Sunday, 25 February 2018
Saturday, 24 February 2018
Friday, 23 February 2018
It's not been a good week for Chauncey has it. He's been exposed as a useful idiot when most of us thought that the second word of that description was perfectly adequate. Marxist Labour have become righteously furious about it and have even threatened the press about it. They seem to be complaining that the press are saying nasty things about him. But they do not seem to be saying that any of this is untrue. So is he threatening the press that he wants to be depicted in a positive light and that any other kind of coverage will fall foul of some regulator he may well set up? Well I for one would ignore such a regulator anyway. That's a barricade I am prepared to storm.
Oh and Stormzy, the alleged musician, has this week been levelling abuse at Theresa May. This is the sort of intervention that Chauncey is wholeheartedly in favour of. Is he upset that the media have reported this? Not a bit of it. Stormzy is upset about Grenfell. Quite why is a mystery, but Stormzy is probably not very cognisant of the very latest current events and, like Chauncey's Marxist Labour, is finding Brexit a bit confusing and beyond his limited abilities and brain cells. So instead he decided to be righteously angry and to virtue signal about something that happened 9 months ago. Stormzy understands fires.
He has concocted a rap, which is to say he chanted something in a faux London accent meant to make him sound edgy. It's about Theresa May. Or something. Where is the money for Grenfell? he asks. What money would that be? Money? I'm unclear what it is you are alleging. Could you tell us please.
Theresa May is nevertheless a criminal in the eyes of Stormzy who recited all of this with no shirt on and in the shower, presumably on the grounds that this would add drama like they do in, well, dramas. If only Inspector Morse had thought to do his detecting in the rain with no shirt on the bodies might not have piled up. But perhaps that's why Stormzy thinks that 'savages' rhymes with 'damages'. Oh and he has also called Theresa May a paigon. No, nor me. But apparently this is a slang term for someone who is a fake and a liar. Because those who rap in the rain and opine about last year's tragedies at awards ceremonies are known for their authenticity aren't they. No wonder he is so friendly with Chauncey. Chauncey will probably attend next week's PMQs in his vest. With wet hair.
Now I strongly suspect that Chauncey has absolutely no idea who Stormzy is and could no more name one of what we will laughingly call his songs than Gordon Brown could name one by the Arctic Monkeys. You can be damned sure that Theresa May doesn't know who Stormzy is and, like most of the country, doesn't much care. But I'm sure that Chauncey had a quiet and earnest word with this chap, after he had dried himself off and explained that it really isn't nice to go around calling people criminals just because you disagree with them. Respect is a two way street he no doubt said. We mustn't stoop to the levels of the gutter press and their base accusations about things that are actually true.
Yes what a paragon of virtue Chauncey truly is. This is probably what he meant when he said that his was an honest and straightforward politics. That's probably why he will be allowing the release of his files with the various Communist states with whom he was so friendly back in the 1980s. He could get his friend Stormzy to write a rap about it. Now what rhymes with collaborator? And cant. No, Stormzy, cant. Cant is a word that is probably not in Stormzy's limited vocabulary, except in the sense that that is how they pronounce a completely different word in south London, you know that word that feminist rappers would never dream of uttering. But it's one he would find terribly useful if he is going to carry on associating with Marxist Labour. Although if he becomes rich and successful don't be surprised to find him finding the policies of Marxist Labour rather objectionable in a few years time. Rappers don't like to have their bling too heavily taxed.
Thursday, 22 February 2018
Let's be honest, many of us are still writing about Chauncey and his friendships with the Communist bloc because it so clearly infuriates him and his pals. There is something rather amusing about making soft spoken, genial, avuncular Chauncey really furious. The mask slips. He loses his temper. He makes ill advised videos in which he threatens the press with terrible vengeance. He didn't spell this out but it probably amounts to Leveson 2. Its essentially state control of the press.
Yet note that, other than one threat, just a threat, of legal action against one Conservative MP who made a claim that went a little too far and so was probably libellous, there have been no similar threats to any other publications or blogs such as this one. None. There have been a lot of stories this last week about Chauncey, much comment and tutting. But there have been no threats. Many freely acknowledge that Chauncey was very unlikely to have been a spy or to have accepted the cheques of the Czechs. But that was because he had nothing to sell and, even if he had, he would have offered it all up for nothing. He and his friends saw and still see vile authoritarian, often murderous regimes as being allies and friends. So he was just offering favours and cosy chats with his pals.
What has really infuriated Chauncey is that this story has now been kept going for over a week and has likely done some damage. He is absolutely right that we are writing this stuff because we are worried that he might actually win an election. That is what happens in democracies, Chauncey. People campaign against those they disagree with. Sometimes they may do this in ways that are not entirely honest or wholly impartial. But then given the tactics of his party and Momentum he's not really one to criticise is he.
And of course there is always the possibility that Chauncey and co are worried lest journalists do uncover some unsavoury facts about his associations as they trawl for more salacious stories from the archives. There are bound to be plenty. Chauncey has been around a long time and has met and considered friends some extremely unsavoury people. So he has been hoping that this story or succession of stories would die a death and that the calls for the files of the Czech spies to be released would be silenced. In truth he is left hoping that a big story comes along that knocks this out of the headlines in much the same way that Trump was saved last week by the latest high school gun spree. Before that he was on the ropes with regard to the Rob Porter story that kept running and running and that they kept lying about. Marxist Labour tried ignoring the story, then ridiculing it and then got really really angry about it. And they have been unable to kill it. They have been unable to kill it for the very good reason that it is mostly true.
Ultimately Chauncey could make all of this go away by threatening legal action. Except that would have the opposite effect because he knows damned well that the newspapers have not written anything actionable. He did speak to Czech diplomats. And he does have Communist associations. So this is a story that will run and run because the press is having fun and yes we do fear him and what he would do through his imposition of a kind of ochlocracy to a country that most of us actually love. But then Chauncey wouldn't know what that feels like would he.
God I love Jennifer Lawrence. It's not just that she is hugely talented and of course gorgeous. It's the fact that, despite her status as an Oscar winner and current highest paid actress, she doesn't take herself at all seriously and also doesn't take any shit from anyone. So when she made a joke at the BAFTAs the other night and some people objected she resolutely refused to back down. It was a sodding joke. And when she decided to wear a gorgeous black dress to promote her new film despite it being a cold London day and in contrast to the men who were with her being dressed up in their winter gear, she again refused to back down and hit back at the hatchet faced harridans who objected.
And why does anyone pay any attention to Twitter critics anyway? Why does anyone care enough about what an actress chooses to wear in some publicity pics? As Jen said, that is not feminism. You tell 'em!
It is not feminism to criticise a woman for choosing to wear a black dress and to show a bit of cleavage or leg. It is not feminism to say that she should have looked like the blokes. She didn't because she didn't want to. She is Hollywood hot property. She can wear whatever the hell she likes. But she chose to look fabulous. Why wouldn't you. Why shouldn't she?
Women like to dress up and often do so sacrificing their comfort in the process. They do this most weekends in towns and cities across our land and across the world. They don't have to cover their faces as in some places, or their hair. They don't have to dress in black or submit to some patriarchal dress code imposed for no good reason. They can wear what they like. Men do not insist that women wear next to nothing and heels that risk broken bones and crushed toes. Women choose to do so. That is their right. It makes them feel good because they look good.
This is why people hate feminism. It is yet another example of an ideology that has lost its way and lost its relevance to ordinary people. Feminism is supposed to be about the empowerment of women. Instead it is trying to impose a new kind of dress code, ironically it is the sort of code that judgemental men tried to impose on women 100 years or more ago and still do in some countries right now. The fact that women can choose to wear a revealing black dress and feel sexy is a sign of progress. So why are women and some male virtue signallers trying to impose their own standards on Jennifer Lawrence? Does anyone seriously imagine that the outspoken Oscar winner would be told to dress like that if she didn't want to?
Jennifer Lawrence is doing what she does because she is empowered to do so thanks to feminism. Yet now the feminazis are trying to undo all of that progress. One can only assume that they are simply confused about what female empowerment is supposed to mean. Women can choose to dress as they wish, to capitalise on their looks or not to do so, to enjoy dressing up without being judged by those who should be minding their own business. Jennifer Lawrence is a beautiful and sexy woman who is also a brilliant actress. Perhaps those criticising her are simply jealous.
I won't hear a word of criticism of the divine and altogether wonderful Jennifer. She has entirely replaced Rihanna in my affections now thanks to her couldn't give a shit brio. I can even forgive her for Mother!
Wednesday, 21 February 2018
Ooh dear, these Commie sympathisers don't like it up 'em do they? Take a look at the picture of Chauncey above. What has happened to that soft spoken, avuncular image now? Could it be that it is all an act? Could it be that he really is the nasty, intemperate, reactionary, would-be authoritarian halfwit we have all been led to believe?
The picture is from a video that Chauncey released yesterday evening in which he issued the chilling and not terribly democratic warning that 'change is coming'. This was to the media who have impertinently questioned Chauncey about his Commie sympathising past and have not let up over the last week. Marxist Labour's strategy was to issue denials in quite carefully chosen words - non denial denials essentially - and to wait for the whole story to blow over. It hasn't worked out that way. The weekend newspapers went to town on it, others have picked up the baton and run with it, columnists have opined on it, even sympathetic newspapers have sometimes said that maybe he ought to come clean about it all and then yesterday they even questioned him about it. Him, a politician. The man with the initials JC. How dare they importune the dear leader in this way.
So in response they rushed out a video in which he told the press that change is coming. Scary eh? Well it's either that or he is about to defect to North Korea. Or Venezuela. They could do with someone with his singular vision. He could teach them how to grow vegetables. They need the food.
But can you see the problem with all of this. Yes, on the one hand Chauncey may have a point about the thinness of this story. This blog has already acknowledged that he almost certainly wasn't a spy. But neither is this a complete non story. Chauncey did have sympathies with the Communists and indeed even went on holiday there. He remains an apologist for Venezuela, a failed state in all but name. So asking questions about to what extent his sympathies went further are perfectly legitimate. The role of the press is to ask questions that politicians would rather not be asked. It is not to bowl under arm. And that is why the likes of Chauncey must never be allowed to bring in press regulation. Politicians aren't supposed to like the press. But neither are they supposed to threaten them.
There is an obvious remedy available if the press have overstepped the mark, or the bounds of legality. We have famously strong libel laws, the sort that Donald Trump would kill for. So sue. Put up or shut up. Have the Czechs release your file. If you have nothing to hide then stop having them hide it.
Marxist Labour's strategy was correct in the first place. Just wait for this to blow over. Wait for the press to move on. Instead Chauncey has just shown he is worried about the slings and arrows of the cut and thrust. And it is not as if this is a fabricated story. Yes there might be some exaggeration and hyperbole in it, but he did meet the diplomat more than once in the knowledge that he was probably a spy. He has expressed sympathy for the Warsaw Pact block and is a Marxist. Are the press supposed to ignore all of this? One only has to see his speech about the City of London yesterday to see he has not mellowed.
Now this story will live on for a few more days. And maybe some journalists will see this as reason to keep probing. Did he respond that way because he is worried?
You know there are certain similarities between Chauncey and Donald Trump. Both are outsiders thrust into positions of prominence at variance with reality and common sense not to mention decency. Both rail against the media and dismiss inconvenient news about them as fake. Both have their idiot legions of admirers who believe everything they say and accept no criticism of their dear leader. Both are apologists for extremists and racists. Both seem to be friends of Russia for no very obvious reason.
And now both use the law to silence criticism. Apparently Chauncey, the great man of the people and believer, supposedly, in democracy and debate has instructed solicitors to try and shut up anyone who writes about him and his Communist sympathies in much the same way that Trump has spent his career silencing people who cannot afford lawyers throughout his career. It's almost as if Chauncey has something to fear from this story you might imagine.
Chauncey is not a spy, nobody seriously thinks that he is; he is too stupid to be a spy. But he also didn't know anything worth knowing that the spies didn't already know. The authorities in this country knew his sympathies and would never have entrusted him with secrets anyway. They probably wouldn't in the increasingly unlikely event that he ever wins an election. He would be like a real world example of Chris Mullins' A Very British Coup. But if he ever were in the position to know secrets he would be like an insider version of Julian Assange. He would not hesitate to disseminate the information far and wide. This doesn't make him a traitor per se, merely a caitiff. Or, if his solicitors prefer, a very credulous, very stupid, deranged believer in something as incoherent, nebulous and naive as his strange hybrid internationalist socialism. It also makes him extraordinarily dangerous, because our enemies would play him with the same aplomb that they are playing Donald Trump.
But even if we accept that Chauncey's motivations were just juvenile and purblind they are symptomatic of the left's refusal to look at the evidence of their own eyes for fear of learning something inconvenient to their quasi-religious belief system. They have their beliefs, usually created in their heads during their teenage years or as a product of their bourgeois commie upbringing and they never ever deviate from them. That is why Chauncey always sides with this country's enemies and even holidays in them whilst ignoring their worst excesses. It requires such a level of obtuseness as would make it comical if he were still on the backbenches. It is probably why the Labour Party tolerated him and his serial rebelliousness all of those years. It's only Jeremy, they used to say, he's harmless. Now look at him. He is the titular leader of a movement that shoves women away from podiums for fear of losing a vote, bullies a council leader out of post for the offence of wanting to build homes for the poor in a manner that is insufficiently ideologically pure and tolerates anti-Semitism amongst his core whilst dissembling frantically whenever challenged about it. Remind you of anyone?
And all of this is bad enough on its own, until you listen to some of his policies. Well actually they are not policies at all. Marxist Labour tried policy during the election campaign and got their fingers burnt. Now they just identify problems and injustices and offer to solve them with age old leftist ideas that are entirely unrelated to the identified problem. For instance nationalisation of the utilities and railways would not solve any of the problems of those disparate industries such as they are. Our creaking railways are problematic because they are trying to undo decades of underinvestment whilst carrying more and more passengers and in the teeth of chronic levels of industrial unrest as unions seek to preserve in aspic ancient jobs the industry no longer needs. The utility companies are mostly efficiently run and hugely profitable. There is competition, but not nearly enough, largely because of consumer indolence and opaque pricing. The solution to all of these problems is smarter regulation or less regulation, not the ultimate in over regulation: nationalisation, the only beneficiaries of which would be the unions and the staff who would have their jobs guaranteed and underwritten by the taxpayer, would hold us all to ransom for ever higher pay and this would be paid for by more underinvestment.
And then there is Chauncey's attitude to the City of London and banking in general. Oh how the left loves to hate the City. Why? Because bankers make lots and lots of money. The left really hates rich people. It doesn't matter that they pay lots and lots of tax and that finance is one of this country's most successful industries, they hate it because the see it as parasitical. That is a typically reductive and sophomoric attitude to something that actually is part of what has helped make this country wealthy and is one reason why Europe will have to do a deal with us over Brexit. The City is part of what gives us economic clout. It makes finance cheaper and allows it to flourish and prosper. Without the City and the money it raises there would be fewer jobs and less innovation. Yet all that Chauncey sees is that they don't make anything, which coming from someone who has never done a productive day's work in his life other than on his allotment that is rich indeed, richer than a boardroom full of investment bankers.
The speech was barmy. It was loony left. Chauncey and co live in a world of smokestacks and industry that simply doesn't exist anymore, imagining that these jobs have somehow disappeared because of the City of London rather than because of international competition and because people were priced out of their jobs thanks to union intransigence, bad management and poor workmanship. These jobs were starting to disappear as far back as the 1970s. Thankfully the Thatcher government had the good sense to give free rein to the City, to allow it to expand and prosper. In so doing the Tories created an industry at which this country excels. Without the taxes paid by the City we would be bankrupt. Yet Chauncey idiotically imagines that he would be able to control it and harness it and bend it to his will. What would actually happen is that he would simply drive it abroad and impoverish us all. That is the speciality of socialism.
And this facile view of the world is something else this dull, distrait little man has in common with Donald Trump. They both exist in a past that no longer exists and never really existed. Chauncey claims that he would bend the City to do the will of the people. That is what they always say at first. What he means is that he would bend it to the will of people like him, people with no imagination, no historical knowledge, no economic knowledge all made up for with endless petty jealousies and ill informed prejudices. Democratic control, they dishonestly call it. Yet as Labour keeps demonstrating, it is a peculiar kind of democracy that silences dissent, is intolerant of all conflicting opinion and seeks to impose its will and substitutes it for the will of the people. Ultimately he doesn't give a damn about the people of course. He and his ilk don't when push comes to shove. If they did they wouldn't have holidayed in Communist dictatorships and consorted with spies from those dictatorships, even if those spies considered them to be not very useful idiots.
Chauncey isn't a spy. But he is a class traitor.
Oxfam chief executive Mark Goldring appeared before Parliament yesterday and offered an apology for the strategy he adopted over the weekend in which he elected to come out fighting rather than apologise for the organised rape, child abuse, paedophilia, exploitation and modern colonialism his charity had covered up. The interview, given in a friendly newspaper, sought to downplay the crimes his charity chose to look the other way from, because of all of the amazing work it apparently does. This is no doubt true. But it is the same defence that the Catholic Church attempted as it became more and more clear that it had allowed paedophile priests to get away with their crimes for fear of the damage to its reputation.
The defence offered by Oxfam is exactly the same. It essentially says that its abuses should be tolerated because it started out with such good intentions and because many of its workers do not engage in organised abuse confident that this will be overlooked because they are charity workers.
Goldring displayed exactly the same calculating arrogance that got his charity into trouble in the first place. It was a PR strategy designed to defend its wealth, power and brand. It was a PR strategy from the man who is paid £130,000 a year plus expenses and pension contributions. The pension contribution alone would feed a third world family for a year. Yet despite this the man who designed that strategy apparently didn't know that when you are in a hole you should stop digging. None of his 23 press officers advised him of this apparently.
The Government has said that they may stop Oxfam's public funding. There should be no may about it. They should demand that Goldring step down or be sacked, they should demand wholesale change and that the charity survive on donations until such time as it is deemed worthy of support from the taxpayer.
Goldring blamed the pressure he had been under for the ill advised comments. But this was an interview with the Guardian for crying out loud. It wasn't on TV with someone barking questions at him under lights. This wasn't on Today being interrogated by John Humphries. He said what he did because Oxfam decided to come out fighting. He decided to defend himself rather than plead guilty and face the verdict of the Government and the people. That he has now apologised is beside the point. He again has only done so as part of the PR strategy that succeeded the first PR strategy. Oxfam has definitively not learnt its lesson. It still thinks it is holier than thou and so what is a bit of child abuse when it feeds people and lectures the rest of us about poverty.
Oxfam deserves to be wound up. Not only should it have its Government funding removed it should have its charitable status called into question. It long ago ceased to be a charity that rode to the rescue of the poor and benighted of the world. It is a political organisation, a sanctimonious affront to the people who work in its shops and who donate, often monthly by direct debit, thinking that they are doing some good in the world.
Tuesday, 20 February 2018
The Government is having a rethink on tuition fees. This is not because the present system isn't working, because it is for the most part, but merely because Marxist Labour got some resonance with their back of the envelope, populist idea of abolishing tuition fees and forgiving debts and generally patting the millennials on the head and telling them how unfair everything is.
Yet the present policy, which gives loans to students that they don't have to pay back until they are in work and earning more than a set threshold, is working and working well. It is working better than in Scotland where there are no tuition fees (except for the English) but which has not seen a greater proportion of students from poor backgrounds go to university. Indeed the opposite is the case since by making tuition free Scotland has had to cut back the number of places available handing an advantage to students from wealthier backgrounds and free tuition to boot. So Chauncey's attack on this policy has been wrong and probably deliberately wrong. Students were told that they would get free things and so believed him. Chauncey lied and has been rowing back ever since. The policy was unaffordable and nothing but a populist bribe. Remember tuition fees were first introduced by Labour. They were right then and they remain right now. Nobody likes paying for things, but the money has to come from somewhere.
Not that this hasn't spooked the Conservative Party, who have been trying to identify ways of mimicking Chauncey's asinine policy ever since. The noises coming from Theresa May seem to indicate that they will try to tinker at the edges of tuition fees once again and end up pleasing nobody. The problem with tuition fees is not that they are wrong in principle or even that some students are building up debt, it is that once again state intervention is preventing the functioning of a proper market place. There are some good ideas coming from this review such as shorter courses. But the best way of giving students what they want is to take universities off the reins not make more regulations.
University tuition fees could be used as a textbook example of why government imposed caps do not work and are self defeating. The cap on tuition fees has been set and is revised periodically and has just meant that all universities and all courses have imposed the maximum fee. There is no relation whatever to the quality of the course, no relation whatever to the prestige or otherwise of the institution, no relation whatever to courses content and cost, no relation whatever to that courses usefulness at making its students employable. They all charge the same. Regardless. It would be like going into a supermarket and paying the same price for everything, from baked beans to caviar.
All of which means that the market is prevented from doing what markets do. They only work if they are allowed to work, which means allowing customers to decide whether the price they are being asked to pay is reasonable and shopping around until they get the right kind of product for the right kind of price. When all courses charge the same then students just accept what they are given according merely to which institutions are willing to have them and how well they did in their A Levels.
What is the answer? Abolish the cap and allow students to borrow whatever they need but only if there is a demonstrable utility to their course. If there were no cap then the top universities would be able to charge more because they are in demand. This would of course make Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial and so on much richer than they are already of course, but would also enable them to offer more bursaries. It would mean that the universities at the bottom of the pile would have to be more creative and innovative to get students to come. And they would attract students by being cheaper. If you are offering an Aldi product then you should only offer Aldi prices.
You might imagine that a Conservative government would know all of this, yet they don't appear to. If they are to win the next election and do so by a decent majority, something that really ought to be eminently achievable given who they are up against, they need to demonstrate that Conservatism is distinct and different and empowering rather than authoritarian and meretricious like Chauncey's Marxist Labour Party.
And while we are on the subject why are Conservatives paying lip service to lowering the voting age to 16? Why not point out that this is not a matter of high principle as Marxist Labour are pretending and that is entirely self serving? There is no need to lower the voting age and certainly no public clamour for it. Voting is for adults. Adulthood begins, right around the world, at age 18 or even older. All such age limits are, by their very nature, a little arbitrary, but 18 is tried and tested and makes sense. If there are anomalies, such as the age for driving, then align all of them so that they make sense. As David Lidington pointed out to Emily Thornberry at PMQs recently, Labour raised the age for buying knives to 18. The minimum age for gambling and drinking is 18. The minimum age to get married is 18. You can become a soldier at 16 but not serve on the front line until you are 18. All of this is consistent and reasonable and very few people object. To vote is a privilege and is one that is conferred on adults. Adulthood begins at 18. There is no good reason to change this.
Conservatives need to stand up and declare their conservatism proudly. Because most people in this country are small C conservatives. It is not unreasonable to ask students to pay for their university education, but it is incumbent upon the government of the day to ensure that they get a good deal for their money. That is why the cap should be removed. Universities would then have to compete, which is what they should have been doing all along. And when do students go to university? When they are 18 or older.
In the video above the point is made, very persuasively, that Donald Trump's success has been in large part down to his ability to brush off attacks and hit back with the same accusations or with what aboutism. And this is true. There are many examples of him doing this. Just watch the video.
But it would be a mistake to put this down to some clever tactic, some refined and sophisticated strategy. It is because Trump is a child in a fat man's body. He hits back in the same way that a 10 year old does in the playground. The only difference is that he doesn't add nyahh nyahh nyahh. Now for most people this would be too embarrassing to keep deploying, but Trump cannot be embarrassed. He lives his life by hitting back hard at anyone who attacks him or who challenges him. Of course it doesn't always work. And people learn how to take him on. But for intelligent people who talk like adults this is hard. Have you ever tried arguing with a child? You can use all of the logic and wit you like, but when they keep calling you names or saying 'and so is your Mum' sophistication might not work.
None of which is to say that Trump cannot be beaten. But it would need someone with lightning reflexes and wit to do it. Obama could have trounced him. Hillary lacked the wit. The Democrats will need someone clever, funny, charming and intelligent. The way to beat Trump is by exposing him as the know nothing, lying buffoon that he is.
I have become aware, even though I don't really care, that Tom Daley and Dustin Lance have announced that they are having a baby. We are all supposed to tilt our heads at this and go ahhhhh! I think. Like I say I don't really care one way or the other.
But it's bollocks isn't it. Two men cannot have a baby. They can pay a woman to have a baby for them , but that just means that they are exploiting some woman who needs the money, have her go through the agony of childbirth and then have to give up the resultant sprog thereafter. That doesn't strike me as being the sort of thing that we should go ahhhhhh! about. Furthermore we are all supposed to just accept this as being the new normal. It isn't.
Richard Littlejohn opined as much in the Daily Mail last week and the reaction has been as you might expect. Yes, most people will have nodded and thought, I agree with that and then turned the page. But because a few people did not think this and said so on Twitter. And because that nasty group of self appointed censors Stop Funding Hate objected a few stupid people have said they will no longer advertise with the Daily Mail. Well, more fool them.
As we keep having to say every time one of these stories emerges, people are entitled to say things with which you disagree. You are entitled to not buy the publication that publishes the material to which you object. You are entitled to send a strongly worded letter to the editor of said publication or to comment beneath the article. If you do so you indeed you will likely discover that you are part of a tiny minority. If advertisers fall prey to this absurd Twitterstorm then they are credulous fools. Just because some shout a lot and stamp their feet like entitled toddlers does not make them right.
And neither is what was written bigotry or homophobia. It was a simple reaction to a story and it was one that many people, probably the majority, will have agreed. That is not homophobic. Two gay men live together and love one another. Good for them. On that we can all agree. But having a baby? There is a fundamental biological issue there isn't there? Or has it all been solved by one of them identifying as a mother?
So instead these two quite well off chaps have decided effectively to buy themselves a baby. Is that not something we are entitled to opine about and to wonder about the morality of? Is this not something akin to the whole Oxfam scandal of only last week? Who is the mother? What choice did she have? How much has she been paid? Will the child be allowed to meet her when he or she grows up? Reasonable questions you might think. Or does Stop Funding Hate not agree with reasonable questions?
Monday, 19 February 2018
Donald Trump went to Florida over the weekend in an attempt to look presidential after last week's latest high school slaughter at the hands of someone who should never have been allowed to have a gun. Of course nobody, in a civilised country, should be allowed to have a semi-automatic rifle that belongs on a battlefield, but the Republican Party refuse to do anything about that and Trump didn't even mention gun control as he shed his crocodile tears.
In reality Trump had other things on his mind this weekend anyway as he headed from Parkland, the scene of the gun outrage, to Mar a Lago, which is a very convenient distance away. Trump was once again thinking of himself. He managed to insert himself into this story by accusing the FBI of spending too much time investigating him and Russia rather than keeping a troubled teenager from committing mass murder. What Trump didn't mention is that he made such murders easier by last year relaxing the law and repealing a minor measure introduced by Barack Obama to make it harder for people with mental health issues to get access to guns. This was the very first legislative measure that Trump introduced. And so he probably bears as much of the blame as the FBI who did indeed miss an opportunity to stop these murders.
What Trump said about this made no sense. The FBI is a very large organisation with over 40, 000 employees and so can probably handle more than one investigation at the same time. But this does speak to Trump's growing angst about the Russia inquiry. On Friday the Mueller investigation announced its first indictments of people who were involved in trying to influence the 2016 election, something that Trump has repeatedly said did not happen. After these indictments were announced - and they were probably announced in the way that they were to make it more difficult for Trump to fire Mueller or Rod Rosenstein - Trump attempted once again to claim that this proved that there had been no collusion between Russia and his campaign. Yet this was simply not true. No mention of the campaign was made. That may still come. Neither does it prove, as has also been claimed, that the Russians did not affect the outcome of the election. Nobody can possibly know that and that is not something that the intelligence communities of America are concerned with or competent to opine on. There are probably other elements that better explain the outcome, not least how the FBI announced days before that they were reopening an investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, Trump tends to ignore that, but nobody can possibly say that the Russia propaganda and fake news did not affect the election. The outcome was exceedingly tight and was decided by only about 100,000 votes across just three states: Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin and so it could easily have made a difference.
What we do know however is that Trump is increasingly worried about the Russia inquiry and is increasingly cornered. His lawyers are terrified of him giving evidence and perjuring himself and trying to find ways of preventing him having to do so. Trump does not know what Mueller knows and any chances of him being able to fire Mueller are getting ever more remote. If he is as innocent as he claims, if there was no collusion, then he has nothing to worry about. But he does not give the appearance of a man who is innocent and who isn't worried.
And once again where are the angry denunciations of Russian activities? Where are the instructions to the federal law enforcement agencies to prevent it happening again? Where is the name calling that he sends peoples way for minor difference of opinion? Why does he never whisper or tweet a word of criticism of Russia and Putin? Why is he still not sanctioning them as mandated by Congress last year? What do they have on him? Is it money? Is it sex? Is it something much much worse? What level of treachery is this amoral man who has multiple affairs with porn stars and playmates and has long accepted tainted Russian money for his businesses capable of?
Over the weekend, ensconced at Mar a Lago and clearly furious that he is checkmated by Mueller and Rosenstein, he fired off his tweets and got angrier and angrier. Many say that this is simply because he is angry that the inquiry is attempting to take the credit for his victory away from him. This is unlikely to be true, even for someone as self obsessed as Trump. He didn't expect to win and it was as much of a surprise to him as the rest of us. He is of course capable of deluding himself into believing that it was all about his genius. But he also knows what he did during the campaign. And now maybe Robert Mueller knows too. That is why he is now so angry and increasingly lashing out. It has been obvious for some time that the Russians did indeed interfere in the election and that they intended to do so to help get Trump elected. The question is whether he was in on it. And then we start to wonder what was in it for them other than their hatred of Hillary Clinton.
Trump now has to accept that the interference did happen. Congress now should be demanding action from him on Russia. Does that endanger him? Will he take the action that any normal and objective president would take under these circumstances? And if he doesn't what does that lead us to conclude? The Mueller inquiry will likely now proceed unencumbered to its conclusions. It becomes increasingly clear that Trump and his administration will not like it. Republicans ought to be distancing themselves from this man with some urgency.
Ultimately the only real excuse for Chauncey meeting a diplomatic representative of one of this country's, at the time, mortal enemies is that he is really rather stupid. The chances are though that even he isn't really that stupid. No, he went to meet this 'diplomat' knowing full well that he was probably a spy. He simply didn't care. Indeed he probably saw it as a badge of honour. They probably considered him to be one of their many useful idiots, but since he was a very minor backbencher and a man of low intelligence, they didn't consider him worth meeting more than a couple of times.
None of the above has been denied by Marxist Labour. They have just rolled their eyes, called it a smear or fake news and then pretended that it is all beneath them. You can almost hear them muttering how come the revolution the hated media will get their comeuppance though can't you. How dare they question the dear leader. How dare they question his lifelong allegiance to a failed ideology that has pauperised and killed millions all in the name of something we can never really put our finger on but these days they call it social justice. Whatever that means.
Their line, insofar as they have bothered to concoct one given their Pavlovian fake news response to all that is disobliging, is that Chauncey was just meeting with the representative of a foreign government in the hope of fostering understanding, friendship and a brotherhood of man. This is what they have been saying to all inconvenient trawling of the archives by impertinent journalists doing their jobs and simply quoting back at Chauncey the stupid things he has said and done during his previous 40 year career of endless angry fulminating about this country and talking treacherously. Of course during most of that time he was just a lowlife who hated his country and liked talking to its enemies, including terrorist murderers. Little did he know that his party would one day be stupid enough to make him its leader.
Yet how can they now keep him as their leader? There are many reasons why this man should not be leading his party, let alone aspiring to lead the country. But being 'sympathetic' to the designs of the Warsaw Pact countries in the 1980s seems as good a reason as any yet encountered. It is not as if this is something that unusual in the Labour Party, which has long had members who were sympathetic to the foreign policy of our enemies and even spied for them. Chauncey probably wasn't a spy. He was just stupid and unpleasant. Still they probably won't be putting that on their election posters.
To be clear, there is no innocent explanation for Chauncey's repeated tete a tetes with the enemies of this country, enemies that had nuclear weapons pointed at us and who tried repeatedly to undermine us, infiltrate our upper echelons and otherwise to foment insurrection or at least destabilising political turmoil. If Chauncey was truly a man of peace reaching out in a spirit of amity there would be instances of him meeting with those who are his ideological opposites. But there aren't. Instead he talks to his friends in the IRA, Hamas, Hisbollah. Indeed he invited IRA leaders to Parliament only weeks after they tried to assassinate the British Prime Minister. He even appears on the propaganda channels of Iran and Russia and is an apologist for them. When challenged by Andrew Marr about his appearances on Press TV he lied about how recent they were. Answer: they were in 2012, long after that vile regime in Iran slaughtered its own people for taking to the streets and demanding proper democracy. Chauncey and his fellow travellers always act as apologists for vile foreign regimes whilst being entirely unwilling to make the same allowances for us and our allies. They are now doing exactly the same for Venezuela, another of Chauncey's 'friends' that is doing the same, is about to steal an election, is presiding over hyperinflation and parents having to put their children in orphanages because they cannot afford to feed them. An even handed man would condemn these outrages and tragic injustices. Instead he stays silent. Or worse.
And yes I know that all of Chauncey's past was dredged over at the last election and that the electorate didn't seem to care. But that doesn't mean we should allow him to forget it or stop asking him about his past utterances. We should be demanding answers rather than platitudes in that softly spoken voice he deploys and which is surely ripe for lampoonery.
But more than that this is a man who wants to be our next Prime Minister. It is bad enough that he is so deluded and dishonest about his economic policies and that he lied to students about their tuition fees and debts. It is bad enough that he appears to think that nationalisation is the answer to everything and yet cannot explain why or indeed how it would all be paid for. But what is worse is that this traitor, this quisling, this treacherous nonentity who is already a Privy Counsellor for crying out loud, might one day be responsible for the security of this nation. The man who said that the killing of Bin Laden was a tragedy might one day be responsible for keeping us all safe. The man who said that Slobodan Milosevic was not a war criminal might one day be responsible for dealing with autocrats and tyrants around the world and would have to see past whether or not they are socialist fellow travellers.
Remember Chauncey always opposes the foreign policy of this country and always speaks in support of those we are opposing. He even appears in their media to support them. He has opposed every military intervention of this country of the last 50 years. Every one. He even opposed us when we went to war to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, or when we went into Bosnia to defend Muslims suffering ethnic cleansing. Yet you might imagine that this would mean he would oppose Russia invading Ukraine and annexing part of its territory by force. Nope. Does this strike you as being the policy of a man of high principle? Would you want him in charge of our security and foreign policy?
When Chauncey met that spy he did so in full knowledge of what Communism had been doing to its own people for decades. They put people in gulags, they had to build a wall to keep their people from leaving. In Czechoslovakia itself they sent tanks on to the streets to suppress dissent and a reformist uprising by the people, but the wrong kind of people clearly. Yet still Chauncey wanted to talk to them and to offer them help and information. They hoped to recruit another useful idiot but found he was too much of an idiot to be very useful. No chance of ever gaining power. I remain convinced that this will turn out to be true. But we have to keep reminding people why he is unfit to even be a backbench MP and why Labour should have thrown him out years ago. They betrayed us all by not doing so.