled the House of Commons?

Now I may be a tad confused, however I seem to recall Cameron making much play of the fact that Britain would no longer be liable for bail-outs to eurozone countries after 2013 under the EFSF coupled with the fact I also seem to recall that that was the date when the ESM was to become operative. Herman van Rompuy is on record as stating that he wishes the 'so-called 26' to agree 'terms' so that they can be implemented in March 2012, which one can logically assume is when the ESM will become operative. He also tweeted earlier today "@euHvR I will convene an informal meeting of the 27 heads of state or gov. in Brussels. Date to be decided: end of Jan.- beginning of Feb. 2012", a tweet timed at 13:30. Presumably it will be at that meeting that the decision will be taken by the EU Leaders to 'donate' that €200bn.

Cameron may well believe that IMF resources are for countries not currencies, and that they can’t be used specifically to support the euro, however that form of words is just semantics, is it not? It is worth recalling the €50billion would be 'split' between the remaining 10 non-euro member states. Any bets that Cameron won't pay up?

Just asking...................

At last: a serious jounalistic piece on the EU Merkozy 'stitch-up'

I am hard pushed to name a journalist, other than Mary Ellen Synon, Bruno Waterfield and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, who regularly writes with any knowledge on matters EU. Discussing the 'Merkozy Stitch-up' of today, Mary Ellen Synon writes:

"What we saw today in Paris was an announcement by Merkozy that they intend to go ahead with their drive to destroy democracy across 17 European states. By agreeing to this -- and he will -- Mr Cameron will act as collaborator in establishing Germany and France as the fiscal commanders over these nations of Europe.

Across Europe, one can only feel dread. In Britain, one ought to feel shame as well."

Do read the whole piece!