[caption id="attachment_739" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Rest in Peace, little friend"][/caption]
Early reports state he died exhaustion after being over-worked over the past year, and that his over-use had voided his warranty. He will be sorely missed - by President Obama.
So a couple of IT kids set up BorisWatch on Friday 2nd May"Registered on: 03-May-2008" in an attempt to, let's use a block quote here because this is rich;
Enhance the accountability of the new London mayoralty
Fine. Good. Some self-styled ombudsman with a religio-capitalist (Ed: Uh, what) agenda have decided it's up to them to shed some light on the Boris Johnson regime. Editor Nadir Jeewa admits to having been a part of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, "an international pan-Islamist, Sunni, vanguard political party whose goal is to combine all Muslim countries in a unitary Islamic state or caliphate, ruled by Islamic law and with a caliph head of state elected by Muslims". Delightful! While Tom Barry, the "scruffy IT guy working for a major ISP (Virgin, I'm guessing)," was called in 2008 by Andrew Gilligan,
one tireless Johnson-basher
Oo-er.
Regardless, you've gotta wonder what these nerds people who claim to, "read through TfL Board minutes so you don’t have to," (nerd) are doing picking on a modest blog like KeepRightOnline?
Following our story (for which we credited, albeit with a friendly ribbing) BorisWatch on the BBC's inability to get the name of a Transport Advisor to BoJo correct; BorisWatch proceeded to issue these kind words on their blog regarding our coverage.
Oh, and note to tiresome trolls - this isn’t the BBC being biased or unethical merely being crap at reporting on the website and indulging in churnalism, which is hardly unusual or unique to the BBC.
Wait a minute. Isn't that what we put it down to? Or did you just read the headline and nothing else? Goodness me.
Oh and by the way, brilliant IT guys that you are, you have some broken links on your "About" page. You're welcome.
As if the political graveyard weren't replete enough with the corpses of young Facebook noobs, there's one more cautionary tale to add to the pile: whatever you do don't do what Audra Shay, the newly-elected national chairwoman of the Young Republicans, did.
The complaint that 38-year-olds aren't young notwithstanding (Ed: thank goodness we don't have anyone trying to pretend 30-somethings are CFers - whoops!), it's pretty damn stupid of anyone with a pretence to political office to even look like they're condoning racism. Or homophobia or sexism, for that matter.
The comments may have been taken out of context, and the claim to privacy may be fair, but everyone has to agree: giving the media nothing to run is better than giving them a 'conservative is racist' story. Despite the protestations that the media are biased: yes, the media are biased, but they're still the media. Shay may have won, but, with the glare of publicity on her, that'll be the last election she'll ever win.
Racism is an accusation that dogs conservatives: one that is sometimes justified, and one that we have to shake off. If you want to condone racism, you can do it in private. But don't expect your privacy to be respected, don't expect your opponents to have any humour about it, and don't expect people that aren't racist to stand by you.
The Party for Change released this video today, espousing the need for a more responsible approach to international aid, and KeepRightOnline couldn't be more behind it.
The idea of payment upon results is compelling, and one by which we would expect to live our lives here in the United Kingdom for goods or services we procure. Why should we fork out for things which never emerge? This way; we ensure results.
Oops, did I just say that? Okay okay I take it back. But what's up with this? Either we're incredibly ignorant, or the BBC are incredibly stupid. I prefer to assume the latter but am welcome to the former, should someone prove me wrong. A quick look on Google and London.gov.uk has left me baffled still. Props to BorisWatch(though not sure on how sound the site is in general!) for catching this one.
Who is Kabir Das?
UPDATED (see picture): The BBC were apparently trying to name Transport Advisor to BoJo, "Kulveer Ranger." Slight typo then, eh boys? [caption id="attachment_692" align="aligncenter" width="195" caption="Who is Kabir Das?"][/caption]
It's bureaucracy gone mad, I tells ya: [caption id="attachment_680" align="aligncenter" width="468" caption="Said the dog, 'Send back this man. I said I wanted him medium-rare!'"][/caption]
I'm not sure I want to look like these ladies, but I do admire the ability of people like Ann Widdecombe, Gwyneth Dunwoody and Barbara Castle to stick to their beliefs and say what they thought.
[caption id="attachment_667" align="aligncenter" width="178" caption="Liza... outside the Carlton Club. Miss Right?"][/caption] Erstwhile fascist fuglies and Labour ladettes should take note.
This month's issue of The Spectator fights back at climate change campaigners and Captain Planet in spectacular style, with James Delingpole speaking to Professor Ian Plimer: setting the world straight on what he calls 'the biggest, most dangerous and ruinously expensive con trick in history'.
He may have been a Democrat, but Richard Ravitch had the right idea when the Democrat took the oath of office for New York state Lieutenant Governor - in a steakhouse:
They came a little early — I believe it was two men and two ladies — and they were joined by a fifth person and switched to a larger table. They drew out some documents, and they were very excited and everything. Mr. Ravitch said, "This is my favorite restaurant, and I wouldn’t take the oath of office anywhere else."
Mmm! The defection of a Republican state senator probably means Ravitch doesn't need to take office in a hurry, so the whole affair may have been moot, but at least Ravitch got a steak out of it: something that may anger some lefties.
As Joey tells the vegetarian Phoebe in Friends when she has meat cravings: if you're gonna do something wrong, do it right.
Thank goodness. I thought it would never happen. Who's betting Carswell and Hannan are off having a celebratory glass of Pimms, too?
In Totnes, the Conservatives are due to hold 'open primaries' similar to that of the United States, whereby the party will nominate several candidates to run in the General Election for the constituency- and the voters of said area will choose whom is to run. (Bad sentence? 9am? Terrible tube journey? You betcha.)
KeepRightOnline don't want to repeat the BBC News on this, so have a look for yourself. The end product really is a push toward a more 'direct democracy'. A key catchphrase that's been thrown around Westminster for a while now. KRO are proponents, and we're pleased that this is being rolled out. Greater representation is a great thing and no doubt this will invoke more transparency into the political system, should all parties opt in.
If not?
Well let's hope the Tories keep at it, as I preempt this will establish much more involvement and trust from the public toward the party.
It's the post Max Mosley's been waiting for. Three BNP girls - touted the 'acceptable new faces of the unacceptable' - have been interviewed by Vice magazine.
[caption id="attachment_622" align="aligncenter" width="199" caption="There ain\'t no twat on the Union Jack"][/caption]
Some of their interview answers are pure comedy gold:
Q: When people say the BNP is a fascist party, what do you think? A: Fascist – I don’t understand that word.
Q: Think of Nazi Germany, or 1930s Italy. A: I can’t even remember when that happened really, but I’m against them anyway.
Q: You’re against who? A: The Germans. I know that sounds evil… I was brought up that way.
On the pictorial front, usually, here at KeepRightOnline, we're more discerning than our gutter press rivals, so we'd like to apologise for the disruption in that quality control service. But at least these girls aren't as unattractive as their party's neo-Nazi policies. Well, barely. (Ed: Not even. This is a real life munter)
Don't worry, lads. Just lie back and think of England Lanzarote.
And they're at it again. Today in the Standard, the Hon. (questionable) Andy Slaughter hits out at TOP SECRET (OMG Area 51 is real!) Tory plans to oust the 'poor' from Hammersmith and Fulham. Apparently, the leader of the council, one Mr. Stephen Greenhalgh, is planning to reform social housing in the borough with bold moves to ensure that only those who really need it get social/council housing. Drastic!
While Mr. Slaughter is surely of the opinion that we should all live in government designed/built communes, unfortunately, this just won't do for the regeneration and prosperity of what is actually a rather splendid borough. Andy tows nought but party line in his piece defending the rights of those who aren't working to have free £1m+ houses for life. The point is Andy, your government made the mess of unemployment and reliance upon the state. Do you wish to keep on piling the economic burden on HM Government?
Even so, and contrarily enough- the plans are not about ousting the poor or those in need. It's about maintaining reality, so as not to devalue the area. This will benefit everyone involved. Not just the 'rich'. If you stagnate the rent while increasing benefits, you are (quite obviously) creating a ghetto, and convincing people that not working is a great idea! Kudos. Kudos. Kudos.
[caption id="attachment_613" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Facebook if you want..."][/caption]
I almost can't digest my lunch due to Andy's use of the term 'social cleansing'. Try explaining your flippant usage of such a term in discussing council plans to regenerate an area to REAL victims of social and ethnic cleansing.
Special thanks to our reporterinside Iran who wishes to remain anonymous for the purpose of this post. The circumstances for true democracy has become increasingly dire in the Islamic Republic, and the guest author lays with astute insight, just what this means for the people, the country and the international community. Without further ado...
Every time I hear the Supreme Leader’s sermon I realise just how much the Islamic Republic put the ‘IR’ into irony and last week was no different. Threats, lies and the ‘enemies’ dominated the Friday prayers. Surprised much? Not really.
The Iranian people are taking to the streets everyday in numbers unprecedented since the Islamic Revolution with lives lost in the process, yet all the Supreme Leader could do was point his finger around while ignoring the needs and grievances of the overwhelming majority. In Iran, you need not look too far to hear the rage of the people. In the evenings at around 10pm you can hear people chanting “Down with the dictator,” and “God is great,” from their own homes. This is considered to be a ‘safer’ way of demonstrating your discontent with the election outcome.
To begin with, the votes were rigged. No doubt about it. In some parts of the country the voter turnout was above 100 per cent. Now I am not saying that this is impossible, what I am saying is that it is only possible through cheating! The paramilitary wing of the IR used expired identification cards to add votes to the ballot box; this is, however, just one way in which the votes were fixed.
So the elections are unfair, the system is corrupted, the figurehead is not impartial and therefore democracy in Iran is a sham, but what does all this mean about the Iranian system of governance and the future of the Iranian people?
To put it simply, the Iranian people feel that their voices mean nothing, which is a sound analysis given the current system. The immediate cause that triggered the protests was the ‘rigging’ of votes however the underlying causes are structural. Ultimate power lies with the Ayatollah (The Supreme Leader) who congratulated Ahmadinejad’s election victory before the results were even announced. Monkey business (and I’m not just talking about Ahmadinejad’s caricature). The hardliners in the country are not representative of the Iranian nation therefore nor is Ahmadinejad. Essentially, just like the British National Party should not and cannot be representative of the wider British public nor should the Islamist, hardliners in Iran.
Ultimately, the overwhelming majority of Iranians want freedom, liberty and opportunity. For the moment their closest alternative is Mousavi but can he deliver given the current set up of the Iranian system? In short, no and the outcome of the elections spell that out. Mousavi and the reformists in Iran need to decide whether they will side with the people or with the system and since the latter has let them down; it is likely that they will side with the former. This is, however, the BIG question and maybe the determinant factor of how successful the freedom fighters in Iran will be.
Another factor to consider here is the role of the free world. What role will other democracies play in order to support the Iranian cause? Speaking to some Iranians in this country and seeing the situation closely really supports the neoconservative argument. The free world must separate the Iranian people from their government and resist any negotiation with the regime.
To hit the nail on the head, any real progress in the Iranian system can only be achieved once politicians are elected to serve the people in a secular democracy. When the government has its own agenda, naturally, the people are ignored. The Islamic Republic has its own religious agenda and therefore can never be representative of the people.
For the next two days, the world's G8 leaders will be meeting in Italy to discuss the world economy whilst all around is in ruins. Quite literally, actually, as host city L'Aquila was hit by a devastating earthquake in April.
So, as a thoughtful gesture, after the quake, they moved it to the city to "stimulate the economy". Call us old-fashioned, but we tend to think the best way to help people recover from an earthquake is to rebuild their homes: not to host an opulent umpteen-course banquet for our leaders there.
[caption id="attachment_585" align="aligncenter" width="289" caption="Man, that must have been a good party last night..."][/caption]
On the plus side, last year, they spent £142m on policing, as the world's molotov-throwing communist fruitcakes anti-globalisation protesters hit the streets of the host city. Bet the homeless people of L'Aquila can't wait.
The other day, KeepRightOnline dismissed the leftists' bleating about the Conservative's new international development policy as being myopic. We cited schools in Kenya as evidence that the left simply refuses to acknowledge that public services are better delivered from the bottom-up.
Britain's approach is wrong-headed because it is wedded to top-down policies. HMG is the largest funder of state primary education in Kenya. Yet ordinary Kenyan parents complain that the quality is far worse than the indigenous schools that they have established. The Tories are right to suggest that more aid should be given in the form of vouchers so that people – not bureaucrats – can decide how to spend the money.
There seems to be a bidding contest going on as to how much a government - any government - would have to cut from public spending to return the country to fiscal health.
The Labourgraph might be getting a teeny bit sounder now that Jeremy Warner is on-board as assistant editor. After squillions of years at the Independent (where he was probably the least leaf-eating contributor), you'd think he'd bring along his wet ways. But not if his first column - titled 'the City doesn't need any more rules' - is anything to go by:
The FSA's failure in banking oversight is widely put down to the prevailing consensus of the time – that the operation of "light touch" regulation with a minimum of interference was good for the City, good for the economy and therefore good for tax revenues. In fact, there was never any such thing as "light touch" regulation. The establishment of the FSA led to an unprecedented flood of rules and regulations. If all that was required to protect the public from the folly of bankers was more rules, codes of conduct and statements of principle, then the FSA would have been a champion several times over.
Failure by regulators to see the risks was one thing, but by lulling everyone into a false sense of security, instructive regulation also had the perverse effect of making the financial system more irresponsible and therefore less safe.
The absurd New Economics Foundation, darlings of Guardinistas campaigning to stupefy the world save the world, has published what may be the most stupid piece of international research in history. Eschewing traditional economic measures, such as Gross Domestic Product, as bourgeois trinkets, they've ranked countries for their 'Happy Planet Index', taking into account whatever gives them the results they want.
And what results. The United Kingdom (on 43% 'happiness') lags behind dissident-boiling Uzbekistan (50%), monk-bashing Burma (51%), protestor-shooting China (57%), Islamic theocracy Saudi Arabia (60%), and, of course, socialist-wonderland-and-not-at-all-oppressive-all-round-nice-guy Cuba (66%). And it's not just us - just look how bad the US comes out!
[caption id="attachment_551" align="aligncenter" width="375" caption="The worst places to live in the world are in red: sub-Saharan Africa, Iraq... and the USA."][/caption]
But at least we agree on something. We'd rather they lived in Burma, too.
The Chinese government has stamped down - hard - on protests in the city of Urumqi, capital of the central Asian Muslim-majority East Turkestan region. At least 140 people have been reported to have been killed.
In all the violence, the Chinese news agency had this to say:
"Oops! Not again!" was almost the universal response when news of the unrest came Sunday night, when blood tainted Urumqi, with at least 140 lives lost and more than 800 others injured.
"Fiddle-di-dee, looks like we just killed 140 people. How clumsy of us..."
I think most people's reaction was stronger than that.
It's just such a pity that someone like Mr. Murray sets out to intentionally deceive voters with his latest campaign literature scraps below, all the while having been dismissed from the FCO by undermining its operational authority, and furthermore, finagling SIX YEARS SALARY (£500,000!) in compensation (a la taxpayer, nonetheless).
Now rumour is that the wife took off with the cash- we'll see.
We all know the Observer has a socialist agenda to push, but their partisan attack on the Conservatives' new international development policy - of adopting school vouchers to improve standards and bypass corruption - reaches a new low.
To prove it, they quote such impartial witnesses as the government, pressure groups that receive tens of millions a year each from the government, and the UN's education organisation. The UN, of course, gets all of its money from governments around the world, but their representative had the gall to say:
This is using vulnerable people to advance an ideologically loaded, market-based vision for education, which would exclude millions of kids from school. It completely overlooks the achievements of publicly financed, publicly provided education in countries such as Ethiopia and Tanzania.
Wow, he knows two countries in Africa - that's swayed my mind.
The UN spokesperson may have heard of Kenya. It's between Ethiopia and Tanzania: and it's where the Party policy is taken from. More specifically, it's taken from research into education in Kenya, Ghana, and Nigeria by that well-known bastion of ideologically-driven free-marketeering: Newcastle University.
They've shown that private schools in such countries have more teachers, get better grades, and cost LESS than government schools, and that vouchers would considerably improve education. Which may be why they tout the new Conservative policy on their front page.
Funny the Observer doesn't do the same with their front page. And I thought they cared about poor people...(Ed: You thought they cared about poor people?!)
Folks, you saw it here first. Ed Hallam, the newly re-elected CWLCF Chairman has had yet another drastic image makeover, some have said under the powerful influence of one Lucy Roblin, chief image advisor to Hallam.
UPDATED: Sources have indicated that Lucy Roblin may not be the Chief Image Advisor after all. That title for the moment goes to (and here comes a whole host of new Hallam rumours: one Arsheen Rajpar of BUCF fame. Keep 'em peeled, people!)
Is he cooking something up for which he needs to look THIS DAMN SPIFFY?
Sarah Palin has announced she's to resign as Governor of Alaska, supposedly sparking rumours she's cranking up a presidential bid. Sources close to Palin are saying she's out of politics for good.
People that want the Republican Party to stand a chance in 2012 (or 2016...) are probably breathing a sigh of relief. People who want their politicians to look hot and talk nasty are probably in mourning.
Over the past week, there has been lotsofToryblogging about gay politics, and the consensus seems to be the mark of true progress is when identity politics cease. The other side doesn't seem to get it. To paraphrase an old poster, "Labour call them gay. We call them British".
Take Ben Bradshaw and Chris Bryant. Two gay ministers are appalled that gay people are voting Conservative, cast unsupported accusations of homophobia at the Tory benches, and have threatened that gays will "rue the day" they turned their backs on them (can I pretend no pun intended?).
The BBC think that there are three gay cabinet members, but that includes the unelected Mandy, leaving two gay MPs in the cabinet (Bradshaw and Nick Brown). There are also two (Duncan and Herbert) in the (smaller) Conservative shadow cabinet. As the Broon would say, there are 0% more gay MPs in the Labour cabinet.
We all have a long way to go, but to treat gay people like idiots, and threaten that they'll 'rue the day' they exercised their democratic right duty to kick out this no-hoper government, would be considered homophobic from the mouth of a straight person.
So it takes a certain brazen dishonesty for Bradshaw to accuse us of homophobia. Then again, it takes a certain brazen dishonesty to be a Labour minister.
Obama is taking to YouTube to answer viewer-submitted questions in a 'town-hall meeting' style at 6:15pm tonight (that's London time, natch).
It's just another indication that he gets the modern world far better than the dinosaurs squandering the Right legacy in the US talking about the Internet as a series of tubes.
Update: If you're not really into Obamania, you can get your fix of American political commentary from Freedom Watch with Ron Paul and other guests at 7pm (again, Zulu Time!).
David Cameron gave a speech to the Party's Social Action Conference today, highlighting the work done by the party's social action why people in politics should engage in social action projects. A lot of people don't buy some of the rationales given for social action projects. Honestly I don't, either - but my co-editor may have something to say about that!
If we want to help charity, we can do on the side, rather than distracting from the political task of undoing all of Labour's misdeeds in government. Certainly, politicians and wannabe politicos would serve their constituents and compatriots better be learning how not to shaft them when in office (by, say, reading some Mises) than by playing with goats in Gateshead.
But, in today's speech, DC did (eventually) identify the right reason the Party coordinates social action, as his final of four flings at the right answer:
We don’t automatically think about what the government should be doing in a top-down way - we start from a position of asking what each of us as individuals, as communities, should be doing.
Damn straight. If we believe that private charity will pick up where government is rolled back, we have to be there to prove it with our own hands: goats optional.
[/caption]
[/caption]
[/caption]
