The Hypocrisy of The Daily Mail

To begin this article I will be honest and say, I have never been a fan of the Daily Mail. In my opinion it is a thoroughly odious and self righteous rag that represents the very worst of British values whilst masquerading as the very best of British values. They have obsessions with claiming things cause cancer and spinning the most trivial stories into hate-fueled scoops, but this week the Daily Mail managed to surprise even me, when they published their now infamous article claiming that Ralph Miliband- the celebrated academic, thinker and Royal Navy veteran- hated Great Britain. 

One thing that is for sure is that this article is born out of fear. Ed Miliband had a strong performance at the Labour conference and policies such as the proposed freeze on energy prices have proved immensely popular with voters. The ever more likely conclusion that Miliband will one day occupy number 10 is a frightening thought for the powers that be and even more frightening for those millionaires such as Paul Dacre who have been given generous tax breaks under the current ruling coalition.

The entire source of the Mail's strongly worded article is a small diary entry in a 17 year old Ralph Milibands diary. Now I don't know about anybody else, but at 17 I truly believe that your political opinions are not yet fully formed and therefore certainly shouldn't overshadow a life of philosophical work in the political spectrum. I myself at 17 was an ardent supporter of Tony Blair but the same certainly couldn't be said today. Times change, and as times change, people change with it.

An interesting side-note in this whole strange affair is that the Daily Mail is famously the only British newspaper which openly supported Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party during his rise to power and subsequent expansionist policies (see below)

Viscount Rothermere, the ex-owner and grandfather of the current Daily Mail owner, wrote a number of articles stating his complete support for the German invasion of the Sudetenland as well as the German annexation of Czechoslovakia. He even went so far as to write to Hitler encouraging him to invade Romania and described the work of 'Adolf the Great' as 'Great and Superhuman'.

I will leave you to draw your own conclusions as to which of these two individuals has left an 'evil legacy' in their wake but the fact remains that those on the right of politics are frightened by Ed Miliband. The man is uniting the left and the polls indicate that voters are impressed with his no nonsense approach to politics. New Labour is dead and Great Britain as a whole is far better for it.

The true 'fairness' of the Co-alition's cuts.

A North-South divide exists in Britain today as it always has done. Many would argue that since the days of Thatcher, the gap has narrowed somewhat in terms of investment and improving infrastructure in Northern cities. I never expected much from the current occupants of Downing Street, but even I failed to predict just how blatent the government would be with its policy of biased cuts. In reality, the Conservatives are punishing the Labour heartlands in the best way they know how - by cutting off the funding to some of the poorest people in the entire country and squeezing the Red Councils until the pip squeaks. What better way to let the North know that the Tories are well and truly back in power.

Below is a list of the 20 lowest hit area's in the Governments latest round of cutbacks:


20 Least affected councils
Thurrock 10.1
Derbyshire 10
Richmond upon Thames 9.9
Worcestershire 9.9
Somerset 9.6
Devon 9.5
Staffordshire 9.4
Kent 9.4
Wokingham 9.3
Hampshire 8.8
East Sussex 8.6
Warwickshire 8.2
Cumbria 8.1
Essex 8
Buckinghamshire 8
West Sussex 7.8
Norfolk 7.4
Surrey 6.3
Dorset 4
Isles of Scilly 0.6

As you can see, the vast majority of the 20 least affected are affluent Southern shires. "Fairness!" comes the cry from Cameron,"we're all in this together". How can it possibly be construed fair to barely touch the budgets of some of the UK's richest areas whilst simultaniously dessimating those communities which rely most on their local government in everyday life? It is absolute nonsense to indicate that a cut of 20% won't necessarily lead to a loss of front line services. Common sense would indicate otherwise, and with tens of thousands of people being made redundant in the public sector as a direct consequence of these savage cut backs, how can Osbourne say with a straight face that the overarching reasons behind these cuts aren't politically motivated? How many people are losing their jobs in his own constituency I wonder? Well I can tell you that it's less than 1.

Below is a list of constituencies that were affected the most during the recent cut backs:


20 worst affected councils
Hartlepool 23.1
Liverpool 22.4
North East Lincolnshire 21.7
St Helens 21.7
South Tyneside 21.5
Blackburn with Darwen 21.3
Manchester 21
Doncaster 20.8
Knowsley 20.8
Redcar and Cleveland 20.6
Rochdale 20.5
Hackney 20.3
Stockton-on-Tees 20.2
Newham 20
Wirral 19.8
Tower Hamlets 19.7
Salford 19.6
Kingston upon Hull 19.6
Sheffield 19.6
Sunderland 19.5

The above figures highlight just how politically motivated these cuts are. Almost all of the top 20 are Labour seats, and 9 out of the 10 councils which make up the Greater Manchester authority have been forced to make cuts well above average. Strangely only Trafford Council, the single Conservative borough in Greater Manchester has been asked to make cuts below the national average. I shall leave you to make your own minds up about the reasons behind that decision.

I am not a naive man, cuts need to be made - that much is clear. However the scale and speed of these draconian policies hark back to the days of Thatcher herself! The North stews in a quagmire of fear, while middle England remain blissfully untouched. Certain members of the Tory front bench can't believe their luck. The economic climate left after the Global banking crisis means that never before have The Right had such a compelling excuse. "Look at what we inherited, the debt is far too high. Sadly we're going to have to make cuts but it's all Labours fault". Why dress it up? For a party who believes in small government, this is surely a perfect climate. Just cut whatever you want to and when the complaints inevitably come rolling in just point your finger squarely at the previous administration.

Right wingers like Eric Pickles, the human embodiment (both politically and physically) of a well-off fat cat, has been dreaming of this situation for years. Mr Pickles recently said: "By adopting an intelligent and fair approach to the way funding is allocated we have been able to ensure those parts of the country that are most reliant on central funding continue to get the lion's share of the taxpayers' money that is available. Funding fairness underpins this settlement.” He may need to check the definition of "fair" in the dictionary.

Now is the time when people need to voice their opinions and let those in power know that gambling with people's futures is unfair, unjust and ultimately unforgivable. Why should someone living on a Northern council estate be denied opportunities which those in Blue heartlands will have thrust upon them as a birth right? To put a new spin on an old Nye Bevin Quote "No society can legitimately call itself civilised if a child is denied basic opportunities because of a lack of means". I do not mean idly supporting people on benefits and those who scrounge their way through life, but I truly believe that every child should have access to a local well stocked library. That every person should have a leisure centre within their community and that the small issues which mean so much to so many should be dealt with quickly and efficiently by the very people we elect to help us in our hours of need. Don't let these things be taken away without a fight. If we stand together we can make a difference.

The Student Protest (1)

So David Cameron and his cronies have concluded that £9000 a year is the value of a degree in this country. This is despite the fact that even with a first class degree, there are no jobs available and no guarantee of employment for years to come.

In my opinion, it's unreasonable to enact a policy of cuts and underfunding making hundreds of thousands of people unemployed while simultaneously claiming that a degree is worth the extra cost because it makes you more employable. You can be as employable as you want but no vacancies means no money.

Tony Benn who once stated:

"The idea you tax people because you're educated is ludicrous. You tax people because you are rich. You see students give up three years of work, although they might be earning money on unskilled wages, and then they end up with a debt of £12,000 under the present system. Then they marry another student like I did so it's £25,000. Then you try and get a mortgage. So you start life with a debt of 70,000 quid, and every employer would love to employ someone with a debt of 70,000 quid because they won't cause them any trouble."

How true is that statement? Bear in mind that this quote was made before the Tories moved to the proposed system which would see the personal debt of each indiviual sky rocket to around £27,000 each! The actual scale of debt is mind-boggling, and yet we're supposed to accept this without any form of backlash because it's "fair". Fair for who is my question. Not one single member of the coalition's front bench has paid a penny for their university education. However I'm expected to pay £27,000 in the interests of fairness despite not having a wealthy family or any real prospects of walking into a lucrative position immediately after university.

There are many people who now believe the student protests which are taking place up and down the country should stop as the issue is unresolvable. I would ask people to look back at history. What position would the women of this country be in if Emmeline Pankhurst had given up once the government of the day had made it clear that women would not be given suffrage? Could Barrack Obama ever have become president if Martin Luther King Jr had given up in the face of so much fury in the 1960's? My point is that the only way that governments can ever be held to account is if you fight and fight again until your point is heard. The vast majority of people in this country don't agree with the plans of the coalition to fleece the youth of our society, and the government need to take account of that fact.



Nick Clegg once promised every student in Britain that a vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote against increased tuition fees. Yet now, for the promise of a ministerial car, he has sold out his own beliefs and the beliefs of all of his supporters. Don't believe me? Take a look yourself: in the latest YouGov poll, published on the 27th of January 2011, the Liberal Democrats scored a 12% approval rating - their lowest in over 40 years. Nick clegg's seat itself in the Sheffield Hallam constituancy has a huge student population. This is where we should be hitting them hard. Protests shouldn't be taking place in city centres, but outside MP's offices. Imagine the message it would send if every single day, Clegg and the other people who have betrayed their pledges (Vince Cable in particular) were disrupted in their way to work and on their way to Westminster. In my opinion, this is the way forward. Let's evolve these protests into a meaningful effort. This would also eradicate the "anarchist idiot" element from the groups, and in doing so get rid of the perception that we are just there to cause trouble. Come on people - let's keep the pressure on. You know that these increases are unfair. Now is the time to make your voices heard.

Thank you so much Mr Osbourne!

So, everything I predicted would happen under the Con-Dem government in previous posts has happened, and although i'm not usually one to say i told you so but in all fairness I REALLY REALLY TOLD YOU SO!!! To be fair i'm not claiming to be blessed with an innate knowledge of politics or with some kind of mystic meg-esque power of deduction. Instead what i have got in abundance is a background knowledge of what happens under a conservative government and a huge belief in the idiom "History always repeats itself".

Last week George Osbourne announced that he was going to do what was best for the country... sadly the gun jammed as he shoved it down his own throat and so we're stuck with his draconian policies. I honestly wouldn't mind the conservatives if they just came out and said what they meant rather than what they think they should be saying. For example when Osbourne says he feels the budget is fair what he actually means is "F*ck you, you northern working class pikey bastards, were in power now and for at least the next 5 years you sir are f*cked! MHA HA HA!" or something to that effect.

The Conservatives are trying to dress themselves up as a party who have been forced into making massive cuts against their will. Why? As conservatives surely their entire political philosophy is that small government is best and as such cuts are essential. The entire economic situation is George Osbourne's idea of a wet dream, the man can pretty much cut whatever he wants and as long as he talks about not wanting too do it and the fact that Labour have forced his hand he'll get away with it. Thatcher must be absolutely pissing herself. Which in all fairness is nothing to do with Osbourne's proposals and alot more to do with her age.

It really grates on me that Thatcher has lived to see her dream budget come to fruition, but i think after she made the seventh horcrux we all knew it'd happen. It must have been quite an election night at Tory HQ when David Cameron blasted threw a port key to be met by the sight of thatchers deformed figure sat in a huge couldron sorrounded on all sides by senior conservatives robed head to toe in black chanting wildy. Although that sounds like just another saturday night at Kerry Katona's place.

So what area's are going to be hit? Absolutely everything apparently. Over 700 school building and redevolment projects are going to be scrapped to save over £3 billion. Michael Gove the education secretary (fast becoming my favourite minister for cock-up's) had to issue no less than five copies of the same list detailing which schools would lose out and by how much due to inaccuracies on the first four. You would have thought that after getting it wrong the first time they would have run over it with a fine tooth comb but whatever. Anyway the fact is that these reckless cuts will lead to a 2 tier secondary education system where some schools have world leading facilities while other are forced to cope with outdated and impracticle buildings. This from a party who claimed in the election debates to be the party who would protect our education system. Of course one must refrain from making bold sweeping statement's but almost everything that was spouted by David Cameron in the run up to the general election has turned out to be lies and almost everything that people were warned about has come to fruition.

More budget blog's to follow in the next few days due to space constraints, keep a look out an keep reading people.

Yet another Israeli foreign policy nightmare!

There is a certain amount of apprehension that exists within the media when talking about the struggles between Israel and Palestine. An almost hushed up feeling that some news agencies maybe aren't reporting stories as critically as they would if it were Al-Qaeda and the like. This is due to a strange phenomena which frankly I don't understand. If the provisional IRA bombs a police station in Northern Ireland, then we would all rightly condemn them and their actions. The same can be said when the government of Robert Mugabe breaches human rights and rapes his own people of food and resources, but for some reason the mere mention of any form of condemnation of Israel and its foreign policy apparently surmounts to xenophiobia and anti-semetism. Rubbish! I have no problem with anyone from the jewish community and I certainly have no problem with anyone at all based on their race, religion, colour or creed. I have problems with people based on their actions and I truly feel that the actions of Israel this past week have been utterly deplorable.

The greatest quote I have heard on this subject was by the comedian Frankie Boyle who stated that:

"Israel are the South Africa your not allowed to hate" Frankie Boyle

Which although highly satirical, is also a pretty much true. If any other so-called civilized country committed the acts of aggression and violence which Israel continues to commit in Gaza and the West bank, then they would surely be vilified as a loose cannon rouge state whose mere existance threatens world peace. However, for reasons unbeknownst to me, time and time again countries are outraged for a couple of weeks and then... nothing. No sanctions, no tightening of security council resolutions, no hard hitting embargo's or weapons contracts pulled, nothing.

Anyway lets get to the facts, for the past three years Israel has enforced an illeagle blockade around Gaza. The World Bank has stated that 90% of water within Gaza is not fit for human consumption and that 70% of the population have to rely on charity for food supplies. Despite these shocking statistics Israel still bans shipments of vital aid supplies including food, clothing, medical supplies and building materials vital for the reconstruction of this desolate region.

Now i'm not naive enough to believe that the flotilla which set sail for Gaza thought it would get their unapposed, nor am i foolish enough to suggest that every volunteer on those boats were there with completely peaceful intentions but the fact remains that the ship was in international waters when attacked, over 100 miles from Israel itself. It was, in essence an act of piracy and despite what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says it was not in any way an act of self defence. In order for it to be self-defence then surely you need to be being attacked in the first place. At best it could be described as a pre-emptive strike but even this definition falls apart under mild scrutiny. The boat in question revieved no warnings, no messages to cease and desist or to alter its course, instead it was quickly and aggressively sorrounded and then boarded by helicopter commando's.

The next actions of the night are alot less clear, some reports suggest that the Israeli commando's fired upon the volunteers whilst still descending from the helicopters. Other reports suggest that the commando's were attacked the second they landed on the vessel. Which story is true? It's impossible to say with the small amount of evidence available at the moment, and in truth a part of me thinks that we'll probably never find out the whole truth but the fact remains that the actions of Israel are not in keeping with those of a "civilised" westernised, supposedly forward thinking country.

If Britain or America or Germany chose a course of action which resulted in the deaths of 10 civilians who were not breaking the law and were in international territory i would expect,and also support the strongest possible actions to be taken against the guilty party and that is all i am asking for here. I dont critisise Israel for its religion or beliefs i criticise Israel for its apparent nonchalant approach to the sanctity of human life. We musn't forget that governments are elected in order to make the decisions for which an entire country will be judged, and judged it will be on how a group of 700 protesters were sorrounded descended upon and then shot at whilst breaking no laws and while in waters protected under international law. Admittidely there is fault on both sides but there must be a point where we ask ourselves whether Israel's worst enemy is the Arab powers of Iran and the like, or its own foreign policy. Time will tell.

Theresa May the champion of equal rights? Not likely.

So one of David Camerons first acts as Prime Minister was to announce the appointment of Theresa May to the position of Home Secretary AND Minister for Women and Equality. May is of course vastly qualified for the latter of the roles, what with her being one of the rare female ministers within the Con-Dem government but the problem occurs over her secondary role as minister for equality. Whilst in opposition this woman has shown time and time again that she is massively against homosexuality.

Her voting record speaks for itself. She voted against repealing section 28 of the Local Governement act of 1988 which was a dickensian law designed to make it so that any mention of homosexuality in the classroom must be done in a way which made out that being gay was wrong. "Section 28 thus prohibited local councils from distributing any material, whether plays, leaflets, books, etc, that portrayed gay relationships as anything other than abnormal" Although May wasn't the only tory who voted against appealing this outdated legislation, in fact David Cameron went as far as to accuse Tony Blair being "Anti-family" and of "Wanting the promotion of homosexuality in schools." In fact the problem of whether to reppeal this law split the conservatives so much that the then leader William Hague even sacked his own front bencher Shaun Woodwood for refusing to vote with the party. Well known gay Conservative MP Ivan Massow even defected to Labour in responce to his parties continued support of section 28. Not the tories finest hour.

Anyway i digress, Theresa May's voting record speaks for itself. She voted against giving gay couples the right to adopt, along with voting against lowering the age of consent for gay couples to the same age at heterosexual couples and finally she voted against the human embyology and fertilisation bill which would have given lesbian couples the right to have IVF treatment.

Giving Theresa May the job of equalities minister is like making Enoch Powell your Minister for Immigration. In essence its a joke and i wander how long it will be before the homophobic principles of the Conservatives come to the fore again. Ironically shes replacing Chris "Hotel owners should be able to turn away gays in the feel like it" Grayling. New Politics? I doubt it.

The Fallacy of the Tory Tax "breaks"

So, how much is the sanctity of marriage actually worth then? Well about three pounds a week is the answer from the Conservatives.

Apparently, what's wrong with this great country of ours isn't the economy or crime or even the corruption within some political circles; it's the fact that not as many people are walking down the aisle nowadays. So obviously the best thing to do is to bribe people on low incomes into tying the knot by offering them a miniscule tax break. Of course we're supposed to skirt around the fact that the average wedding costs roughly £20,000. So in just over 130 years those generous Tories will have paid for you're wedding. When Ken Clarke recently described the proposal as "modest" in an interview with a campaign show on the BBC news channel, he wasn't joking was he?

Ahh but wait, there's a catch. Just because you're married doesn't mean you automatically qualify. In fact the vast majority of couples won't qualify at all. The first stipulation is that if you're earning more than £44,000 as a couple, then you're out. Oh yeah, and also if you're both working then you're out aswell as only one of you can be employed - talk about a tax on jobs! This tax is in essence a joke, more than two thirds of married couples will see no benefit at all and even the ones that do will basically be earning an amount so insignificant that it wont be any help to anyone.

These proposals have been touted by the Conservatives as "fundemental to David Cameron's philisophy for mending a broken society" (The Telegraph, 10/04/10). Well Dave, if that really is your answer to the problem then what do you think the question is? I mean how out of touch do you need to be to think that a young couple, who are struggling for money with bills waiting, will solve all their problems by spending a large amount of money on a wedding which they can't afford, all to claim their reward of three pounds a week.

Cameron has spent his entire political career trying to prove that he's not some rich, "out of touch" ponce with his head in the clouds. So far however, his policies seem to reflect exactly that. I mean the only clear cut policies you can pin him down on is that we will see a return for the fox hunters, and the 3000 richest estates in Britain will be given a generous tax cut in the form of the Tories new inheritance tax proposals. He couldn't act more upper class if he rode into Westminster on a horse, surrounded by mounted gentry screaming "Tally-ho chaps, let's get those rotters, pip pip!".

Is this the man people of this country trust to lead us through the most difficult economic downturn since the 1930's? If so, then will the last person to leave Britain please turn the lights off on their way out, thanks.