So much for equality, eh!

****

Paul Krugman, lefties favourite Nobel laureate economist, has a new source of income - researching inequality. And a nice little earner it is too:

According to a formal offer letter obtained under New York’s Freedom of Information Law, CUNY intends to pay Krugman $225,000, or $25,000 per month (over two semesters), to “play a modest role in our public events” and “contribute to the build-up” of a new “inequality initiative.” 

Yes folks, quarter of a million bucks moaning about how the world is unequal. There's a word for this sort of hideous explotiation - hypocrisy. Krugman is getting ten times what poor Americans pull in a month simply to turn up to a few events and help with the PR.

....

I guess there's no miners left then?

****

It is somewhat ironic that Labour is calling for this:

...tougher controls on Britain's coal-fired power stations forcing them to reduce their emissions and pollution, as new figures show the old-style plants are responsible for 1,600 premature deaths a year.

What about the miners? Or are they all now anonymous foreigners rather than working-class Northern heroes?

Doubly ironic when such a policy will make energy more expensive!

....

In which Banksy grants me the right to deface his daubings

Celebrity vandal, Banksy has been proclaiming his bewildering world view to the applause of the usual right-on audience (from where I've lifted the wall dauber's quote below):

Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.

My conclusion from this is that we cannot limit this presumption of rights to advertising - it must apply to any message in a public space that "gives you no choice whether you see it or not".  I don't ask to see Banksy's twee, ever-so-witty, pseudo-political cleverness yet by choosing graffiti as a medium he imposes it on me without me choosing to see it.

So on his logic, I shall be pasting advertising slogans onto his witty daubs at the next opportunity!

And while we're about it, remember that Banksy is a mere workman besides the genius that was "The Master of Paddington":

"Near at hand is far away in images of elsewhere"

...

...and you know Mr Straw, one of those parasites is your Party!

****

Former Home Secretary, Justice Minister and general opportunist politician, Jack Straw has been on about motor insurance:

Motorists are being fleeced of £2billion a year in unnecessary insurance costs caused by money-grabbing ‘parasites’ and ‘dodgy solicitors’ whose actions are little short of criminal, MP’s were told yesterday.

Former Home Secretary Jack Straw took a swipe at lawyers, claims firms, garages, credit hire firms and others engaged in a controversial cash-for-contacts referral fee ‘racket’ which he said in any other walk of life would be condemned as ‘bribery.’ 

Absolutely Jack! So why is it that one of those organisations involved in this "cash-for-contacts referral fee racket" is the Labour Party?

If Flint Bishop Solicitors accepts a personal Injury instruction from a client via Labour Legal Services, Flint Bishop will pay the Labour party a referral fee of £250 + VAT for each instruction.

A nice little earner eh Jack!

....

Just a thought...

****

What follows isn't to take sides in the debate (such as it is) about Sarah Wollaston's alleged criticisms of Tory Whips. Although I would find it difficult to support Mrs Wollaston given how she voted on this occasion. However, her criticism of the whips - or rather the Observer's probably partisan reporting of the event - raises an interesting question:

The Observer has learned that last Monday Wollaston told a closed meeting of the 1922 Committee of Tory backbenchers that when she asked to sit on the committee that will scrutinise the health and social care bill she was informed by a government minister that she could only do so if she remained completely loyal. She told this newspaper: "It is made very clear to you that if you are on a bill committee you support the government. I was not prepared to accept that."

It is understood that Wollaston wanted to table a range of amendments to the bill, which will hand GPs responsibility for commissioning NHS services, in the biggest shakeup in its history. But she was warned that the only changes she would be able to put forward were ones suggested by, and acceptable to, the government.

Now in one respect, Mrs Wollaston is a member of a club - one that got her elected as an MP - and has to play by that club's rules. Which means that, if they don't want to put her on a particular committee, they don't have to. And frankly, why should they want to put someone on a committee scrutinising the Government's Bill who wants to change it?

In another respect, this illustrates the problem with the whip system and with the independence of MPs. Mrs Wollaston, may still have to opportunity to influence the progress of the bill - either through supporting cross-party efforts or through later stages. I appreciate - and understand - her frustration.

However, I wanted to return to a related nonsense - the barring of councillors from contributing to debates on the basis of "interests". Assuming that Mrs Wollaston still practices as a doctor, it would not be possible for her to contribute at all to discussions about these matters were she a councillor and the decision within the remit of a local council on which she served.

For my part, I'd rather have input from those with real knowledge even where (as is so in this case) the individual has a direct personal interest in the outcome. An interest that could potentially affect that individual's financial circumstances.

...

So my Green friends, you'll oppose police infiltration of the BNP too?

****

I listened to an 'outraged' environmentalist called Dr Chadderton on the radio today complaining about covert surveillance by the police. Apparently he - and his fellow eco-loons - are upset because somebody spied on them for a 'shadowy' police branch: The National Public Order Intelligence Group*.

Dr Chadderton's beef was that the state was infiltrating 'peaceful' organisations seeking to influence the agenda and campaign to protect the planet. Nice, innocent, unthreatening green folk who knit jumpers from lentils, dine on curried mung beans and carry out acts of vandalism on power stations.

Now I have some sympathy with Dr Chadderton's view point. However, when the BNP were complaining about undercover infiltration by public authorities and covert surveillance, I didn't hear Dr Chadderton's greenie mates complaining at the misuse of public funds investigating legitimate political organisations. Nope, they were all for it - expose those nasty fascists, they said.

Hypocrites?

*The Police are slipping - what kind of 'shadowy' body has the acronym NPOIG?

....

Anonymity, rape and the burkha

****

Two issues that have exercised the febrile minds of our chattering classes – anonymity in rape cases and banning (or not banning) the burkha. And there’s a link in the hypocrisy and self-righteous smugness of the cuddly lefties who like to pontificate on such matters.

Banning the burkha is wrong but authorities should be allowed to require the veils removal for justified reasons of identification. And, other than when that person’s safety is at risk, there should be no anonymity in the court system – whether in rape or any other crime.

The arguments put up by those most indignant about the proposals to grant some anonymity to those accused of rape are a pile of piffle constructed from the ruins of an army of straw men. If –dear lefty women – it is right to grant anonymity to the victim, it must also be right to grant anonymity to the accused. I know you like the word – that is FAIR. Stupid…but fair. A bit like granting anonymity to victims who might otherwise “not come forward because of the stigma” (one of the more nonsensical notions in all this debate).

In all this the lefties share common ground with the frothing nutters (and the French it seems) who think that the law should have anything to say about what we should or shouldn’t wear while going about our normal business. Ah, they say – we don’t know who they are, we can’t see their faces, they might be terrorists! This is the same argument as that used to argue against granting anonymity to men accused of rape – they might be serial rapists, there might be other witnesses, they might be allowed to walk free!

I don’t like burkhas or rapists but find the arguments about special treatment in both cases to be without any logic or sense – but that’s what we expect from the racist left and the cuddly left.

Hypocrisy.

...

On changing one's mind (and removing beams from one's eyes)...

***

I’ve changed my mind on a great deal of things over the years – I’m not going to list them but they are many. Yet, somehow people seem rather unwilling to accept that, when somebody says they’ve changed their mind, generally speaking it does actually mean that they have done just that!

Which rather brings us to the matter of politics and the game of using past statements, whipped votes under an old regime and guilt by association as the basis for accusation – even when the person stands there and says, “I’ve changed my mind on that.” And sadly the equalities lobby is among the worst offenders in this respect.

Now it seems to me that a matter such as gay rights is one area where more folk than average have changed their opinions. I’m not saying that the new views accord with the further flung boundaries of the equalities agenda but that people have changed – folk accept gay people in a way that would be a great surprise to the majority back in, say, 1980. There are still areas –sport and especially football, for example – where being gay is a real barrier but attacking someone for their views 10, 20 or even 30 years ago is not a helpful contribution. Particularly where that person has said they’ve changed their mind.

Indeed, I would go as far as to say that those who attack a person on the basis of past actions where they say clearly they would act differently today are guilty of bigotry and prejudice. And behaving so reprehensibly while clutching hypocritically to the moral high ground on an issue is, to this humble sinner, an act of monumental offence.

So to all those people attacking Theresa May for what she did in 1998 I say this:

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye

...

I'm alright Jack

***




I while ago I posted a couple of questions prompted by a "survey" being conducted at my place of work. The second question was:

If there’s a choice between sacking some people or you all not taking pay rises or annual salary increments but you’re not threatened, would you still take the cash knowing someone else will lose their job?

I have discovered the answer - and it's "I'm Alright, Jack". More people indicated that they'd prefer to see someone lose their job than forgo an annual pay increment. So much for the caring, sharing voluntary sector, eh?

....

On rich socialists...inspired by Michael Foot

***

My father, when confronted with one wealthy left wing toff or another, is wont to observe that “they can afford to be socialists”. Now I’ve always liked this little aphorism since I rather “get it” – socialism is founded on a great mound of patronising hypocrisy. And where better than the silver spoon chewing classes to find both those traits!

The posh leftie is a sort – we’ve all met them and marvelled at their ability to propose the regime of St Francis for the masses of ordinary middle class folk while enjoying their homes overlooking Hampstead Heath, the swanky parties with the luvvies and Summers at the villa in some warm part of Southern Europe.

It’s important for us to remember that, for all their vaunted intelligence, their charm and their wit, these rich socialists are takers not builders. They lecture us on the moral rightness of state control or the absolute need for higher duties on alcohol or the banning of smoking from pubs they never go into – and they do this from atop a monumental pile of cash earned in wicked capitalist ways by their forefathers.

These people have never had to find a mortgage payment, have never wondered how they were going to get the cash to pay for the school uniform, have never been made redundant and wouldn’t know the first thing about starting a business from scratch. Yet they take it upon themselves to lecture me about greed, or about poverty or public services.

Michael Foot was, I’m sure, a charming and delightful man who gave great pleasure to those who knew him. I'm sure he professed strong principles. But he was, to me, just another rich, posh socialist. Another man whose chosen mission was to hold forth on socialism to less clever, less lucky folk while clutching hypocritically onto a glorious upper middle class lifestyle funded entirely from the proceeds of capitalism. We can recall his speaking – which was good. His thoughtfulness. His public service. We can catalogue all his writing, all his good works. But let’s never forget that…

…he could afford to be a socialist.

…