Picture Perfect

The houses of parliament.
What a shambles!

Personally, I fully support the Raving Loony Party's decision to rename the "house of lords" the "house of cards" so that they're easier for the government to deal with.

Today, we will be taking a look into a typical meeting of the houses of parliament, more specifically, the little ritual which is called the "Prime Minister's Question Time." This, of course, will be confusing to anyone who doesn't live in the UK and therefore know what this is. In a sentence, it's people who dislike each other very much being very polite to each other when asking critical questions. A typical scene has been recorded by the DJ Broadcasting Company, availible in several parts. Transcript by me.

--------------------
File one
[A Scot, the chairman of the house speaks first] *gavel is banged* "First Mister Speeker!"
T.Blair: "Thank you mister chairman. I will be addressing parliament today and will have other such meetings, later on today" (or something to this effect).

Chairman: William Gladop! *hisses*
Gladop: "Mr speaker, in my constituency, there has been several outbreaks of violence due to racial tensions, and yet there is not enough funding assigned to my constituency to assign more policemen to it."

Blair: "Statistically speaking, we have increased policemen by 30% in your constituency in the past 6 months, and have plans to raise that number by 65% more if we get re-elected" *cheers*

File two
chairman: Next mister speaker, Charles Dangerby! *cheers*
Dangerby: "I thank you all for your welcoming attitudes. Is The Right Honourable Prime Minister, Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, aware that in my constituency, the superbug infesting hospitals has blown into an epidemic? What does the Prime Minister propose to do about the lack of funding for the NHS?" *cheers*

Blair: Statistically speaking, it isn't *noise* an eppidemic until it has covered a greater proportion of heads-to-landmass than it has done within your own constituency!

Last Filequestionsc.wav
Dangerby: The Right Honourable Prime Minister hasn't answered my question! *cheers*
I will ask it again: What improvements are you making in reference to funding in my constituency?

Blair: Statistically, the labour party has assigned several more thousand pounds to your constituency than the last Tory government! *hisses*

Dangerby: Does the Right Honourable Prime Minister not share my consternation that the last funding given to my constituency was to repair the footpath *cheers* outside the Right Honourable Prime Ministers Right Honourable Friend,*more cheers* *more cheers* the Right Honourable Deputy Prime Minister? *cheers*

Blair: He could have tripped! *laughter*

*ORDER! ORDER!*
-------------------------------

Bunch of clowns.
Ironically, when I was viewing the archive of the Prime Minister's questions time and actually tried to play it, an error message popped up which said: "Catastophic failure."

I kid you not.
This is, no doubt, an apt comment by the little grey pop-up, on the entire organisation of our government.

So politics has taken over my blog, the radios, TV, billboards, and my orange juice carton. As the electorial committee say, "If you don't do politics, there's not much you do do" (which americans should find hillarious).

Anyway, As you cannot fail to realise, I am fully behind the blues. The reds have been very bad. very, very bad people. I'm sure we all recognise this.

As soon as Blair says "I will do....." I think to myself, "but you haven't have you, you lying scumbag! In fact, you haven't much positive things to show for the past 8 years" - Tony Blair, no doubt, has been on the forefront of British and international politics - and leading us to decline.

Here, Sir Lord DJ Esquire, the political home correspondant for DJ broadcastings, asks Tony Blair some vital qusetions. As always, to hear it, press the link before each paragraph:

File one
It's a pleasure to meet you again Prime Minister.
-- Statistically speaking, more people are pleased to see me, than an ape bearing it's teeth.

Thats...interesting.
-- Yes. I rather think so myself.

I was actually hoping to ask you some questions about some of your policies...
-- I will be glad to answer anything you pose to me.

Thank you. Many Britons are worried about environmental issues within Britain. You claim you wish to reduce pollution to pre-1994 levels by 2010, but why hasn't the labour party been doing anything up until now, about it?
-- The New Labour party has been involved in anti-pollution measures for the past 8 years.


File two
Aha, well, the statistics I have here say--
--STATISTICALLY speaking, Labour have improved leaf quality on several thousand trees throughout the UK, have given a new lease of life to various species of grasses, and have created safe havens for house flies everywhere.

Isn't the house fly....common? Does it really need conservation?
-- Talking of conservation, the Conservative party will not dedicate themselves to the conservation of the Womble fruit bat!

Does that even exist?
-- Ohh...it exists...it exists...as do the weapons of mass destruction.

File three
Ahh.....right...that's another issue I was hoping to bring up. Many people have lost faith in the Labour party due to the Iraq war, and how it was presented to the public. How is labour coping with this?
-- The polls say we're winning. Statistically speaking.

Ok. Back to the environment, I would like to know what methods of pollution-free energy sources Labour backs.
-- Farms.

Farms?
-- Yes. Farms. Farms and farms of windmills...some people think they're noisy, but statistically speaking, they are less noisy than ever before.

Are they noisy?
-- No. Yes. Well. Maybe just a little.

File four
Aha, I see. The UKIP are considering nuclear power. Is this a viable alternative to noisy mills?
-- The Labour party will have nothing to do with nuclear power! We entered Iraq to save the world from Saddam's nuclear power, and we shall not stand for it in our own backyard!

Thank you. That's all for today. This is Sir Lord DJ Esquire, reporting for DJ Broadcasts, at 10 Downing Street. Good afternoon.
---------------------

The question to ask now, my dear children, friends, accomplacies in the bank heist we did the other day, random web viewers, and other estranged people living in remote areas of the world (like Scotland) is, do we really want this maniac in power with his clowning around party for another 4 or 5 years? No sir. No sir we do not.

So I'm deciding on a new design.
Bear with me.

The above will be my new logo!! :-) It has replace the "My life on the edge" title text which was above.

My blog is currently looking very effeminate. This is because this was the only colours I could get, for now. Further editing of the CSS should render the blues slightly bluer, and therefore more inline with the initial statement I was making: blue is the colour of the Conservatives, and therefore my blog.

I have had a long political diatribe with Ant D. This means that if you're uninterested in UK politics, or are actually trying to avoid being depressed, look away now!

Here are a few arguments which I feel are misunderstood, and thus I put them here for ellucidation.

They are thus, in order:

Home policies
£35 billion cuts
Income Tax, Council Tax
Taxes under Labour
NHS under Conservatives
Immigration laws

World
World Poverty


The Euro
The European Constitution

£35 billion cuts
No, this does not mean that Conservative will cut service spending by £35 billion, as the run-of-the-mill labour supporter will have everyone believe, and as they, no doubt, believe themselves.

This misundrestood issue means the following:
Conservatives, if elected, will increase spending on services, but at a rate of £35 billion less than a labour gov't.

The remaining £35 billion will be used as tax breaks.

This means Britons will receive the rewards of the current (sordid) public services, with improvements, AND get tax breaks too. This is surely a win-win situation.
Labour will, of course, continue to increase taxes to subsidise any improvements which will be vastly overpaid for, and take far too long to actually complete.

Income Tax and Council Tax

Council Tax
The Lib Dems call for a local income tax to replace this. This is good for anyone who doesn't employ anyone else.
The Greens call for a reformation of the Council Tax. Note, that Lib Dems also support a 50% increase in taxes for high earners (£100,000+).

The Raving Loony Party, in all their wisdom, have the following to say about Income Tax, and I agree entirely with them:

Our team of experts has decided that Income Tax has not proved popular with the public and will therefore be abolished. It was [originally] started in order to finance the Napoleonic war in 1799 and we now believe that the time is right to announce the cessation of hostilities with Napoleon.

Taxes under Labour

The labour government like statistics. They will quote you statistics for all sorts of things. I believe entirely in their capacity to quote you statistics that the majority of the time when the sun is risen, it is night, and when the moon is up, statistically, it is day.

Any labour supporter will tell you that Labour have decreased tax, certainly not risen it, over the past 8 years. This is not entirely true. Whilst tax directly payable to the gov't has been decreased or unchanged, they have introduced what is known as "strealth tax." This means they have increased other taxes payable to the government, in order to fund those other decreases in tax, and to raise more tax. In actual terms, the money imparted by the average Brit to the government has increased, not decreased.

Remember Conservatives are using £35 billion for tax decreases... ;-)

NHS under Conservtives

The Conservatives will give 50% of an NHS operation to those who wish to go private for that same operation. This is actually a good policy, considering the double standards of the NHS. Typically, a patient going private will receive better dental and general health care, than someone undergoing the same treatment on the NHS.

Whilst I personally thinkg either the NHS should be abolished entirely (not ideal) or going private should be abolished entirely (ideal) to cut down on this blatant unfairness and double-standards, this is a nice step to more affordable privitisation for those who wish it, but can't shoulder all the costs.

Of course, going private means no long waiting lists: another bonus in addition to actual good health care.

Britain is currently the 5th best nation to receive health care from. This is a travesty - we are underneath Spain! Spain, of all people! Britain should be second only to the USA.

Open question to you: Is the NHS viable, or is it a failure, waiting to happen? Note also the superbug.

Immigration laws

Labour have promised to decrease the numbers of assylum seekers to Britain. They have not committed to a number. Note that Assylum seekers are no longer choosing Britain as their preffered choice of country anymore. It's too rubbish for them now. Instead, they prefer the USA and France, who both have higher standards of living than the UK (The Times Group paper).

Conservatives, hailed as racist by some, fascist by others, have said that they would decrease immigration to Britain. I believe this will affect one UN law (Britain being a founding member of the UN, I doubt anyone will mind, with the possible exception of the USA - but then again, the USA do owe us a favour or ten for the middle east wars. Good thing we're allies, eh. The worst thing that will happen is that there will be general political mutterings against the UK for a day or so).

Limiting immigration is not racist. It is a case of numbers and ratios. Britain can't keep up quality services with the amount of immigrants present, and predicted for the next few years. The NHS is under obvious strain.

Howards has nothing against anyone from any other country, proof of which being his parent's were immigrants themselves (although when his parents came to the UK, they had to sit a written English exam to prove they could communicate in English sufficiently, and had no state-aided funds - funds are currently awarded to immigrants, as is housing, and the English test is no longer a requirement. They also no longer have to prove they can get a job or place to live - the state will give them a house, and give them money if they're not employed).

Everything described in the brackets above has become a severe strain on the resources of the UK. Other issues include the free NHS service. The effect is that we are now short of housing to give people, the NHS waiting list is longer, quality of service is therefore undermined to shorten the lists, and Britain, in general, is being exploited by people. I do not attack or blame anyone for doing so: good for them. If I were in an immigrant's position, i'd do exactly the same thing: exploit the British government and the British people for my own ends.

It is up to the British to close any gaps and exploitation holes which are there, if not, they will be exploited to our detrament.

Again, this has nothing to do with race, but is simply reducing the numbers of people who receive these benefits, as we can no longer afford to give them away at the current rate at which we are doing now.

I would personally give priority of NHS and council housing and any other benefits to Britain citizens (of course, people come especially to Britain for free medical checks under the NHS rather than paying for it elsewhere). I would also like to see a party who would re-introduce English - the official language - as a requirement for immigration.

I would like to see proof of employment oppertunities, and I would like to see the abolition of re-training schemes (for the present) for skilled immigrants who come to England (currently, a doctor trained in, say, Lebanon, will have to re-train in England if s/he wishes to continue to practise. I believe this is an insane measure to keep, when their health service although well below our own, is only so due to lack of resources and not medical technique. This would give a healthy influx of doctors to the NHS).

One more thing on this.
BNP support is growing, especially in the north. One major reason is due to immigration.

It is high time the mainstream parties stop avoiding the question of immigration, as by doing so they are driving more support to extremists who will answer the question, but in a harsh manner no one cares to see.
I am glad the Conservatives have taken the mature step to committing to answer this question, before racism increases to uncontrolable levels in this country, and racial tensions increasing due to "those immigrants taking my housing and job."

The conservatives aren't racist. They are, if anything, preventing real racism.

Summary of my view (just so i dont get any comments along the lines of "you racist bastard!" :-( )
Britain is not equipped to deal with immigration at it's current level. Until such a time they are, it should be cut to more realistic levels.

UKIP Similar views to the Conservatives.
Lib Dems Would issue a quota on non-EU immigrants (meaning someone can apply for EU citizenship in, say, Turkey, then come to England as a Turkish citizen and THEN exploit the free-ness of the system. All it means is one more stop. Unless they are from Turkey anyway).
--------------------

World Poverty

Labour believe that the UK should cancel debts from the poorer countries, owing to England.

The Conservatives support this take in principal. They emphasise free-trade and a reduction in global poverty, however.

The LibDems' have a policy of 'A World Free From Poverty' (not mentioned on their manifesto). They support the issue, no doubt.

UKIP remain silent. The UKIP has fascist links. In line with slightly fascist views, I conjecture that they would not cancel the debts, or would cancel some but not all debt, or decrease or suspend interest rates on the debts.
Whatever they'd do, I think they'd want some if not all the cash.

Greens support debt cancellation.
-----------------------------------------------
The Euro: Should Britain take it?
I am personally a firm supported of the Monster Raving Loony take on this issue. They propose to, and I quote from their manifesto located on their official website: "we will invite other European nations to adopt the pound."

Sheer genius from Alan "Howling Laud" Hope.

Failing this, here are the issues surrounding this now-little referred to policy:

The consultancy KPMG put the total cost of conversion at £51 billion, based on responses from 300 firms that estimate the cost to them of £30 million each. Incidentally, the House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee (which has a Labour Majority) attacked the government for ignoring the issue of euro transitional costs.

Retail costs for making the changeover to the euro at around 2.5% of turnover, with smaller firms suffering disproportionately high costs. Naturally, all these costs - and other inconveniences - will be borne by consumers (Source: British Retail Consortium evidence to the parliamentary Trade and Industry committee of MPs, 25 July 2000. If you don't know what that means, I assure you it is a very good source.)

Euro economic failings

The Euro's main objective, freely admitted by its key architects, is a political one - the further integration of the EU into a federal state (Former Bank of England Governor Eddie George, speaking at the British-Swiss Chamber of Commerce in Basel, Switzerland, 12 September 2000).

This basically means that the Euro is by no means a well-though out economic theory which will benefit Europeans. It is a project which will be pressed on with, regardless of the economic suggestions of it on millions of Europeans, to "integrate Europe further." This means no one gives a toss about anyone's economic stability once they've joined the Euro, they will keep with it to make a "united states of europe" (similar comments were made by The Economist, 24 January 1998).

Summary of Euro
Ok. So. The Euro will have inverse economic effects on us, will cost a bomb to use anyway, and once joined up, no one care much about our local situation - as long as it doesn't effect them too much.

This means that the massive economies of France (largest European landmass, incidentally) and Germany, whom are currently engaged in a fierce battle for superiority, would usurp the British trade and therefore economy, making Britain's economy subversive to their own, thereby limiting the actual turnover made by Britain, thereby having inverse economic effects on us, the consumers. That basically means our money will buy less, we'll have less of it, and we'll therefore be poorer. Why would anyone in their right minds commit to this?! I fail to see how the advantages of "european integration" outweighs the economic implications...
Labour: Will change to the Euro when the opinion polls change in their favour (74% of all commerce in Britain currently are against the euro).
Conservative&UKIP: Will join when hell freezes over.
Lib Dems: Firm supporters of the Euro.

Further reading
More information at: http://www.eurofaq.freeuk.com/eurofaq2.html#Q21.4 <-- very good informative site with brilliant sources. Much but not all information displayed here was nicked indirectly or directly from there. A must see site.
--------------------------------------------

European Constitution

--The EC attempts to join the European nations into something like a Federal state. This means all EU directives, laws, opinions, and anything with a stamp saying "EU" on it, will over-ride any national parliament. The EC is strictly undemocratic, and is more of a totalitarian "Federal state."

This is because, aside from there being no actual european people, the president of the EU will not be elected by the people of europe, and once appointed, the president will stay there until his death, assasination or deposition. It will be a permanent job. Same applies to the EU Foreign minister.

--The suspension of British membership as a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council, should the EU require it - loose terms. This means Britain may be suspended at any given time, for whatever reason, as long as the majority of EU leaders support it. That basically means Germany and France.

--The creation of an open-ended "division of powers" meaning that, in many areas, EU member states will only be able to act if the EU has chosen not to. Britain will able to legislate in the fields of agriculture, fishing, justice, transport, energy, social policy and the environment only if the EU choses "not to exercise its competence."

--Article I-10 gives the constitution and EU law "primacy over the law of member states."
Confirmation that all Britons (and nationals of other EU states) are citizens of the EU. (The duties of citizens are not defined.)

Doesn't look to good does it? It isn't.

Oh. By the way. Only 27 of the 275 proposed British amendments to the Constitution were accepted, despite Tony Bliar's claim that "We, the British, have won everything we've wanted" (Statement to House of Commons, 21st June 2004).

Further reading:
http://www.eurofaq.freeuk.com/constitution/constitution_frame.html

The Constitution, you will discover, can take away Britain's North Sea oil reserves, levy taxes, take into control our rates, etc. etc. etc.

Britain has been screwed over by the EU for so long, it's incredible we're still in it. When Thatcher agreed to be in the EU, it was presented as a Free Trade thing only. It's grown a lot since then. Britain invests millions in the EU (the most famous is Britain's payment to the French farmers along the west of France, who can't produce enough crop to sell and actually make any money with it. Instead of packing up, or joining in conglomerates, we pay for their upkeep. I also have a nagging suspicion that Britain receives the lowest-possible grade of food under EU directives. Go to France for a day and try their grapes, cheese, tomatoes, or any other product. Then come back to England and taste the difference. There's no way to actually prove this, but...I invite everyone, next time they're on holiday, to try it ;-)

Summary
Britain will own nothing which it currently owns - we're talking about assets here, such as oil.
Anything Britain wants to do within it's own borders, will first have to be run through the EU to ensure it doesn't contravene any EU laws. Britain is only allowed to make laws if the EU chooses it doesn't want to make laws for us. This means Britain looses all democracy, as the national, people-elected gov't is over-ridden by the non elected president and ministers of the EU. Oh. And all documentation as to the economics goings-on of Europe are not viewable to anyone. I wonder why.

The Euro and EC means Britain will have ceased to exist as a separate territory. This basically means Britain will be under "domination" of the strongest economic power in europe (Germany, I believe. Although France is pretty nifty. Do you really want to be ruled by the Germans and French in your own country? Not I).

Labour and the LibDems: Heavy support for the EC.
Tories, Greens and UKIP : Will join when the armageddom comes. Bit late then of course...

And so there has been a great increase in Conservative support. In my wide campaign, spanning all England, people will tell you again and again, to vote conservative.

In Leicester, they sound a bit like this and like this.

(Isn't she posh? Uh huh. This is what she really sounds like :p)

In the London area, the voices of the local populance can be heard to be saying this

And not just in England! Oh no. Worldwide, people will tell you "vote conservative for a better, brighter future" such as this Canadian lady united.wav href="http://pictureperfect.blogspirit.com/files/votec2.wav"/>here.

More importantly, unlike labour and lib dems, the voices of the Conservatives are united in their plea:
VOTE CONSERVATIVE!