Sunday 30 April 2017

Conservative Chaos

At the last election David (I wont resign) Cameron mentioned this time and time again....
"Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband" 

He was duly voted in having mislead the British Public about the Global banking crash and many other things. But that is the form these days lie and mislead to get in power at all costs.
Lets have a look at the years following the 2015 election...
So where is the Tories history of Stability?

Where is the history of strong government?

With U Turn after U Turn, failed promises, misleading statements. There is certainly no stability or strength.

May is yet again regurgitating a similar line ...
Your choice at this election: strong, stable leadership in the national interest or a coalition of  with Jeremy Corbyn. (Baring in mind that both Labour and the Lib Dems have stated that there will be no coalition.)

The problem with the statement is it is incongruent with their actions.

May called an election after saying many times that it wasn't in the interests of the UK. She is refusing to engage in TV debates, avoiding contact with voters with staged meetings with only the Tory faithful invited and visits to Companies where the workers have all gone home.

 This isn't someone who's strong, and calling an election after saying it wasn't in the interests of Britain is certainly not stable.

 So do we have stability under the Tories ... NO
Do we have strength under the Tories ....NO

 Please explain to me how someone who cannot work without a script is supposed to negotiate trade deals with world leaders.

 The one thing Tories are good at is belittling statements and misleading information. 

 What we really have experienced since 2010 is Conservative Chaos.  There is no other way to describe it.

Conservative Chaos



Links

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday 27 April 2017

The Next Prime Minister?


                                                   

Most political polls are a sample of 1-2,000 people and much faith is placed in them, click the link above to find out who's in the lead.

The poll above is currently on over 39,141 people ~ 08/06/17 ~

Theresa May  8.86%  (3,466 votes)
The poll above is currently on over 39,102 people ~ 31/05/17
The poll above is currently on over 39,076 people ~ 21/05/17
The poll above is currently on over 39,029 people ~ 15/05/17
The poll above is currently on over 39,013 people ~ 10/05/17
The poll above is currently on over 38,880 people ~ 04/05/17
The poll above is currently on over 37,343 people ~ 01/05/17
The poll above is currently on over 35,340 people ~ 29/04/17
The poll above is currently on over 35,011 people ~ 27/04/17


Yougov latest polling

 












LINKS

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday 24 April 2017

So What are Labours's Policies




Labours's Policies for June election 2017


Secure our NHS and social care
“We will end health service privatisation and bring services into a secure, publicly-provided NHS. We will integrate the NHS and social care for older and disabled people, funding dignity across the board and ensure parity for mental health services.” Jeremy Corbyn’s vision for the NHS will reverse the marketisation of health, integrate social care and improve staff morale to build a high quality, public and universal NHS free at the point of delivery. 


 A secure homes guarantee
“We will build a million new homes in five years, with at least half a million council homes, through our public investment strategy. We will end insecurity for private renters by introducing rent controls, secure tenancies and a charter of private tenants’ rights, and increase access to affordable home ownership” Jeremy Corbyn’s bold plans for tackling the country’s housing crisis include investment in council housing with a focus on private sector rent regulation and strengthening tenants’ rights with a key assurance to support homes for vulnerable people and disabled people. 


Energy and Environment policy launch
Jeremy Corbyn has today announced the boldest environmental policy of any major party in British history: 
“We will act to protect the future of our planet, with social justice at the heart of our environment policies. We will create a low-carbon economy, using our National Investment Bank. And we will deliver an energy policy for the 60 million, not the Big 6 energy companies, championing community-owned renewable energy.”
  • Ban fracking.
  • Introduce new college programmes and quality apprenticeships.
  • Create over 300,000 renewable energy jobs.
  • Stop the planning system being rigged in the interests of developers.
  • Build 1 million new carbon neutral homes – including half a million council houses.
  • Banning the use of neonicotinoid pesticides which harm pollinating insects including bees.
The Full Policy PDF


Transport policy launch
Britain’s public transport system is becoming a national embarrassment. Our railway network is now the most expensive in Europe – whilst taxpayers and passengers get a bad deal. Our bus services are facing cuts which threaten to leave low income and rural communities cut off, with too little local democratic municipal control. 
Whether it’s buses or trains, the issue is the same. Transport is something which should be run as a public service for everyone’s benefit. Instead, we’re spending millions every year subsidising the profits of private companies, whilst all too often passengers are left frustrated as their local services are removed or not properly funded, fares keep going up, and staffing levels are cut. 

Equality for women
“We will never be a successful society in which everybody is able to achieve their potential until we have full equality for women. We will take action to remove the barriers in our society to women achieving full equality. We will tackle discrimination, sexism and violence against women and girls. We will not transform society overnight but working together we can take us further along the path to an equal society for all”. 
The next Labour government, under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, will take decisive action against sexism, discrimination and violence against women and girls. 

Arts policy launch
Over the past six years, £42.8m has been cut from Britain’s Arts Councils. Cuts to local government have meant library closures and cuts to opportunities. And for many people, work is increasingly precarious and consuming, with a lack of childcare provision and rising fees and barriers to education and training.   
Under a Jeremy Corbyn led Labour government, that will change. Austerity is a political choice, not an economic necessity – and for every pound invested in the arts, £1.06 is generated for the economy.  
At the heart of our plan to rebuild and transform Britain, we place a vision for a well-funded, independent, dynamic arts sector. 

Digital democracy manifesto
Technological advancements have transformed our daily lives, and politics is changing too. The issues may not change that much – people want decent housing and decent jobs, they want access to education and opportunity, they want thriving public services and a society which works for the millions not just the millionaires. But the terrain on which opinions are formed is changing. 
With rapid advances in digital technology, data and information can become sources of inequality and exploitation as well as. This digital manifesto is about ensuring that our advances are shared, utilised and enjoyed by everyone, as part of a wider strategy to rebuild and transform Britain so that no one and no community is left behind. 


Posted by at No comments:

Sunday 23 April 2017

Corbyn Vows to make St George's Day a bank holiday




Jeremy Corbyn is to unveil plans to create four new bank holidays to celebrate the patron saints of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

 Ill vote for that!
LINKS
General election 2017: Labour wants four new bank holidays
Jeremy Corbyn celebrates St George's Day by vowing to create four new bank holidays
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday 22 April 2017

The Conservatives increase debt more than Labour

Do the Conservatives increase debt more than Labour?

Its always drummed into us that Labour increases Debt, Labour cant be trusted with finances, Labour will Spend Spend Spend.  Well I did some calculations and came out of it a little surprised. Its not true at all and since 1900 the Conservatives have increased the UK Debt by more than Labour each time they were in power.

The figures speak for themselves and make a mockery of the Tory claim that Labour always spends more.

So if anyone wants to challenge my figures please go ahead.


Year Public Net Debt-total £ billion                                              Deficit (Billion)
1970        33.08 Heath                                                                           -3.93  (negative is a surplus)
1971        33.44                                                                                      -3.86
1972        35.84                                                                                      -2.75
1973        36.88                                                                                      -1.63
1974        40.46                                                                                      -0.88
1975        52.10                         increase of 19.02 Billion 57.4%           0.14
1976        64.70 Callaghan                                                                    0.90
1977        73.60                                                                                       0.57
1978        79.50                         Increase of 14.8 Billion 22%.8             1.18
1979        88.60 Thatcher                                                                      3.48
1980        98.20                                                                                       2.78
1981        113.80                                                                                     5.73
1982        125.20                                                                                     1.86
1983        132.50                                                                                     2.41
1984        143.60                                                                                     4.22
1985        157.00                                                                                     5.22
1986        162.50                                                                                     2.69
1987        167.80                                                                                     3.57
1988        167.40 0.20
1989        153.70                        Increase of 65.1 Billion 73.4%           -9.81
1990        151.90 Major                                                                        -9.60
1991        151.10                                                                                    -4.02
1992        165.80                                                                                     9.57
1993        201.90                                                                                     33.07
1994        249.80                                                                                     39.62
1995        290.00                                                                                     31.54
1996        322.10                        Increase of 170 Billion 111.9%           22.74
1997 347.00 Blair                                                                           20.07
1998        358.60                                                                                     2.64
1999        357.80                                                                                    -8.85
2000 345.40                                                                                    -20.15
2001        316.70                                                                                    -25.32
2002        323.10                                                                                    -12.02
2003        356.20                                                                                     11.30
2004 391.00                                                                                     14.99
2005        446.50                                                                                     17.27
2006        487.20                          Increase of 140.2 Billion 40.4%        11.85
2007        523.60 Brown                                                                          7.00
2008        557.20                                                                                      9.00
2009        767.10                          Increase of 243.5 billion 46.5%         60.05
2010        1010.60 Cameron                                                                  100.46
2011 1156.00                                                                                    90.74
2012        1251.40                                                                                    80.32
2013        1362.70                                                                                    80.97
2014        1465.60                                                                                    66.97
2015 1554.00                         Increase of 544 billion 53.8%           53.26
2016        1605.90 May                                                                           37.77
2017        1730.00                                                                                    6.42
2018        1783.50                         Increase of 177.6 billion 11%           -0.83
                                                      (Since 2010 772.9b 76.5%)


Since 1976 labour has increased the UK debt by 398 billion

Since 2010 the Tories have increase the UK debt by 669 billion upto the start of 2017

Since 1970 the Tories have increased the UK debt by 923 billion upto the start of 2017

So how are Labour the ones that cant run the finances??

Since 1900 when Labour was established to 1980 the UK debt increased by 97 billion that was both Tory and Labour goverments.  So even if you add all of the Tory and Labour debt between 1900 and 1980 the debt that labour has added comes to 495 billion.

The Tories have added 669 billion in just 7 years ..... 174 billion more than all Labour governments combined.


Update 17/05/19
I added deficit figures and Its worth noting that the Tories have decreased the deficit from 100.46 billion in 2010 to a surplus of -0.83 in 2018. However it should also be noted that whilst they may have reduced the deficit by 100 billion they have increased debt by 772.9 billion.

Update 03/01/20
Its worth noting that in 1976 the UK had to go to the IMF for a bailout.

LINKS

 
 
 
Revisions
Updated 18/02/19 ~ Added figures for 2018
Updated 17/05/19 ~ Added deficit figures
Updated 22/03/22 ~ Added inews link

Note
Needs updating as missing Harold Wilson 1974-76
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday 16 April 2017

What is the historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died?


Ok so every Easter we get the same articles that provide no better information than has been trolled out before.

What is the historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died?


Lol this is written by a biblical scholar who has a vested interest in a Biblical Jesus being real. However none of what is written in this article proves the existence of a biblical Jesus and by that I mean the one that performed miracles. All the accounts in the bible are written by Disciples of the original, alleged disciples and many years after the death of the alleged Jesus. One is approx 400years after and one is a copy of another. So at best, in a court of law these accounts would be described as hearsay, as they are not 1st hand. This type of article kind of annoys me because they bring nothing new to the table and its almost as if someone is trying to convince themselves that what they are writing is correct.

There were indeed many scholars writing at the time Jesus is supposed to have lived. But Isn't it strange that after all those miracles Jesus suposedly performed all we have to rely on is a couple of scant mentions outside of the bible. You would have thought it would have been all over the front page of the Roman Times, the Aramesh Echo would be broadcasting it loud and clear. But no, absolutely none, not one mention, anywhere, of a Biblical Jesus Miracle. 

He's right to compare Jesus to King Arthur though, there's about as much evidence for both. There probably was a King Arthur just as there was a Jesus (think there's evidence for about 12 people called Jesus living at the same time) However King Arthur's tales have been blown out of proportion through the mists of time. Just as Jesus's, but the Church needed a figurehead to control the masses so that's what they perpetuated in the Bible. This is why there's no proof elsewhere.

The problem for religious scholars is they have to perpetuate the Jesus myth to perpetuate God. Jesus being the Son of God, if you have no son of god, and Jesus was just a bloke who pulled up a soapbox on speakers corner and got a bit popular, it kinda starts looking dodgy for the existence of God :-)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday 8 April 2017

Iraq's Oil and the War fought for it

Was the Iraq war about oil or Weapons of mass destruction?


We already know that the weapons of mass destruction didn't exist, several experts said they didn't exist and one lost his life in what could be said to be suspicious circumstances. The US and UK Governments said they acted on the best information they had at the time, but did they?

Its already been proven in the Chilcott inquiry that they didn't act on the best information and better decisions should have been made.  The main findings of the inquiry were published in Sir John Chilcotts public statement
  • The judgements about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction – WMD – were presented with a certainty that was not justified. 
  • Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were wholly inadequate. 
  • The Government failed to achieve its stated objectives.

So we come to the oil, at various points in the lead up to the war the governments and Oil companies stated that they were not interested in the oil at all .. no interest. Blair even said that if they wanted oil they could do a deal with Saddam.  All this was proven to be a pack of lies.

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq
"Plans to exploit Iraq's oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show."



One of the best sources of information as it provides actual released official documents is this one.
http://www.fuelonthefire.org
"The departure of the last U.S. troops from Iraq at the end of 2011 left a broken country and a host of unanswered questions. What was the war really about? Why and how did the occupation drag on for nearly nine years? And why did the troops have to leave? Now, in a gripping account of the war that dominated the last decade, investigative journalist Greg Muttitt takes us behind the scenes to answer these questions and tells the untold story of the oil politics that played out through the occupation."

Basically if you want proof that Oil was high on the list of priorities, this is it. There are many more links below. But this one has everything.

So Was It A War For Oil?
"I still get asked ´So was it a war for oil?´ I find it a surprising question, as it´s no secret that Iraq has nearly a tenth of the world´s remaining oil, nor that the Persian Gulf region as a whole has nearly a half (and at the time of the war it was more like two thirds). It´s only because of the insistence with which our politicians (Donald Trump aside) denied any role for oil that it became a question at all. And perhaps those very denials stimulated suspicions of a bigger conspiracy than it was."
  1. Oil company meetings with UK government, 2002-3
  2. British government strategy papers on Iraqi oil, 2003-4
  3. Jeremy Greenstock and lobbying for BP entry into Iraq, 2004
  4. BP contract for Rumaila field, 2009
  5. U.S. pre-war plans to privatize Iraq's oil, 2002-3

http://www.iraqicivilsociety.org/archives/1153
Today, ten years ago, a global demonstration took place in more than sixty countries around the world, involving millions, to protest against the upcoming war in Iraq. Refusing an illegal war of aggression, protesting against a war for oil, demonstrators firmly rejected the idea a people can be bombed into democracy. Today, ten years after, oil companies are making huge profits in Iraq. While labour rights are not recognised, and Saddam’s era anti-strike laws are still in force, foreign oil companies have signed 20-years contracts and are benefiting from this denial of the fundamental rights of Iraqi workers. Today, representatives of the Iraqi Civil Society Solidarity Initiative (ICSSI) from Italy, UK and France went to ENI, the Italian oil company, to deliver the following letter from Iraqi oil workers, which is also being sent to all foreign oil companies present in Iraq.


List of International Oil Companies in Iraqi Kurdistan Ive listed the main ones rest are on link
United Kingdom
Afren
Gulf Keystone Petroleum
Perenco
Sterling Energy
United States
Aspect Energy
Chevron
Hess
Hunt Petroleum
Murphy Oil Corporation
Canada
Groundstar Resources
Niko Resources
Shamaran Petroleum
Talisman Energy
Vast Exploration
WesternZagros
List of International Oil Companies in Iraq

Donald Trump made this comment in 2015


Donald Trump has/had interests in Oil ie. shares in companies it would be interesting to know what ones. Although it does depend where you look.

Trump sold all his stock holdings in June, spokesman claims
WASHINGTON – President-elect Donald Trump sold all of his stocks in June as he plunged into the costly general election campaign, his transition team abruptly announced Tuesday. His advisers provided no proof of the transactions and would not explain the apparent sell-off. 
The announcement comes amid swirling questions about potential conflicts of interest between Trump's expansive financial holdings and the decisions that will reach his desk as president. Some details of Trump's finances are unknown given that he never released his tax returns during the presidential campaign, breaking decades of precedent. 
On Tuesday, Trump said the government should cancel its multibillion-dollar order with Boeing for new Air Force One presidential planes. Asked on a conference call with reporters whether Trump had investments in Boeing, spokesman Jason Miller said the president-elect had sold all of his stocks in June. 
Trump's campaign did not announce the sell-off at the time, despite the fact that it could have been politically advantageous for the businessman to be seen taking steps to avoid potential conflicts of interest.

 My questions are

  1. If he did sell why not provide proof or has he just sold them to family if indeed they are sold.
  2. Why not release tax information like every other president has if you have nothing to hide?
  3. Trump capitalises on every possible thing, why not capitalise on the MAJOR fact that you've sold your shares?


I guess that's for another blog, does Trump have interests in Oil? and what are they?. May be a difficult one as hes certainly not very transparent. Something I find strange that Americans are not questioning. Its a bit like religion, blind faith. In my thinking there's a reason hes not being transparent and that's because hes hiding something.

My Opinion on Trump
More slippery than an eel in jelly and you cant trust what he says because he'll say the opposite the next day.



LINKS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry_in_Iraq
Posted by at No comments:

Friday 7 April 2017

Trumps Syria Attack ~ Loose Cannon?




"The US has carried out a missile strike against a Syrian air base in response to a suspected chemical weapons attack on a rebel-held town."
Is this more evidence that Trump is an accident waiting to happen?

Here are my thoughts as to why launching an attack without evidence is dangerous.
  1. "Response to a suspected chemical weapons attack"  We shouldn't be attacking when there is just a suspicion.
  2. It should be on evidence that is beyond all reasonable doubt not just suspected.
  3. Jihadis must be rubbing their hands in glee all they have to do is set off chemical attacks and Trump will launch missiles at Assad.
  4. It may have been a Assad chemical attack or it may have been a conventional bomb hitting a chemical store on the ground, no hard evidence has been released.
  5. We already got into a war in Iraq on false information that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which was proved to be incorrect.
  6. That war created a vacuum and spawned ISIL.
  7. Both wars have created refugees that have swamped Europe.
  8. Russian is in Syria backing Assad.
  9. Russia has a base in Syria, one of 10 outside Russia and it wants to keep it.
  10. USA has 38 bases world wide.
  11. USA Would like it if Russia didn't have a base in Syria.
  12. As always we have to look at why the big players are moving chess pieces.
  13. Oil was the main reason for Iraq look at what companies now control Iraq oil fields.

LINKS
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39523654
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)