Blog Archives

A tale of three politicians: which would you trust?

alistair video

The Huffington Post reports that Alastair Campbell has said David Cameron’s attack on Jeremy Corbyn was likely to be “effective.”

cameron speech

Speaking in Manchester on Wednesday, the prime minister accused the Labour leader of holding a “Britain-hating ideology.” He suggested that Corbyn thought the death of Osama bin Laden a “tragedy,” rather than repeating his precise idea, which was that bin Laden’s extra-judicial execution without trial was a tragedy. A petition demanding that Cameron retract is being circulated.

JC elected

David Cameron’s attack on Jeremy Corbyn is likely to be ineffective – and indeed to strengthen his support base.

Every time these dubious characters make some charge against the Labour leader, thousands more are recruited.


Because, at long last, the LabCon regime has been rumbled.

The general public has woken up to the corrupt nature of their elected parliament, with the exposure of relatively minor peccadilloes – claiming unmerited expenses, seeking cash for questions – to serious but legal corruption. This sees senior MPs powerfully influenced by large corporations which offer them non-executive directorships and/or retirement positions and then make decisions which increase their benefactors’ profits, rather than the common good.

Ordinary people try to make ends meet as these spivs use taxpayers’ money to:

  • promote the global casino with commodities trading,
  • subsidise trade in weapons,
  • sell off the country’s assets and utilities,
  • privatise health and local government and
  • make the poorest pay for the banker-politician-made crash.

As the drip feed of slander and innuendo proceeds apace, the Labour Party membership continues to increase; many thousands flock to hear Jeremy Corbyn and make their presence enthusiastically felt on social media, radio, TV or in public – wherever there is an audience.

The £50bn HS2 project – a folly – must hit the buffers: Jeremy Paxman

On Friday, Jeremy Paxman wrote an article about HS2 in the Financial Times, opening with incredulity (“How on earth are we even contemplating this scheme?”) that the project had not been an issue for the three main parties during the election campaign, “All decided that the planned HS2 high speed railway line from London to Birmingham and then — if things go to plan — on to Manchester and Leeds by about 2033 was A Good Thing . . . it was left to the UK Independence party and the Greens (who generally love railways) to point out that HS2 is a grotesque waste of taxpayers’ money.

Some points raised:

  • Despite living in an age of austerity, the main parties were as one in believing it a brilliant way to blow a projected £50bn of public money.

hs2 cartoon

  • It will not be £50bn; cost controls on public spending projects are laughable – see the over budget Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly buildings, the cost of the first high speed rail link and the National Health Service IT project.
  • At the end of years of digging and disruption we shall be able to get from London to Birmingham 30-odd minutes quicker.
  • To get from Leeds to Manchester on HS2 you would have to travel south to Birmingham and then north again on the other side of the country.
  • If, as has been predicted, Birmingham will turn into a suburb of the capital, that will only be for those wealthy enough to afford tickets.
  • The point that seems not to have been much recognised by huge numbers of the poor saps who will have to pay for this project is that at the end of their journey north, the happy business folk will not be alighting in the centre of Birmingham, at New Street station, but will have to take a 10-minute walk to get there from the planned HS2 terminus (Ed: unless the Metro is completed).

Jeremy Paxman concludes:

 “Britain is notorious for its shuddering transport policy. When was the last time you heard an MP say, “I’m begging the prime minister to let me go to the Department for Transport and stay there forever, so we can get this country moving properly”? Building a decent infrastructure is serious, unglamorous work with little political dividend, so our system is hopeless at long-term planning . . .

“[U]nless someone comes to their senses soon, future generations will definitely be able to look at great tracts of concrete laid across the countryside to enable a slightly quicker journey through our overcrowded island. More than likely, they will still be paying for it”.

Meanwhile Britain does its bit for the ‘special relationship’ . . .

The UK Missile Defence Centre (MDC) was established by the Ministry of Defence in 2003 following signature of a Memorandum of Understanding with the US for the conduct of collaborative ballistic defence studies.

Largely funded by the Chief Scientific Adviser’s S&T research programme (Defence Science and Technology Laboratory), the MDC – in collaboration with its industry partners – announced a programme to explore the potential of the Royal Navy’s destroyers to conduct Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence missions.

missile defence sea viperSix months later, building on the Ministry of Defence’s relationship with the US Missile Defense Agency, the MDC also agreed to take part in a trial which will test the Sampson radar, part of the Sea Viper missile system, in detecting and tracking ballistic targets.

In September Sea Ceptor missiles were ordered to complement the longer range Sea Viper system (left) on the Type 45 destroyers, providing the Royal Navy with a full range of missile systems to defeat current and future threats.

As no other states appear to be interested in attacking Britain and the current UK threat level for international terrorism is ‘SUBSTANTIAL’, according to MI5 is taxpayers’ money being completely wasted on expensive missile systems?