Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

African and Asian kleptocrats celebrate as British police and soldiers are fired

By David Craig, on October 5th, 2013


This week, our useless government announced that another 3,000 troops are to be fired as part of its plans to reduce our military by 40,000.





I estimate that the government will save around £2.6bn from sacking 40,000 troops and 32,400 police.

The news of the latest redundancies must have caused great joy in the gilded palaces of Africa’s corrupt, kleptocratic dictators and in the luxury mansions of Pakistan’s and India’s venal, tax-avoiding ruling elites.

Why? Because by making these 40,000 troops and 32,400 police redundant, our government will be able to afford the increase on April 5th this year in our foreign aid budget of £2.6bn from £7.9bn a year to £10.5bn a year.

Repeated studies of the effectiveness of foreign aid by the UN (documented in books like Dead Aid by Dambisa Moyo and The Bottom Billion by Paul Collier) show that around 80% to 90% of all aid to Third World countries is lost due to corruption and incompetence




Yet, even though our government knows this, it continues to decimate our armed forces and police to enrich utterly corrupt, brutal Third World elites.


More: http://www.snouts-in-the-trough.com/

It is about time we cut defence spending. We are the fourth largest spender on defence in the world.

http://www.jesusandmo.net/

Richard Dawkins has expressed outrage after an LSE student society were forced to cover-up their T-shirts which had cartoon depictions of Jesus and the Prophet Mohammad.

Members of the LSESU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Student Society at the university's Fresher's Fair were wearing t-shirts with the controversial 'Jesus and Mo' cartoons.

Student Union officials demanded the students remove the t-shirts, and several other pieces of literature, because there had been complaints from offended passers-by.


http://www.jesusandmo.net/

Labour accused of 'cover up' over failing hospitals

Labour has been accused of putting pressure on the NHS watchdog to "cover up" information about appalling standards of care at failing hospitals in the run up to last General Election.

Internal emails from the Care Quality Commission show that Labour tried to stop the watchdog from informing the public about failings at Basildon University Hospital, where patients were dying needlessly on filthy wards.

The dossier of emails, released under Freedom of Information, state that Andy Burnham, the then Health Secretary, was "furious" when "graphic details" of the care failings became public.

Separate emails suggest that Mike O'Brien, the former Labour minister of state for health, told the NHS watchdog that "anything you do is political" in the run up to the General Election.

Executives at the watchdog decided that "given the political environment" a report into standards of care across the country should be "largely positive".

The emails will increase pressure on Mr Burnham, who is now shadow health secretary, amid speculation that he is to be moved to a different portfolio in an imminent Labour reshuffle.

Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, refused to give his public backing to Mr Burnham at the Labour Party conference last month.

The emails were obtained by Stephen Barclay, a Conservative MP, after a four months of repeated requests.

He said: "Andy Burnham's position is untenable. Labour was playing politics with an organisation which is supposed to be overseeing patient safety and he CQC's failure to intervene meant that patients suffered appalling care.

"You cannot muzzle an independent regulator so that bad news is either not made public or presented in a more favourable light."

Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, there was evidence of a “cover up” by Labour. Last week he announced that Care Quality Commission will be given full independence to protect it from political interference.

He said: ‘There is now a strong body of evidence that Labour Ministers leant on the hospital watchdog to cover up poor care, leaving hundreds of patients to suffer under a system that put political priorities first.

"The care of NHS patients is too important for political meddling, and our new legislation will make sure that ministers always put patients first."

Labour was under intense pressure in 2009 after Gordon Brown abandoned plans to call an early election.

Damian McBride, Mr Brown’s spin doctor, has disclosed how he used spin, smears and lies to destroy the Prime Minister’s rivals.The NHS was one of the key battlegrounds.

In November 2009, an investigation by the Care Quality Commission found that dozens of patients died needlessly in filthy conditions at Basildon University Hospital.

However, at the time the watchdog’s website rated the trust as “good”, despite the fact managers had been concerned about safety issues at the hospital for more than six months.

Jill Finney, the then director of engagement at the Care Quality Commission, said in one of the emails: "We arguably sat on a highly sensitive safety issue for six months before informing patients and the public who believe they 'have a right to know'.

"We knew that the Commission [the healthcare commission] had been looking at trust for a long time and that we had had concerns about poor care since May."

The watchdog became aware that Dr Foster, an organisation which collates and analyses healthcare data, was due to publish figures in a national newspapers revealing persistently high death rates at Basildon.

The CQC prepared a press release to brief newspapers about care failings at the hospital, but was contacted by the Department of Health and told not to publish the information. The email states: "DH emailed the press team just after 1pm and asked us to stop the press release."

By that stage, however, the regulator had already briefed three newspapers about the problems at the hospital.

When a report on the "graphic detail" of the appalling standards at the hospital was broadcast, Mr Burnham was said to be "furious".

There were also indications that Labour ministers attempted to influence a press release about a report into the state of care in the NHS.

In January 2010 Mike O'Brien, the then minister of state for health, told the regulator that "at this sort of time [close to an election] everything you do is going to be political, whether you intend it to be or not."

He said it was "important" that the press release on the state of care in the NHS was "all agreed" with the Department of Health.

Managers at the watchdog decided that the report should that in view of the political sensitivity surrounding the report, it should be "largely positive".

Martin Marshall, the director of clinical quality at the CQC, said: "We agreed at the Board meeting yesterday that we had to get the overall tone right and that the conclusion was... this should be largely positive.

"The DH will go through this with a toothcomb and it is naive to think that they will really only do a factual check." A separate email from an official at the watchdog suggests that the Department of Health had that power to "amend the tone" of report as it saw fit.

The report, which was published the following month, found there had been a "steady increase" in the number of good and excellent trusts and that "great improvements" had been made in health and social care in England.

The emails also disclose that Mr Burnham was contacted by a whistleblower at the Care Quality Commission who warned him that the organisation was beset by a “culture of bullying”, that “indecision and inconsistency” was rife” and that there was “very little leadership” at the organisation.

The whistleblower suggested that senior staff had been given bonuses despite missing their performance targets.

Nigel Farage should not expect a place in the TV debates when his party has no MPs, the head of Sky News has said.

John Ryley, who has been at the broadcaster for eighteen years, has wrote in an op-ed for the Times that although Ukip are currently third in the polls, there is no place for the Ukip leader on the platform.

David Cameron has said only leaders with a fighting chance of being prime minister should be involved, though Labour leader Ed Miliband and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg have said they are willing to debate Farage.

"The involvement of its leader, Nigel Farage, could be a deal breaker for the main party leaders and would be unjustified given that his party polled only 3 per cent three years ago and has no MPs," Ryley said.

"UKIP is expected to perform very well in next year’s European elections, but for my money it wouldn’t qualify its leader to take part in debates ahead of elections to the Westminster Parliament.

David Cameron is frightened of been blown out of the water by Farage.

He appears to be an amoral coward.

..

Cameroon on a hiding to nothing, he will be forced to allow a four way beauty contest or lose the argument by default.

The position that Farage and UKIP has no seats is not tenable, he has consistant poll ratings above the third party, and significant wins in local elections.

To deny a popular candidate a place is to declare that the race is fixed, and only established runners and riders can compete, no newcomers allowed.

Hardly democracy, but I don't think he cares too much about that.

It is Sky that are not allowing it. Farage will not get to debate and quite rightly as well. He has no MPs and no chance of getting any number if any. Because there is no proportional voting he stands no chance. It is the reason he will do well in the EU elections. It is the same reason that Italy and Germany always have coalitions. With first past the post you are more likely to get a clear result.

Sky have little or no say in it, and even if they did, why would they rule out one of the most popular candidates who will draw a huge amount of viewers?

It's Cameroon who has ruled it out, Cleggy and Milliband said yes!

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/05/ukips-nigel-farage-should_n_4048631.html?ir=UK+Politics

Ukip's Nigel Farage Should Not Take Part In TV Debate, Says Sky News Head John Ryley

You are scraping the barrel looking for excuses Haystack, John Ryley is just towing the party line.


"David Cameron has said only leaders with a fighting chance of being prime minister should be involved, though Labour leader Ed Miliband and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg have said they are willing to debate Farage."


I take it you would also rule out Cleggy from the debate? Cos he has even less chance than Farage of being PM come the next election.


What is your position, other than trying to support the vile Cameroon?

Even the torygraph can see through big daves bullshit!



Nigel Farage is right about the EU – David Cameron’s renegotiation plan is pure grandstanding


By Nile Gardiner World Last updated: October 5th, 2013

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100239813/nigel-farage-is-right-about-the-eu-david-camerons-renegotiation-plan-is-pure-grandstanding/



Nigel Farage: under no illusions about the EU



UKIP leader Nigel Farage argues in a piece for The Telegraph that David Cameron’s EU strategy is doomed to fail. He is right. As Farage notes, “the Prime Minister thinks he is on an EU ship heading west, but in fact he is strolling westwards on board a ship that is heading east to “ever closer union.” Farage goes on to say, quite accurately: “It is also about time that the pro-European establishment of this country was honest with us. There will be no change in our relationship with the EU before, during or after Mr Cameron’s futile “renegotiations”. The EU knows this, Mr Cameron knows this – and the people of this country need to know this too.”

Mr. Farage’s op-ed coincides with an interview (which he references) given to The Telegraph by the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, who outlines in stark terms the huge opposition to Cameron’s re-negotiation strategy within the Brussels establishment. In Barroso’s words:


"Britain wants to again consider the option of opting out. Fine, let's discuss it but to put into question the whole acquis of Europe is not very reasonable," he said,

"What is difficult, or even impossible, is if we go for the exercise of repatriation of competences because that means revising the treaties and revision means unanimity. From my experience of 10 years, I don't believe it will work."

… "I am for a stronger EU not a weaker EU, he said. It is important we do this exercise in a pragmatic way avoiding what I call theological discussions about competences. Our approach is not an ideological one. It is not about weakening the EU. It is not about giving up on integration or on ever closer union."



David Cameron talks of taking “powers back from Europe,” but this is delusional grandstanding. The European Project, as Mr. Barroso declares, is heading in only one direction – towards further economic and political integration. (It will eventually fail, but not before the architects of ‘ever closer union’ drive it to breaking point.)

This is not only Barroso’s view. It is also the uncompromising view of the EU’s undisputed heavyweight, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has spoken of her desire for “more Europe, not less Europe.” Her finance minister Wolfgang Schauble, arguably the second most powerful politician in continental Europe, has made it abundantly clear that he sees the need for a deep fiscal union within the EU, as a precursor to full political union. In an interview with Der Spiegel, Schauble called for an “elected” EU president alongside a European Parliament and Senate with the power to enact legislation. As Schauble put it:

Those who want a strong Europe also have to be willing to surrender decisions to Brussels… there are still too many national competencies in foreign and security policy. Europe should speak more effectively and clearly with one voice in the world.


The French, led by far Left Socialist Francois Hollande, are just as Eurofederalist as the Germans, as are the Spanish, headed by Mariano Rajoy, who will be in no mood whatsoever to accommodate British demands for renegotiation against the backdrop of mounting tensions over Gibraltar. The reality is that London is alone among Europe’s big players in wishing to see any significant shift in power back to the nation states. Berlin, Paris and Madrid all understand that full-scale renegotiation weakens the drive towards further European integration, and threatens the very fabric of the EU project.

The reality is that David Cameron is selling the British public a red herring on Europe. His pledge to hold a referendum on EU membership was a big step direction in the right direction, but his determination to campaign for Britain to stay in the EU is not only flat wrong – it is potentially suicidal for the Conservative Party. The issue of Europe could well end up costing the Conservatives the next general election. Why? Because its leader will not take a stand in defence of national sovereignty, and refuses to back a British withdrawal from the European Union.

Over the course of this Parliament British public opinion has become increasingly hostile to membership of the EU, disillusioned with the idea that the British people should have their laws dictated to by unelected foreign bureaucrats who couldn’t care less about the British national interest. But Mr. Cameron’s instincts are the same as the Foreign Office establishment that remains wedded to the notion that Britain must remain in the EU at all costs. The prime minister is increasingly out of sync with what Middle England thinks on this issue, and will suffer for it both at the European Elections in 2014 and the General Election in 2015. As I wrote in an earlier piece, Mr. Cameron is swimming against the tide of history, by fighting to keep Britain chained to the EU:


You cannot be a member of the European Union and retain national sovereignty, the essence of freedom for the British people. The European Project is an anti-democratic anachronism that does not belong in the 21st Century. As Lady Thatcher aptly put it “that such an unnecessary and irrational project as building a European superstate was ever embarked upon will seem in future years to be perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era.” Once Britain leaves the EU, other countries will undoubtedly follow, which is a key reason why the likes of Jose Manuel Barroso will fight tooth and nail to try to lock Britain in.

The drive for self-determination, economic freedom and individual liberty are three of the strongest forces of modern times. The European Project is a barrier to all of them, which is why it is doomed to failure.

Clegg not only has a good share of the vote, but the Libs have plenty of MPs. Their support is concentrated in such a way that they will win plenty of seats at an election even if their support falls. The current opinion polls show that UKIP will get no seats and the Libs will get plenty even though UKIP may be ahead in the polls.

The reason is that UKIP's support is evenly spread across the country with not enough to win in individual constituencies. If we had AV or full proportional representation then UKIP would win about 11% of the 650 total seats. The Libs would get a similar number. The reality is that with first past the post, UKIP will get no seats and the Libs will get about 56, which is what they have now.

The Libs got 23.5% of the vote last time (almost unchanged from the previous election) and it only got them 8.6% of the seats. Labour only received 6% more votes than the Libs and it got them 257 seats. The figure I have seen is that UKIP need 24% of the vote to get just one MP. If they get much above that figure they will start getting more seats. It is just a fact of life due to a combination of our electoral system and entrenched support for existing parties in the constituencies.

Farage should be allowed to take part in the debate.

Its Camoron running scared who doesnt want him on the stage even more now after todays new actions re- to early vote on ref.

The tory boys are frightened -hitless at UKIP.

I certainly am not in favour of no benefits for under 25s.

I dont think its right young kids at 16 can get a council house nor do I think Milli has got it right kids voting at 16.

BUT if we were at a position of FULL EMPLOYMENT and raging employment chances (not mickey mouse employment)and vacancies a plenty then some benefits should be scrubbed but a country where North Of London their are NO JOBS..........no chance.

Call me Dave doesnt seem to have grasped the fact that you cant fit a square plug in a round hole.

What good is training if their arent jobs to go into after finishing.

What will happen is that kids will do course after course like they are doing now.

Camoron need to bring employment to them and not the other way round which would put ever increasing demand on house prices in the south and increase the number sleeping rough.

Foreign holiday makers dont want to see tramps laid out around the Railway stations in London. It was bad enough 5 years ago, god knows what its like now.

No one be should be worried about UKIP. They will amount to nothing at the election.

I can see Haystack as posted probably waffle about polls or ukip.

Hes scared out of his wits of UKIP.

And Milly.

Take him at a pinch, hes a well known trouble stirrer, was checking on advfn yesterday about this and he has loads of differing handles, so beware.

It is funny how gf pretends that he has filtered me for life. When he gets to boiling point he has to resort to pretending that someone has emailed my post to him.

Speaking of polls, this today,s

Latest YouGov / The Sunday Times results 4th October - Con 33%, Lab 38%, LD 11%, UKIP 13%;

. There is very widespread (70%) support for forcing the long-term unemployed to do community work or risk losing their benefits and a narrow majority (52%) support stopping benefits for under 25s who are not in work or training (39% oppose).

YouGov finds big decline in those thinking that LAB will win a majority