That Honorable Gentleman, Peter Hain, must be breathing a sigh of relief at the moment. Never can a Cabinet minister have felt so chuffeded to hear that his country is slipping inexorably into recession, that its streets grow more lawless every day and that it is about to hand over what little is left of its sovereignty to the Soviet Republic of Europa.
Hain, we should remember, is the man who not only borrowed close to £200,000 and forgot to report it but was so inept in the spending of this huge sum of money that he managed to finish fifth in a six horse race in which most of the other runners have been also-rans so often that they only get invted to parties to make up the numbers. Now, to most people the humiliation of losing out to the likes of Harriet Harman and Hilary Benn would concentrate the mind wonderfully. It would certainly bring into fairly sharp focus the fact that they had gambled away almost 200 grand on a long-odds loser. Particularly since the money came in the form of loans, now due for repayment, , since the favours - which might have been perceived to be in the gift of the deputy Leader of the Labour party- are obviously no longer on offer.
Hain is most definitely not most people. Correction: Hain is nothing but has never quite come to terms with the fact. Thus he spends his life trying to convince himself that he is something, even when this involves continuous flip-flops of beliefs, affiliations and frienships. All in all, a fairly typical - modrn politician, in fact.
Let us hope that some breathing space between Europe, the end of the world as we know it and death on the streets might present itself and Mr Hain can have his collar felt like any other money launderer and corrupt politician.
Talking of which, why has it taken people so long to catch on to Red Ken Livingstone? The man has acted as if London is his personal fiefdom from the moment he was elected. That he got away with it up until now is almost solely due to the inability of most members of the political lobby to look behind the public, Cheeky Chappy, mask. The man is a conniving, evil and bent little succubus who has had his teeth into the soft tit of London for far too long. With any luck, he and Hain might get to share a cell together some time soon.
Thursday, 24 January 2008
Monday, 14 January 2008
Global Warming - Greenland is what I say to that
Saying that you don't believe in Global warming these days is akin to denying the Holocaust. Actually, the real difference is that Holocaust denial probably attracts less grief than trying to argue that something other than Man was to blame for Global Warming.
Well, I am about to invite a shed load of odium. I don't believe in Global Warming. There I've said it. Although to be more accurate, I don't believe in Global warming as it is being promoted. And I believe even less in the eco-Nazis who have made it their life's work to proselytise on behalf of the new religion of GloWar. It seems to me that there is already far too much money, power and academic credibility riding on the whole topic of GW for it ever again to be the subject of rational debate.
I recently heard one estimate that GW is currently a £2 billion a year industry for various academics, pressure groups and other clingers-on. No wonder the GW promoters get so pissed off with anyone who might raise even the tiniest doubst that their case was unproven. Next year's scholarship or grant might be riding on their ability to keep the theory afloat.
Leaving aside the fact that the Romans were growing grapes as far north as Cumbria when they occupied England in the first century AD, what really makes me doubt GW is the island of Greenland.
When Eric the Red was promoting his latest real estate venture to some, probably sceptical, fellow Norwegians he called the island he had discovered, Greenland to emphasis its suitability for farming. Now, he couldn't have done that unless the island actually was, for the most part, green. When he and his fellow settlers put their roots down in the late 10th Century (984) they lived in two settlements on the west coast on the fjords near the very southwestern tip of the island. The Norse settlements thrived there for the next few centuries, and then disappeared sometime in the 15th century after nearly 500 years of habitation.
What drove them out?
According to data obtained from ice cores, between AD 800 and 1300 the regions around the fjords of the southern part of the island experienced a mild climate . Trees and herbaceous plants grew in the south of the island and they were able to farmland grow plants similar to those they had been used to in Norway.
By the time that the Danish church sent missionaries to Greenland in the early 18th Century to recover the souls of any Norse settlers suspected of relapsing into Paganism, there no Europeans left, just some late-arriving Innuit who were quite happy frolicing in the icy wastes. The Norwegians had been driven away by the onset of the mini ice age that extended glacial ice to virtually the whole of the island.
Now parts of that same ice field are showing signs of melting and that fact is used as proof of Global Warming caused by Man's use of fossil fuels.
So, my question is this. If the climate of Greenland was balmy enough between the 10th and 15th Centuries for people to thrive there, what caused the sudden change in climate that drove them away?
There were no cars, no internal combustion engines of any kind. Just farm animals and arable crops.
Until anyone can explain this to me by way of their pet theory on mn-made GW, I am afraid I will go on being a Global Warming Denier.
Well, I am about to invite a shed load of odium. I don't believe in Global Warming. There I've said it. Although to be more accurate, I don't believe in Global warming as it is being promoted. And I believe even less in the eco-Nazis who have made it their life's work to proselytise on behalf of the new religion of GloWar. It seems to me that there is already far too much money, power and academic credibility riding on the whole topic of GW for it ever again to be the subject of rational debate.
I recently heard one estimate that GW is currently a £2 billion a year industry for various academics, pressure groups and other clingers-on. No wonder the GW promoters get so pissed off with anyone who might raise even the tiniest doubst that their case was unproven. Next year's scholarship or grant might be riding on their ability to keep the theory afloat.
Leaving aside the fact that the Romans were growing grapes as far north as Cumbria when they occupied England in the first century AD, what really makes me doubt GW is the island of Greenland.
When Eric the Red was promoting his latest real estate venture to some, probably sceptical, fellow Norwegians he called the island he had discovered, Greenland to emphasis its suitability for farming. Now, he couldn't have done that unless the island actually was, for the most part, green. When he and his fellow settlers put their roots down in the late 10th Century (984) they lived in two settlements on the west coast on the fjords near the very southwestern tip of the island. The Norse settlements thrived there for the next few centuries, and then disappeared sometime in the 15th century after nearly 500 years of habitation.
What drove them out?
According to data obtained from ice cores, between AD 800 and 1300 the regions around the fjords of the southern part of the island experienced a mild climate . Trees and herbaceous plants grew in the south of the island and they were able to farmland grow plants similar to those they had been used to in Norway.
By the time that the Danish church sent missionaries to Greenland in the early 18th Century to recover the souls of any Norse settlers suspected of relapsing into Paganism, there no Europeans left, just some late-arriving Innuit who were quite happy frolicing in the icy wastes. The Norwegians had been driven away by the onset of the mini ice age that extended glacial ice to virtually the whole of the island.
Now parts of that same ice field are showing signs of melting and that fact is used as proof of Global Warming caused by Man's use of fossil fuels.
So, my question is this. If the climate of Greenland was balmy enough between the 10th and 15th Centuries for people to thrive there, what caused the sudden change in climate that drove them away?
There were no cars, no internal combustion engines of any kind. Just farm animals and arable crops.
Until anyone can explain this to me by way of their pet theory on mn-made GW, I am afraid I will go on being a Global Warming Denier.
Thursday, 10 January 2008
Why does it cost £200,000 to campaign to be Deputy Leader?
Peter Hain has had to own up to accepting at least £200,000 to fund his campaign to become Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. Well, it might be £200,000. On the other hand, it could be more. No one seems to know for sure and the two people who should know - his ex-Campaign Manager and his successor - are too busy blaming each other to provide a sensible answer.
Of course, the truth of the matter is that Peter Hain himself should have made absolutely certain that evrything about his campaign was above board and conducted strictly in accordance with the letter of the law. As should Harriet Harman when it came to the conduct of her own Deputy Leadership bid. The fact that neither bothered to do so tells us a great deal about both of them - either they are terminally arrogant or just plain stupid - or both. Either way, they should be held to account for what they did. If they were small business owners who failed to declare income to the Taxman, claiming or feigning ignorance would not an acceptable defence. Neither should it be in their case.
Leaving aside the probable criminality of their actions, the question needs to be asked just why such eye-watering amounts were thrown at an election carried out within what amounts to a closed society. Between them, the half-dozen candidates spent £500,000. That's half a million pounds, for God's sake.
Where on earth did it all go?
According to the Electoral Commission, noo Labour had a membership of around 120,000 when the Deputy Leadership contest was held. That was 100,000 down from the previous year and about 300,000 fewer than the membership figures for 1997. In fact, the rapidly declining membership rolls were one of the factors that made illegal loans so essential to the party's survival.
Given such a huge defection rate, the 120,000 who remained must have been dyed in the wool Labour supporters. The kind of people who eat, sleep and drink politics. Most would probably have been able to quote chapter and verse on each candidate's background and what - if anything - they stood for. The BBC and the papers covered the campaign in some depth. All of the candidates had access to web sites, blog spots and e-mail. In terms of reaching and influencing the people that mattered -i.e those with a vote - they couldn't have had more weapons at their disposal.
So, what exactly did they spend the half mil on? What in Hain's campaign soaked up £200,000?
If Hain can spend so much on what amounted to a closed election and then not know exactly what he spent the money on, God forbid that we should ever let him have access to public funds in his role as a Government Miniter.
Of course, the truth of the matter is that Peter Hain himself should have made absolutely certain that evrything about his campaign was above board and conducted strictly in accordance with the letter of the law. As should Harriet Harman when it came to the conduct of her own Deputy Leadership bid. The fact that neither bothered to do so tells us a great deal about both of them - either they are terminally arrogant or just plain stupid - or both. Either way, they should be held to account for what they did. If they were small business owners who failed to declare income to the Taxman, claiming or feigning ignorance would not an acceptable defence. Neither should it be in their case.
Leaving aside the probable criminality of their actions, the question needs to be asked just why such eye-watering amounts were thrown at an election carried out within what amounts to a closed society. Between them, the half-dozen candidates spent £500,000. That's half a million pounds, for God's sake.
Where on earth did it all go?
According to the Electoral Commission, noo Labour had a membership of around 120,000 when the Deputy Leadership contest was held. That was 100,000 down from the previous year and about 300,000 fewer than the membership figures for 1997. In fact, the rapidly declining membership rolls were one of the factors that made illegal loans so essential to the party's survival.
Given such a huge defection rate, the 120,000 who remained must have been dyed in the wool Labour supporters. The kind of people who eat, sleep and drink politics. Most would probably have been able to quote chapter and verse on each candidate's background and what - if anything - they stood for. The BBC and the papers covered the campaign in some depth. All of the candidates had access to web sites, blog spots and e-mail. In terms of reaching and influencing the people that mattered -i.e those with a vote - they couldn't have had more weapons at their disposal.
So, what exactly did they spend the half mil on? What in Hain's campaign soaked up £200,000?
If Hain can spend so much on what amounted to a closed election and then not know exactly what he spent the money on, God forbid that we should ever let him have access to public funds in his role as a Government Miniter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
