Fooled Again?

Al-Jahom, on his excellent blog, has spotted that the Conservative James Brokenshire (pictured) seems to be making progress in the party hierarchy. Today he was wheeled out as spokesman on Home Affairs.

James Brokenshire, a Conservative home affairs spokesman who received the figures under freedom of information laws, said: “Knife crime is a scourge which claims too many lives and ruins countless others.

Yet under Labour it has soared. The Government’s only response is short-term, ad hoc police operations, the results of which they spin and manipulate anyway to try to get a good story.”

I make him right. Knee-jerk policy just doesn't cut it.

But is this the same James Brokenshire who was advocating short-term, ad hoc, and totally unnecessary, responses to combat binge-drinking? Which largely involved punishing the law-abiding for the excesses of just a few trouble-makers? I think it is you know.

"... the social and health costs linked to binge drinking mean that we just can’t ignore the pricing and promotion of alcohol. Drink being sold as a ‘loss leader’ at prices virtually cheaper than water isn’t right and it isn’t responsible. That’s why we would legislate to ban below-costs sales and target alcohol duty on those products most closely linked to binge boozing.

But we’ve also got to challenge attitudes on excessive alcohol consumption. We would encourage locally-based programmes which combine education with enforcement, prevention with punishment."

Note the words "ban", "enforcement" and "punishment", without any nod to the fact that laws already exist to deal with the exaggerated binge-drinking problem. All the Tories have to do is make sure these laws are enforced more rigorously. Not collectively punish all of us, like schoolkids, for the actions of a small minority.

Nanny is alive and well in the Conservatives, and has just been promoted, it would seem.

If they are all like Brokenshire, changing the Government could just prove to us that The Who were on the right lines.

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Mascot Watch (15) - Plain Speaking Edition

See? Parliament can be fun, as our esteemed mascot proved on Monday.

Commenting in a short debate involving New Boy Nick [...] and Nanny Brokenshire on alcohol issues, our boy Phil was more direct than is often seen from the green benches.

May I urge the Minister to concentrate on tough penalties for people who get involved in alcohol-induced antisocial behaviour instead of introducing this rather soppy, wishy-washy, nanny-state nonsense of minimum pricing of alcohol?

Sadly, Westminster runs on a diet of soppy and wishy-washy, washed down with a large measure of Victorian vintage nanny-state nonsense these days. Nice to see Phil gallantly taking them to task, though.

Talking of diets, Bercow's closing remark hinting that Nick Soames wanted to talk about the food industry boggles the mind ... I do hope it was to ask for more all-you-can-eat buffets, rather than something proscriptive. If not, I'll start truly believing we have slipped into an alternate universe.

Nice Video, Shame About The Policies?

It has been suggested on Con Home that the Tories might make an anglicised version of this bit of anti-government fun from the US.



I quite like it. But the Tory manifesto is going to have to be quite radical for the message to work exclusively for them. As an anti big government song, it hits the mark, but Dave and his bunch have shown us very little so far to suggest they will be much different, to be honest.

Similarly, unless there is a big surprise in Oliver Letwin's locker, they'd have to scratch the "tell us to behave" line (1:30) entirely. That or boot out James Brokenshire, amongst others, of course.

Spending Review Helps Small Businesses ... By Delving Further Into Their Pockets

Via The Quiet Man, we find that the spending review carried a nasty little sting for motorists and businesses in the south east.

Toll charges are set to be increased for the Dartford Crossing between Kent and Essex, it was announced in the government Spending Review.

Under the plans, the charges could rise from £1.50 to £2 next year for cars, before rising to £2.50 in 2012.

As you can imagine, this has been greeted with anger by some politicians.

“It’s astonishing that in these increasingly tough economic times the Government should be viewing the Dartford River Crossing simply as a cash cow for the Treasury. They seem oblivious to the impact on small business and motorists of hiking up charges just as the downturn is starting to bite. It’s as if Ministers have got their heads stuck down one of the bores of the Dartford Tunnel."

Oh, I'm sorry. That's an old quote from Tory MP James Brokenshire - now part of the coalition government, of course - on learning that Labour had increased the toll charges in 2008 after having reneged on a promise to scrap them when the QE2 bridge was paid for in 2003.

I'm sure he'll be speaking up very soon in protest. As will Iain Dale, who called for the tolls to be abolished two years ago.

Conservatives Must Abolish Dartford Crossing Toll

On Saturday the toll for the Dartford Tunnel and Bridge rises from £1 to £1.50. For the mathematically illiterate among you (that would be the ones that support Gordon Brown's economic policy), that's a rise of 50%. Fifty. Per. Cent. (another 33% and further 25% in 2012 now, Iain - DP)

This Dartford stealth tax toll is iniquitous and should be ended. Perhaps the Conservatives might like to think about committing themselves to abolishing it completely, as they originally promised in 1991.

Unless, of course, something has now changed like ... which party(ies) it is who are currently fleecing motorists. Ah well, that's politics, I suppose.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying. This deficit must be brought down by any means possible and now isn't a time for government to take their hand out of our pockets. BUT, these charges hamper a huge number of small businesses greatly (not mine, BTW), and I thought the point of this whole exercise was to lessen public expenditure and encourage private industry to take up the slack by employing more, and contributing more taxes through improved growth and profits. Increasing tolls really isn't going to help much in that regard, is it?

This goes for the Severn and Humber crossings too (fret not, I heard the screaming that your tolls are more severe), both of which have also already been paid for. Yet, crossing the Humber costs £2.70 for a car, up to £18.30 for HGV and PSV business vehicles, with Severn charges being £5.50 to £16.40. The Severn tolls, particularly, are impossible to defend because they unfairly punish businesses in south Wales as opposed to those operating from the Bristol side of the crossing.

Speaking of Dartford's tolls, Iain Dale's article reckons income generated to be around £100m, while others estimate approximately £40m-£50m, so we're not raising huge amounts here, especially when put into context. The Federation of Small Businesses have consistently argued against toll charges as a drain on the private sector, and that their abolition would boost industry and make up for government's loss of revenue. A study in the north east, for example, suggested a massive positive impact for the local economy (yes, to be taken with caution due to source, but you get the point).

And this is without mentioning that all such tolls are levied without any real option of avoiding them. There is simply no other haulage or coach route over the Severn or Humber, whilst the nearest alternative crossings to Dartford are the Blackwall Tunnel or Woolwich Ferry, which involve forcing more traffic into already over-congested areas of East London.

Taking it all into account, this just appears to be a good old-fashioned cash grab. With no imaginative thinking behind it apart from a further squeezing of businesses at a time when the government claim they are trying to help, safe in the knowledge that there is nothing any of us can do except to lump it and cough up.

And as if that wasn't bad in itself, the official reasoning is either ignorant or sinister. You decide.

The Department of Transport (DfT) said the money would be used to explore ways of improving traffic flow.

Err, the toll plaza itself is the very cause of hindered traffic flow. Get rid of it and the traffic would flow like a mofo.

Unless that's exactly what is being planned. Scrap the toll booths, replace them with ANPR, and bingo! Welcome to the new age of automated road pricing.

It'd cost a bit to implement, but I'm sure such a future scheme could be financed somehow ... maybe with a rise in current toll charges, for example?

Department Of Health: Hoons Of The Century

Don't you just hate it when work gets in the way of a good spleen-venting?

Probably for the best though, as this maggot-infested fuckwittery from Alan 'Dancing Queen' Johnson would have exhausted my powers of profanity.

Letters from a Tory had a much more measured take on it, but was still in disagreement, of course, with a scheme that was described so eloquently in the headline of the day from Al-Jahom.

Dept of Health seeks volunteers for public abuse and beatings

I pray, for their own sake, one of these 'mentors' doesn't decide to impart their 'wisdom' to me. The response might involve sharp things being physically, and with force, inserted where they don't belong.

Holier-than-thou by government appointment. Is there anything in the history of mankind more potentially divisive and anti-social than that?

Talking of holier-than-thou, this part of the story jumped out of the page.

Martin Dockerell, from Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), the anti-smoking charity, said: "If you get the mentoring scheme right and if you manage to turn things around so it seems that healthy behaviour is not abnormal then that can be very powerful."

YOU again? Oh for crying out loud, you prissy cunt. Fuck off!

Well done to the Telegraph for spelling the habitual government-sponsored liar's name wrong, but even an illiberal fucktard like Martin Dockrell baulked a tad at the idea. That sort-of says that Alan Johnson is a seriously deluded healthist binge-wanker to me. So is the clinically obese spawn of Carrie's mother, Liam Donaldson.

How much money are these fucking idiots at the DoH wasting with daft schemes such as this which will add no value to life in the UK whatsoever? They've already spunked £75m up the wall on the Change4Life campaign which changed fuck all. I'll vote for any party that starves these selfish, intolerant cunts of any funds whatsoever for daily assaults on lifestyle choices. Are you up to the task Tories? Perhaps not if James "I'm a dedicated cock-gobbler too" Brokenshire is to be taken seriously, which, unfortunately, he is by Tory central office.

So many cunts, so few guns.

So, in summation, I'm glad others tackled the subject, so I didn't need to get angry and swear a lot (though I reserve the right to in future). Oh yeah, and Martin Dockrell is still a cunt.

Inspectors All Round Whoever We Vote For

Simon Heffer, writing in the Telegraph, has been talking of freedom and autonomy of the individual.

In the long years of Tory rule, those who reminded the electorate that with a Labour government you also got socialist control were dismissed as scaremongers. However, it is true, and we now see it is true.

Too right it is. The Tories have been mentioning this since the 50s, when a vote for them was a vote to be able to 'call your soul your own'.


It's only the existence of a prolonged Labour administration which has conclusively proven that the Tories were correct. Their doom-laden warnings were justified.

We live in a country where harmless people taking pictures of cathedrals are warned off by police invoking anti-terrorism laws; where the same legislation is used to regulate the positioning of wheelie bins; where smoking is banned even in public places whose owners wish to allow it; where the hunting of vermin is banned even on the land of those who wish to have it hunted. All these invasions of individual autonomy have taken place since 1997.

And then some, Simon. And then some.

It could have been worse. We could have had identity cards, forcing a citizen to prove his or her right to be here, or to admit who he or she is, despite having committed no offence. We could have had a national DNA database. We could have had a law that prevented comedians telling jokes about religion. We could have had the restriction of jury trials. We could have had people locked up without trial for 90 days because the police are incapable of finding any evidence upon which to convict them of something. We could have criminalised people for being nutters, for that is one of the best words to describe those poisonous idiots who claim Auschwitz was just a film set and the genocide of the Jews didn't happen. All these things have been discussed or proposed by Labour in varying degrees of seriousness, but – so far – have not been inflicted on our people. However, they show a certain, and unpleasant, cast of mind.

They do indeed.

But then, considering the Tories have been warning us about the perils of socialist control for decades, isn't it quite astounding that their current crop display exactly the same mindset?

On alcohol, James Brokenshire.

"Conservatives would strengthen controls on licensing, ban below-cost sales of alcohol and use targeted taxes on high strength products"

Chris Grayling agrees.

"Irresponsible" promotions such "all you can drink" or the "dentist's chair" will be subject to a blanket ban as part of a new mandatory code for licencees.

Chris Grayling, the shadow Home Secretary, said: "This is the third time the Government has announced this initiative, what we need to do now is get on with tackling the problem."

Hurry up with the bansturbatory legislation, already!

And, of course, David Cameron has made his views on personal responsibility and property rights abundantly clear.

"I’m just not a banner. But you know, I think the country has moved on, and people have accepted the smoking ban.”

Of course we have. That's why this man is still languishing in jail. Err ... isn't he?

We'll leave Tory dictatorial plans on green issues, the public's food preferences, and intrusive surveillance for now. Needless to say that that their policies thus far aren't overly appealing, but what can one expect when Cameron himself has boasted publicly that he abhors libertarianism.

We're still being led to the polling booths on a vague 'nudge nudge, wink wink' basis by Tory supporters with regard to personal freedoms. While their party's public pronouncements signal the exact opposite.

Oh yeah, we'll not mention the Conservatives' reticence to stand up to the EU either. Which, as Ranting Stan points out, is a significant source of authoritarian interference.

That soul the Tories were talking about earlier ... you didn't really need it, did you?

A Tory Manifesto Pledge?

"The party of social responsibility, not state control - and in Britain today, that is the Conservative Party."

David Cameron, August 2009

James Brokenshire has (again) been showing us all exactly how such avoidance of state control is to be handled under the Tories.

He explained: “Conservatives would strengthen controls on licensing, ban below-cost sales of alcohol and use targeted taxes on high strength products.”

It's going to be a right breath of fresh air, and no mistake.

Vintage Righteous

There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the Daily Mail comments section on Friday about this.

Parents who give their child the occasional glass of wine with their meal could be turning them into binge drinkers, scientists have warned.

Growing numbers of middle class parents are following the example of French families and allowing their offspring to drink wine with their meals, in the belief it will teach them to drink responsibly.

But now a study has found children who are introduced to alcohol by their parents are more likely to grow into problem drinkers later in life.

Can't say I was too surprised. It's just another step along the hearts and flowers and pretty butterflies adorned avenue of alcohol denormalisation.

It is led by the World Health Organisation, who in their ultimate self-delared wisdom, judged a long time ago that alcohol is intrinsically evil and must be beaten with a big pointy stick. They produce 'Framework' policies on a number of things they don't like, and their stated aim with regard to alcohol and children [pdf] is.

All children and adolescents have the right to grow up in an environment protected from the negative consequences of alcohol consumption and, to the extent possible, from the promotion of alcoholic beverages.

Very laudable, except that there are no grey areas in their view of life. Merely black and white - alcohol bad, temperance good. Quality of parenting is not taken into account, neither are any other considerations.

Keeping children alcohol free and delaying the onset of drinking are safer.

The WHO dole out billions in research grants, and if you come up with the correct results, you are very likely to be given another gig. This particular study was performed by Washington University in Missuori. On US subjects? Not on your nelly. For some reason they chose twins from Australia. Sniffy? I should coco.

And if someone - I dunno, maybe a tedious saggy-arsed prodnose, for example - wants a job with the WHO ...

If, as seems likely, [Liam Donaldson] is moved out of Richmond House next year, a plum job awaits him at the World Health Organisation. In which case it would be a fitting ending for a man who thinks in terms of populations. The most far-reaching of public servants would at last get to serve the most far-reaching of publics.

... what should he be advocating?

Children under the age of 15 should not be allowed to drink alcohol under new official guidelines that will even rule out a a glass of wine at dinner with parents. The controversial advice, expected from the Chief Medical Officer, Liam Donaldson, today, is set to spark fierce debate on the best way to encourage sensible drinking.

It's all rather predictable, isn't it?

And don't think that with Donaldson out of the picture, post-GE 2010, that this will just be quietly dropped. The Tories have James Brokenshire, a pliant berk who is already making noises of which the WHO would be most appreciative.

Not very long till five is changed to fifteen in this advice on the government's web-site, methinks.

Under five years old

It is illegal to give an alcoholic drink to a child under five except under medical supervision in an emergency.

The Mail readership pointing out that French kids are routinely exposed to the nation's viniculture at an early age, with negligible negative effects, is immaterial. The WHO don't want Britain aping France and being mature about alcohol. They will instead, eventually, pressure France to fall into line once other nations have been browbeaten into righteous compliance.

As a footnote. Guess how many people worldwide voted for the apppointment of World Health Organisation policy-makers. Go on, have a stab.

Confused. Who is the Least Judgemental?

There's an interesting difference of opinion amongst commenters on Letters from a Tory.

I have to say that I don't agree with him/her either.

... you have been told by Leeds City Council that you are ineligible to do so as you weigh 24 stone. You have been informed that a reapplication will be considered if and when you slim down. Harsh as this may sound, I’m siding with your local council as you seem unable to grasp the dangers that your weight poses.

The guy is 37, and 6'1" in height. He weighs 24 stone, but his BMI is 42 as opposed to the arbitrary 40 that the council decrees is 'safe'. Who decides these limits? Are they plucked out of the air like the one about 'safe' drinking?

LFAT then goes on to explain ...

First, a basic lesson in health risks.

Good God. Is this what we are to expect if the Tories take charge? We've heard enough of that from James Brokenshire thanks.

Obesity is a major risk factor for heart disease and heart attacks as it increases cholesterol levels, raises blood pressure, induces diabetes and can lead to joint and muscle problems for obvious reasons.

There we go, sweeping generalisations a la Labour. All humans quite obviously follow a set path as dictated by scientific computer models. It saddens me greatly to keep reading the terms 'risk factor', 'health risks' etc, coupled with the bald statements that it definitely leads to illness and/or death. There is no 'may' in any of this assertion.

I know that the age-old saying of “the only thing that matters is that a child is brought up in a loving environment” can be wheeled out here. Even so, the BBC reported recently that carrying extra fat around your middle substantially increases the risk of an early death, in which a new study found that every extra 2 inches (5cm) around the waist raised the chance of early death by between 13% and 17%. If this figure is applied to you, the statistical risk of you dying young is frighteningly high.

New study? BBC? Why am I getting so very disappointed with Tories if they think and write like that? And ridiculing the 'age-old saying' by condescendingly stating that it can be 'wheeled out'? No, it's true. The central point of fostering surely has to be that a child is brought up in a loving environment. Anything else should surely be secondary to that. To dismiss someone primarily on their weight is wrong, surely, or has game theory taken such a hold that such things are irrelevant?

I accept that Leeds City Council’s decision may be hard to swallow (pun intended) but surely you can see where they are coming from. The fact that you don’t smoke and don’t drink is a credit to you.

A nice joke against the fatty (not the only one), followed by a congratulation that is probably fuelled by more adherence to what was read about some study or other in the paper recently, which without doubt was funded by some pressure group or other who are, in turn, funded by the Labour Government. Way to go, Tory.

My attitude on this matter is that despite your protestations of possessing good parenting skills, you cannot escape the reality of what you are offering an adoptchild: a potentially single parent family crippled by the early death of a parent caused by obesity plus the subsequent trauma this would inflict on a child who has presumably experienced enough pain and suffering already.

So let them keep suffering and rotting away in council care then? According to you LFAT, Damien isn't going to last long enough to bond anyway. There is still one parent left to look after him/her though.

Of course, there is no reason why the guy won't live to a ripe old age anyway. I know of a father in the Puddlecote household who is now 69 and has a BMI much higher than 42, he's on a blood-thinning drug too thanks to an inherited dodgy ticker. He is 69 and doesn't look like shuffling off this mortal coil anytime soon. In fact, we can't bloody stop him working from 6am till 6pm, more's the pity.

Why on earth do we have to all suddenly class people by their lifestyle choices or appearance rather than the people that they are? Because the BBC say so? Because it is righteous? Seriously, I don't understand.

It seemed to me that the couple had very many qualities that would have stood up well to adopting. Unfortunately, rather like this bunch of idiots at Redbridge Council (subsequently copied in other areas), the central point seems to have been missed by Leeds Council. Are they good parents or not? Bringing out the crystal ball to try to second guess the future on puritan grounds, whilst there is a shortage of people such as these, doesn't appear to be sensible to me.

Mr Hall made the observation that he is no different to a normal parent where life expectancy might not be certain. I venture to suggest that he may have a point.

I'm certain that Labour are confusing people with statistics on paper sent to them by those with a vested interest. I know also that the Lib Dems are equally useless when it comes to ignoring junk science and judging people on merit. I thought the Tories would be a bit better. I'm truly confused now. Can they all be succumbing to this bullshit?