It really is a f**ked up world we live in, and it’s the leftists who are causing it. Fake news has been around for decades (so what’s suddenly changed?), the word ‘democracy’ has been bandied about by the left to such an abusive level for years that its importance has been undermined, and the austerity we were ‘threatened’ with never materialised.
The left have been exposed for what most of us always knew they were; hypocrites! Using the word democracy as a trump card in speeches and political propaganda endlessly, using the NHS as a trump card when it comes to attacking anyone who dares question public spending, and complaining about austerity when there is no such thing.
This whole historic period we are currently living through exposes the truth about those on the left: They seek the power to dominate politics, and that requires the removal of democracy.
On hearing that Nestlé are moving production of the Blue Riband to Poland (and annihilating 300 British jobs), Aunt Bessie today confirmed; ‘What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
‘There’s no point in sticking around here’, she said, scornfully. ‘I’m leaving Britain!’
Aunt Bessie is best known for being good at making simple cooking simple again. But she insists; ‘It isn’t as simple as it looks.’
She points out the window towards a huge building that looks like an aircraft hanger. ‘That’s where raw chopped potatoes are dropped, from a height, into jet engines to produce my signature roast potatoes.’
Ms Bessie pauses for a few seconds, admiring – with suppressed pride – the building she describes. ‘Getting a business loan on that place was a nightmare!’
But what about the Yorkshires? After all, Aunt Bessie’s Yorkshire puddings are the best.
‘It’s always been a fine line between profits and corporate expansion’, says Bessie, ‘so investment in the company and share value is dictated by initiatives that demonstrate a dynamic approach to international markets and how we can exploit available cheap labour. That was – and still is – a factor of the EU. We can get Yorkshire puddings made more cheaply in Poland than anywhere else in the world.’
Aunt Bessie isn’t wrong. According to the BBC – and some other people – leaving the EU is economically worse than if Margaret Thatcher had closed down everything, and then closed everything down.
‘We could never thrive as a business in an independent, isolated, Britain’, says Aunt Bessie, ‘The cost of paying workers here would be slightly above our business plan targets. What’s the point of paying UK workers one percentage rate above the EU average? It makes no economic sense’
She’s right, of course. Why pay British workers more money simply because they’re British? If the average wage in Poland is substantially lower than in the UK, it makes sense to relocate your production to Poland.
‘The door is closing on the UK’, says Bessie, ‘I’m already contemplating moving my Bulgarian chicken stuffing plant to Iceland to cut costs on refrigeration. In the Icelandic summer months I can simply move my production to Antarctica. It really is as easy as that!’
“Nottingham Academy will lose £224,000 of the £15.1m it received in 2016-17.”
Not surprising seeing as Nottingham received the highest share per pupil of “The Dedicated School Grant (DSG)” [http://www.sec-ed.co.uk/news/how-much-per-pupil-funding-will-your-school-get] outside London back in 2014.
Perhaps Nottingham schools were more deserving of the extra funding above Birmingham and Manchester, but keep in mind that the City of Nottingham and the schools within the city boundary equate to less than 50% of Nottingham’s urban conurbation, and that schools outside the city perform better WITH LESS FUNDING!
And that’s a view from inside the city.
What are the depths some brands will go to, to keep themselves in the spotlight and increase profits?
What exactly is the itch that these companies cannot seem to scratch?
Why do they think that brand image and boarding the political and ideological bus will put them in a good light? Especially when most of their customers don’t give a shit about the message they are trying to convey – that Islam is a religion of peace and equality. Which it isn’t!
Pandering to a repressive ideology in which women are treated as possessions is not progress. Understanding the hijab/niqab/burka is to understand male insecurities and forcing women to hide from society because they will “tempt the flesh of those who are most easily tempted”.
Does Nike voluntarily get into bed with those who live within repressive societies – and those who live repressive lives in free societies – in order to liberate those repressed people? Or does Nike employ the Swedish method; the method in which you pander to the winning side (Nazis) until they start losing and then pander to the opposite side (UK and USA)?
Okay, so that’s just business. But, historically, business was never as compromising as it is today.
Billy Bragg: Representative of the Workshy. Let Billy write songs and poems whilst you slave away in the factories and foundries, the warehouses and on building sites.
Billy, forced by his own guilty conscience, will praise you and speak up for you. But he will never live like you or with you. He is a fraud. He feeds like a parasite on the blood of the truly righteous. The blood of those who live in misery and those who tolerate increasing amounts of daily struggle.
Billy Bragg – the man who thinks an acknowledgement in the form of a song can appease his own privilege. His actions do not add up to the sum of any kind of appeasement for the working man or woman.
Billy Bragg – the socialist. A socialist who will not rest until we are ALL socialists. The typical approach to a society of freedom of choice, freedom of thought, freedom to improve, individuality – because socialism has nothing to do with any of those aforementioned commodities. Socialism is about following an ideology, like a religion.
No, Billy Bragg is no working class hero – he is the enemy!
Why has “fake news” suddenly hit the mainstream media by storm? Why are politicians and certain other spuds talking about it on a daily basis? It’s been around for at least half a century, but it’s only now that everyone seems to be taking notice. It’s as if The Establishment has taken a 50-year-delayed double-take and noticed that fake news is all around us!
Well, actually, The Establishment has always been aware of fake news. They just laughed at it – along with everyone else. In fact, most fake news is concocted by those who favour The Establishment above any other possible regime that would render them outside of their comfort zone.
But now they have been forced out of their comfort zones with the democratic vote for Brexit and the democratic vote for Trump, they realise that the “artistic licence” they have on fake news and post-truths – which was a tool they have historically and consistently used to attack those they oppose, politically – is no longer effective, therefore they attempt to associate their own methods of misleading propaganda to the failure of the majority to vote for the “correct” outcome.
What is fake news?
Well, The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/) has been doing fake news for at least 25 years. They have been doing fake news so convincingly that their “news” stories have been taken as factual references on many occasions, and by people who should know better.
But, ironically, The Onion was biased in its weighted focus on Donald Trump in the run-up to the US election last year. If we’re talking about fake news, then we’re talking fake news against Trump.
Could it be that those who voted for Brexit did so on the promise that ALL the money we give to the EU (£350,000,000 per week) would be spent on the NHS?
Nope. There was never a promise to spend £350,000,000 per week on the NHS, as you can see from the picture of the Brexit Bus (above).
Actually, that’s labelled a “post-truth”. But for the sake of argument, they both have the same definition.
For too long The Establishment had its way. However, complacency is always the route to defeat.
A couple of weeks ago, BBC News skipped over – faster than lightning – the fact that the strength of the US Dollar was forcing prices upwards worldwide, not just here in the UK. I think it was on one of those numerous days after Brexit when GBP gained value against EUR, so they couldn’t exactly isolate GBP as a sole loser “because of Brexit”.
The BBC, the establishment, and economists themselves, are learning (or, more probably, are not) that there is no such thing as bad economic news in a free market economic system. The lesson they should be learning is that increased government interference in a free market economy and the imposition of a common currency within an ever-expanding group of countries (The EU) will produce more negative economic effects than positive.
We are already seeing the economic benefits of leaving the EU and we haven’t left yet! We are seeing the exact opposite of what we were promised would happen on a Leave vote – recession, job losses, an exodus of bankers from The City, etc.
If there was a second EU referendum (a re-run), how many of those who voted Remain would now vote Leave, seeing as the doom and gloom has turned out to be quite a rosy and bright future?
As long as we retain our own currency and remove the one-size-fits-all bureaucracy of the EU, we will always be Great Britain.
I’m a Broxtowe resident and I voted for this woman in the 2015 general elaction, but you can take comfort in the fact that the only reason she was voted in was because she was the Conservative candidate at that time, and that the Conservatives had promised an EU Referendum. She has served her purpose and will never get into power ever again! …Hopefully.
Anna Soubry has been such a disappointment. The tell-tale sign something was not quite right was when she discovered she had won the Broxtowe seat in the 2015 general election and reacted in a way that only a child or Miss World would react – surprised and excitable! – “I can’t believe it!”
Of course, my vote (and trillions of other votes) for Soubry was simply a proxy vote for the EU Referendum, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t have optimism and faith in my choice of candidate. My second choice would have been the UKIP tick-box on the ballot paper, but I’m sure you understand why I chose the Conservatives. [If you don’t, I’m happy to reply to any comments you post in the blog]
So, Anna wins her Broxtowe seat, gets promoted to some high position in government because she increased her vote by loads and loads, and expects she will stay in high office after we vote to stay in the EU because that is the side she took a long time ago. So far so good.
But then we vote to leave the EU, and Anna Soubry must be thinking the never-ending beautiful sunset is about to turn to darkness with the impending arrival at the end of the line for the gravy train. – “This train terminates here. Please check you have everything before you disembark.”
Not easy for someone like Soubry who has her kitchen sink installed in First Class on the EU gravy train! It must be such an upheaval. But I’m struggling to feel sorry for her, even when she does vote in favour of triggering Article 50.
Anna Soubry has no idea why she is in the position she’s in. She actually believes she was voted in on policy and personal convictions, but, in reality, she was voted in simply on the promise of an EU Referendum.
She will not win again.
Not many people know this, but Jeremy Corbyn has a brother called Piers who is a well-known global warming sceptic. Seeing as Jeremy is a socialist, and Piers is a climate change sceptic, there’s no surprise that the two cannot be reconciled amongst those on either side of the political divide; those on the left tend to accept that anthropological global warming is a fact, whilst those on the right view socialism as an unworkable ideology, therefore both sides sit at odds with at least one of the Corbyn siblings.
Perhaps that’s why few people know of this relationship. Fearful of exposing a weakness in their arguments, those who debate politics or climate change never talk about the Corbyn brothers. They will talk about Jeremy or Piers, but never both at the same time.
It would be so easy to undermine someone advocating Jeremy Corbyn as having a good head for economics by drawing attention to his brother Piers who refuses to accept the scientific consensus on global warming. Likewise, anyone arguing against global warming scepticism could cite Piers Corbyn and highlight his relationship to Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party leader who mistakenly believes that increasing taxes and raising the living wage actually makes people better off.
Of course, just because they are brothers doesn’t mean they have to agree with each other, and it doesn’t mean that one cannot be right whilst the other is wrong, whichever way around that may be.
Politically speaking – for the majority of the British public – Jeremy and Piers are mutually exclusive; they cannot both be correct in their views according to popular opinion. Demographically, Piers swings to the right and Jeremy to the left in the eyes of their audience.
Could it be that this mutual exclusivity dictates that not even the media talk about this relationship?
The Hitchens brothers, Peter and [the late] Christopher are a well known duo who also fit the mutually exclusive siblings label. But their disagreements were generally about religion as opposed to politics. With the Corbyn brothers it’s politics all the way. Even though science is apolitical, Piers’ conscientious will to ignore the scientific consensus and broadcast his own minority view to the world makes his approach a political one.
This isn’t to say that Piers and Jeremy disagree when it comes to politics, but it is what they symbolise that puts them at odds with each other.
So, who is wrong and who is right? It could be that they are both correct in their beliefs, but there would be very few people who would agree that socialism is a workable ideology and anthropogenic global warming is a myth.
The only logical conclusion, based on evidence and statistics, is that Piers and Jeremy Corbyn are both wrong in their views. They have inherited the Corbyn Gene that renders them numerically challenged; an inability to make sense of the data put before them.
Unfortunately, far too many non-Corbyns seem to have inherited the Corbyn Gene too.
That’s why we don’t talk about the Corbyn brothers.